Whenever you read the mainstream media, you are constantly hammered with the “fact” that deadly diseases are seeing a resurgence because of anti-vaxxer conspiracy theorists who largely base their ideas largely on a debunked and fraudulent study by Dr. Wakefield, publicity from Jenny McCarthy, and information gathered from blogs written by uneducated and dangerous moms among other conspiracy theory promoters.  If you’ve never researched the safety of vaccines for yourself, you most likely believe this yourself.  Why shouldn’t you?  This is what every major news outlet tells you every day!  You probably believe that childhood diseases like measles are a death sentence.  You probably wonder how unvaccinated children ever survive into adulthood.  You probably wonder how the human race ever survived at all prior to the miracle of widespread vaccination.  Does any of this ring true to you?

What if it was possible that the conspiracy theorists are right, and that our current vaccines are more toxic than beneficial?  What if it was possible that there is a concerted effort by drug manufacturers and medical agencies to force false vaccine and disease propaganda on the public to incite enough fear that they would accept the administration of demonstrably dangerous medications to their children for no purpose other than profit?  Is that too big a red pill to swallow?  Let’s examine those premises and see if they can be proven true.

Censoring content wouldn’t be a bad thing if all anti-vaccine literature (i.e. anything that questions vaccine safety or effectiveness) was based in conspiracies that will result in countless millions of dead children, right?  Isn’t censorship under those conditions appropriate?  Shouldn’t Google and Facebook prevent themselves from suggesting or even listing information that can be found on other search engines?  Ideological censorship is a good thing if it prevents Google and Facebook from presenting autocomplete suggestions like the following, isn’t it?

You should ignore the fact that on most search engines, autocomplete suggestions are based upon what people using that service search for the most:  after all, it’s all based upon conspiracy theories and the people that spread them are uneducated morons that live in tin shacks in backwoods Appalachia, right?  None of those suggestions could be legitimate, right?  Well, let’s look at a few of them, shall we?

“Vaccines are unavoidably unsafe”:  this is from Bruesewitz v. Wyeth, a case related to vaccines heard before the US Supreme Court in which vaccines were declared an “unavoidably unsafe” product.  Our own Supreme Court spreading conspiracy theories!

“Vaccines are killing us”:  it is official CDC and media dogma that vaccines are “safe and effective”, so much so that the specific phrase “safe and effective” is included in every media mention of vaccines (check this for yourself if you don’t believe us!).  Ignore VAERS, which states that there have been 4542 vaccine-related deaths reported since 1990, it’s only a government website.  Surely they’re in on the conspiracy!  Ignore the fact that the FDA and HHS have done numerous studies that show that less than 1% of vaccine-related adverse events are reported to VAERS, as surely they’re also in on the conspiracy to murder everyone’s children.  Watchdog agencies created to safeguard our children must be censored for the public good!

“Vaccines are not tested”:  we know this is false, right?  All drugs go through double-blind inert-placebo controlled clinical studies before being released to the market, right?  This has to be a conspiracy!  For example, one such study can be found at PubMed entitled “The Introduction of Diphtheria-Tetanus-Pertussis and Oral Polio Vaccine Among Young Infants in an Urban African Community: A Natural Experiment”.  Let me quote the results:

“Among 3–5-month-old children, having received DTP (± OPV) was associated with a mortality hazard ratio (HR) of 5.00 (95% CI 1.53–16.3) compared with not-yet-DTP-vaccinated children. Differences in background factors did not explain the effect. The negative effect was particularly strong for children who had received DTP-only and no OPV (HR = 10.0 (2.61–38.6)). All-cause infant mortality after 3 months of age increased after the introduction of these vaccines (HR = 2.12 (1.07–4.19)).”

That study clearly shows vaccine safety, right?  Even though there was a 500-1000% increase in mortality among the children that were vaccinated, the study was still done, right?  And the study results, those surely must be a conspiracy-fueled lie!

The truth is, there has never been a true double-blind inert-placebo study of any vaccine currently on the market performed as anything other than a retropective study like the one above, and every single one of them, without exception, shows that outcomes are better in unvaccinated children.  The current position of the CDC, IOM, and WHO is that such a study would be unethical and shouldn’t be allowed.  After all, vaccines are safe and effective and denying any child a vaccine is tantamount to medical neglect.

While we took a tongue-in-cheek attitude towards the above examples, all are obviously of informative value, and there isn’t anything contained in any of those sources that isn’t absolutely, undeniably true.  Why should we be calling for this type of information to be censored?  After all, our media does a good job presenting the truth from the opposing viewpoint, doesn’t it?

Clearly, anything that doesn’t agree with the mantra that vaccines are safe and effective is the work of online trolls, fake news, or “the Russians”.  No facts supporting these claims are ever provided, but you are expected to blindly believe them.

Now to be fair, this makes a ham-fisted reference to the 2016 presidential election, but the point still stands.  The media uses any idea or any meme necessary when pursuing propaganda narratives, and now we’re to the point where “everyone I don’t agree with is a Russian bot”.  Despite there being no evidence of any conspiracy by Russians or anyone else to lower vaccination rates, surely there must be a diabolical propaganda effort being perpetrated on the west that causes people to question the safety and effectiveness of vaccines.  It couldn’t be that hundreds of thousands of parents have watched their children suffer from vaccine injuries or die in the hours or days after being vaccinated, could it?  Is it not convenient then that we have alternative diagnoses such as SIDS (“we don’t know why the baby suddenly died”) or shaken-baby syndrome (“even though there is no evidence of injury to the neck of the child, we found encephalitis—a known adverse reaction to vaccination—so therefore the mother/father/nanny/childcare worker must have done it since everyone knows vaccines are safe and effective:  ‘Book ’em Danno!'”)?  It couldn’t be that the states with the highest rates of infant vaccination also have the highest rates of infant death, or that among western nations, an increase in the number of vaccinations mandated per that nation’s schedule correlates almost perfectly with increased infant mortality, could it?

You couldn’t make this stuff up if you tried, it’s that ridiculous.  But you, the media consumer, are expected to believe the narrative without question.  The mother on Facebook who is crying out in horror over how her child stopped breathing mere hours after attending their “well child visit” (a euphemism for a vaccination appointment) isn’t really a mother it all:  it’s a Russian troll hanging out with his friends in a web cafe in Moscow, wearing his best Adidas tracksuit while laughing at the stupid Americans over vodka shooters.

On the other hand, this is what you’re not seeing in the news:  vaccine injuries are denied or swept under the rug, even when the causal connection between injury and death is so clear as to be undeniable.  Your government and the media work in lockstep to hide the truth, while telling you that anyone that shares that truth is acting nefariously under the orders of whoever the “big bad wolf” of the day is … today, it’s Vladamir Putin.

And for what?

Yes, that’s what they want you to believe.  Yes, that’s how much contempt they have for you:  any fabrication, distortion, or obfuscation is allowable as long as it supports the predetermined narrative.  For example:

We should ignore the millions dying in the third world from diarrhea, malnutrition, or malaria:  a few children not being vaccinated fully will kill more people than all of them combined.  It doesn’t matter that over 650,000 people in the US have died of HIV/AIDS since the 1980s or that in the last century fewer people have died from all of the diseases we vaccinate against combined:  even skepticism of vaccines is as big a threat as HIV/AIDS.

Are you seeing a pattern here?  This push is all based upon the idea of “herd immunity”:  if only the vast majority of people were vaccinated, diseases would disappear and we’d protect the most vulnerable among us who can’t be immunized for medical reasons.  Let’s examine that notion for a moment:

Consider that back when the concept of herd immunity was born, it referred to naturally acquired immunity:  lifetime immunity conferred by contracting and overcoming a disease.  This is a “real thing”, but the question is whether or not it could be achieved today through artificial immunity.  When you read the above, an uncritical interpretation would think that only 55% of the population being protected would confer this benefit, but what this fails to consider is that of the population over the age of 15, nearly everyone was immune by virtue of past infection.  When examined from that perspective, if 25% of the population was under the age of 15, the threshold for herd immunity among the entire population was actually 88-89% immunity.  Due to how artificial immunity wanes over time, this can never be achievable through childhood vaccination efforts.

Today, by the time an individual is old enough to drink, there is a good likelihood that their vaccine-derived immunity to measles (for example) has waned.  By the time they reach 30, very few people will have any protection at all.  Assuming the government mandated 100% vaccination of our children, since adults aren’t given any form of booster (and indeed, each additional booster of a particular vaccine confers less immune response than prior doses), we could never reach more than a 30-40% immunity rate … and that’s assuming that vaccines are 100% effective!  Even the CDC openly admits this isn’t the case, yet the immense and obvious gulf between what they tout as “herd immunity” and what was previously demonstrated is ignored in favor of propaganda in support of mandatory vaccination.  As the baby boomer generation dies off, the last vestiges of our population’s natural immunity will die with it:  this problem will only grow more pronounced with time.

Consider that according to the CDC, back in 1963 (before the measles vaccine was available), there was a death rate of approximately 1 in 100,000 infected individuals, and disability in approximately 1 in 50,000.  This is the deadly disease that Washington State is creating a panic over.  But why?  The same day the state of emergency was declared, a bill was filed that would remove a parent’s right to exempt their child from the MMR vaccine.  And shouldn’t they?  After all, vaccines are safe and effective, aren’t they?

According to VAERS, vaccination against measles has resulted in more deaths than the disease since 2oo3 by nearly two orders of magnitude here in the US.  If the FDA and HHS’s <1% claim is to be believed, that difference could be almost four orders of magnitude greater.  But this is only deaths in a highly vaccinated population (92%), right?  Wouldn’t more people have died from the disease if we weren’t vaccinating?

Probably not.

To preview the methodology we’ve used for each disease (measles can be found here so you can doublecheck the methodology and calculations), we have used the CDC mortality and morbidity statistics alongside VAERS data to calculate rates of risk.  Back in 1963, it was assumed that every child would be exposed to measles at some point during their lifetime.  As previously mentioned, using the medical technology and knowledge of the 60s, approximately 1 in 100,000 people (usually infants and adults, as progression and symptoms are much milder in children) died from measles infection, and 1 in 50,000 was disabled.  Using VAERS data strictly, the risk from the measles vaccine is a 1 in 550,000 risk of death, 1 in 95,000 risk of immediately life-threatening complications, and 1 in 107,000 risk of permanent disability.  If the FDA and HHS were off in their studies by an order of magnitude, the vaccine has double the risk of death and a nearly five-fold risk of permanent disability.  If the FDA and HHS are to be believed (two orders of magnitude), the risk of death could be as high as 1 in 5500 (1800% that of the disease), the risk of life-threatening complications as high as 1 in 950, and the risk of permanent disability as high as 1 in 1070 (4700% that of the disease).

 

But it’s a state of emergency that a few dozen people caught a mild disease that confers them lifetime immunity (as opposed to the 12-20 years of partial immunity) afforded by the vaccine, isn’t it?  This is the state of our media propaganda today:  measles is portrayed as a death sentence, when in reality it is so benign that the vaccine is more likely to kill you.

Let’s explore the media malfeasance further:

This is the perfect storm of “orange man bad” and “vaccines are safe and effective!”  But is there any truth to this?  While the claim was made, is it false?

The evidence based answer is:  absolutely not.

I could go on, but the point is that there is a wealth of peer-reviewed scientific research that proves the claim that the communications director made, yet the widespread narrative of the media is that the president supports anti-vaxxer propaganda and is anti-science.  In other words, referring to peer-reviewed scientific studies makes you anti-science.  Apparently Kate Sullivan, Debra Goldschmidt, and Ben Tinker know more about the science than the actual scientists that did the research through the dictatorial power of their journalist credentials.  This is the brave new world we live in:  dogma trumps reality, and emotional arguments trump evidence.
 

What about the argument that those that question vaccination or specific diseases are uneducated morons?  Shouldn’t we blindly trust doctors who have a greater medical education than us when they say that vaccines are safe and effective?

Absolutely not.  Doctors are there to advise you on treatment, and after receiving their advice you are asked to give informed consent to treatment.  Informed consent means that you are given all the risks and rewards related to that treatment.  Have you ever been told by a doctor that you may die from receiving a vaccine?  It’s included in the product inserts as a “possible adverse event” that was reported during testing, so shouldn’t they tell you that?  Of course they should, but the horrifying truth is that the overwhelming majority of them are completely clueless when it comes to vaccine side-effects.

How do I know this?  Both of the editors of this site have a nursing education.  Nursing education is similar to medical education when it comes to vaccines and immunology, though admittedly physicians get a more thorough immunology education.  Both groups, however, receive the same education when it comes to vaccines:  memorize the CDC schedule and follow it with everyone.  That’s it.  There is no discussion of adverse events beyond possible fever, soreness, or allergic reactions, and as far as adverse events go, nurses receive a more thorough education since they’re the ones administering the vaccines.  It is entirely likely that your pediatrician has never read one scientific study regarding vaccines.  It is even more likely that they have never read the insert for any individual vaccine, where the adverse events that the manufacturer is willing to admit to (including death) are clearly listed.  It’s more likely that they’ve read the vaccine information sheets from the CDC that minimize risks and pretend everything will be hunky-dory, but even that’s up in the air.  This website contains more scientific research than the vast majority of pediatricians have ever read.  Many of those “uneducated morons” referenced earlier are familiar with this material … so who is truly uneducated?

Adding to this is the fact that “[t]en percent of pediatricians and 21% of pediatric specialists claim they would not follow [CDC] recommendations for future progeny.  Despite their education, physicians in this study expressed concern over the safety of vaccines.”

Are these doctors uneducated, or are they making a decision based upon what they see in their practice or research they’ve voluntarily done?  As for the rest, why wouldn’t they question the safety of vaccines?  Is there a personal motivation involved?

And there you have it.  A good portion of a pediatrician’s income depends on you pumping your child full of every vaccine their insurance coverers demand.  It has nothing to do with safety:  they are financially motivated to never question safety and get you to vaccinate regardless of the risks.

So parents, ask yourself this:  if other children are vaccinated and yours aren’t, why should those children’s parents be afraid of yours?  Aren’t they immune to that disease?  Considering most of your vaccinations have worn off by the time you’re reading this, shouldn’t you be held in an equal amount of fear?  Herd immunity?  Most adults aren’t immune to anything anymore, vaccinated or otherwise (only rubella is a truly lifetime vaccination in our current schedule), so aren’t you just as much of a risk?  While you swoop in and give them kisses, your children are demonized by equally unvaccinated parents:  this is the real-world face of fear-driven propaganda.

You have been lied to all your life.  Everyone you’ve been conditioned to trust has promulgated that lie in the name of profits:  your doctors through bonuses, your media outlets through advertisements, and your government agencies through golden parachute hires and personal investment accounts.  I don’t ask that you trust us on this:  in our specific disease pages we run the numbers for each and every disease we vaccinate for, and you can independently confirm the calculations and judge their merit for yourself.  While narratives can be twisted into propaganda, cold hard math never lies.  We don’t cherry-pick data, we use the same data the government provides.  The questions that you should ask yourself by the time you’ve surveyed this material are “why are we being advised against our own good?” and “what is the real conspiracy?