I watched the devastating Frontline episode on RFK Jr. last week. A real eye opener on how disturbed he is and his obsession to be someone important. Everyone should see it.
A couple of weeks ago I watched the devastating documentary "An Inconvenient Study." A real eye opener on how the safety of the CDC's children's vaccine schedule has never been properly safety tested. Everyone should see it. aninconvenientstudy.com (Can also download pdf of study, Henry Ford's press releases & DFP interview, and ICAN's response)
The study was conducted by a pro-vax doctor at Henry Ford. The study's results suggest that vaxxed children suffer from about 2.5x the chronic disease rate of unvaxxed children. Sure, vaccines prevent targeted disease; but is that benefit worth the cost of permanent chronic disease?
In September, ICAN attorney Aaron Siri published his book, "Vaccines, Amen. "Here's a couple quotes from his introduction:
"... most claims about vaccines are not grounded in evidence. They are beliefs. ... unlike doctors, who can appeal to their credentials, ... i need to prove claims with real data. .... something that will hold up in court. .... requires me to study the primary sources ... Incredibly, most of the information required to understand vaccine safety is freely available ... Most doctors and parents never bother to look or don't know it exists."
"The popular conception is that those who do not vaccinate are fanatics. Anti-science. Irrational. Emotional. Zealots. But my experience has generally been the opposite. ... highly knowledgeable about these products ... They are just people seeking to make good decisions for their children.""
"... the "Vaccines Amen" crowd. ... who have a fervent belief in vaccines. ... often impervious to reason or data, even when it is provided to them by their oracle, The CDC. ... the fanatics are not those who choose not to vaccinate. The fanatics are those who think everyone must be vaccinated ..."
The cumulative impact of infections without vaccinations are known and substantial:
1) Exposure to a wide range of preventable diseases, the cumulative burden of which were devastating
2) Permanent disability and death in a significant percentage of those infected.
3) Frequent infections in early childhood increase the risk of chronic conditions later in life, including asthma and developmental delays.
4) Childhood infections are associated with poorer school performance and developmental outcomes.
5) Repeated use of antibiotics, which contributes to resistance and gut microbiome disruption, as well as adverse effects of the antibiotics themselves.
The cumulative impact of vaccinations is theoretical and would clearly be dwarfed by the cumulative impact of vaccine preventable infections.
"the CDC's children's vaccine schedule has never been properly safety tested" <-- THIS IS A BLATANT LIE."
...
“... the Institute of Medicine [IOM] was commissioned [by HHS in 2013] … to review the entire body of existing scientific literature to assess the safety of the CDC's childhood schedule as a whole. ... it concluded, 'The studies designed to examine the long-term effects of the cumulative number of vaccines … have not been conducted.' … Lacking evidence to support safety, the best the IOM can conclude was, 'There is no evidence that the schedule is not safe.' This of course also means the IOM cannot find evidence to conclude that the schedule is safe.”*1
“The IOM report did say it is, 'Possible to make the comparison… through analyses of patient information contained in large databases such as the Vaccine Safety Datalink.' But to date, the government has still not conducted this comparison. ... [the CDC] published a white paper in 2015 on how to do that study. Has it been done? I don't know. Has it been published? No.”*2
- vaccines have been the most thoroughly studied of any pharmaceutical product in history.
- each individual vaccine in the schedule has been thoroughly tested and been shown to be safe and effective.
- there is no plausible reason that the entire vaccine schedule would not be safe when each individual vaccine has been thoroughly tested and been shown to be safe.
- the cumulative effect of all the infections that the vaccinations prevent is a known factor and known to be detrimental and clearly dwarfs any theoretical adverse effect of the cumulative vaccine schedule.
Vaccines have saved 3 million lives every year for 50 years. This dwarfs any theoretical concern anyone but a lying antivax lunatic would have about the "cumulative effect of the vaccine schedule"!
FFS!
Every antivax liar does three things:
1) Minimise the disease - if they even talk about the disease at all!
2) Maximise the adverse effects of the vaccines - including made up shit!
3) Minimise the safety and effectiveness of the vaccines.
As usual, no references to back up your claims. I'd suggest readers take a look at Aaron Siri's book, "Vaccines, Amen" which addresses every one of Billy Joes's claims listed above. Siri backs up his arguments with primary sources and evidence, not just unsupported opinion.
"THIS IS A BLATANT LIE --> "vaxxed children suffer from about 2.5x the chronic disease rate" <--THIS IS A BLATANT LIE."
. . .
That's what the results from the Henry Ford study suggests. The data is the data.
The 2022 Daley study was funded by the CDC and included CDC 'approved" researchers.*1 It found the average rate of asthma in vaxxed children to be about 2.5x to 4x the rate of the "unvaxxed", comparable to the Henry Ford Study which found a rate of 4x. Table 3 in Daley's Supplementary Material”*28 shows a dose-response relationship; the rate of asthma rose from 1x to 4.00x as the amount of AL rises from 0 – 0.99 to 5 mg.
Previous, smaller vaxxed vs unvaxxed studies, showed similar results for asthma and other chronic diseases:
Anthony R. Mawson, et al., “Pilot Comparative Study on the Health of Vaccinated and Unvaccinated 6 to 12-year-old U.S. Children,” Journal of Translational Science 3, no. 3 (2017): 1-12, doi: 10.15761/JTS.1000186
Anthony R. Mawson et al., “Preterm Birth, Vaccination and Neurodevelopmental Disorders: A Cross-Sectional Study of 6- to 12-Year-Old Vaccinated and Unvaccinated Children,” Journal of Translational Science 3, no. 3 (2017): 1-8, doi:10.15761/JTS.1000187.
Brian Hooker and Neil Z. Miller, “Analysis of Health Outcomes in Vaccinated and Unvaccinated Children: Developmental Delays, Asthma, Ear Infections and Gastrointestinal Disorders,” SAGE Open Medicine 8, (2020): 2050312120925344, doi:10.1177/2050312120925344.
Brian Hooker and Neil Z. Miller, “Health Effects in Vaccinated versus Unvaccinated Children,” Journal of Translational Science 7, (2021): 1-11, doi:10.15761/JTS.1000459.
James Lyons-Weiler and Paul Thomas, “Relative Incidence of Office Visits and Cumulative Rates of Billed Diagnoses along the Axis of Vaccination,” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17, no. 22 (2020): 8674, doi:10.3390/ijerph17228674.
Note: The above study was wrongly retracted; below is a follow-up study that exonerates the Lyons-Weiler/Thomas study of alleged bias.
James Lyons-Weiler, “Revisiting Excess Diagnoses of Illnesses and Conditions in Children Whose Parents Provided Informed Permission to Vaccinate Them” September 2022 International Journal of Vaccine Theory Practice and Research 2(2):603-618 DOI:10.56098/ijvtpr.v2i2.59
Look at the laughable list of antivax lunatics this antivax lunatic reLIES on:
Anthony R. Mawson, Brian Hooker, Neil Z. Miller, James Lyons-Weiler, Paul Thomas.
And the journals:
Journal of Translational Science, SAGE Open Medicine, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, International Journal of Vaccine Theory Practice and Research.
The "International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health" mistakenly published and then retracted the James Lyons-Weiler rubbish which was then published in the predatory journal "International Journal of Vaccine Theory Practice and Research". This journal is regarded by scientists as disreputable and pseudoscientific and is known for promoting anti-vaccine misinformation. It is not indexed in reputable databases.
The logical error committed by this lying antivax lunatic is:
"The "International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health" mistakenly published and then retracted the James Lyons-Weiler rubbish"
...
In 2020, pediatrician Dr. Paul Thomas published a vaxxed-unvaxxed study with similar findings as the Henry Ford Study.*14 Five days later, the Oregon Medical Board held an emergency meeting and suspended his medical license. He lost his license, his practice, and his marriage. In 2021, his study was fraudulently "retracted" without cause*13 . So, his “inconvenient study” has been removed from the scientific literature and can't be cited by anyone. Jeremy Hammond wrote an excellent post/book on the subject. "The War on Informed Consent"*15
So, Henry Ford's Dr Zervos's fear that he could lose his career over publishing a Vaxxed-UnVaxxed study showing vaxxed children were unhealthier appears well founded!
REFERENCES:
*14: RETRACTED: James Lyon-Weiler & Paul Thomas, “Relative Incidence of Office Visits and Cumulative Rates of Billed Diagnoses Along the Axis of Vaccination” (11/18/20) https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/22/8674
You mistake free speech for truthfull speech, let alone true speech, which is very rare (because hard) anyway, even without the zone flooded with shit.
Much zoneflooding is coming from the government itselve nowadays. As also graphically expressed (admitted?) in this Nokings Trump-video.
Thomas had his license removed because the Oregon Medical Board found he had committed professional misconduct, and had put patients in harm's way. He also did not practice informed consent...he deliberately scared parents away from vaccination by saying "you wouldn't want your child to get autism, would you?" One child who was unvaccinated caught tetanus and spent 2 months in intensive care, following his recovery, instead of getting the child vaccinated, Thomas suggested some herbal snake oil.
Zervos has absolutely nothing to fear. If his study is sound, robust, and independently verifiable it will be embraced by medical colleagues, and he will gain considerable fame (and fortune). He obviously does not wish his study to be put in the scientific domain, because it would be torn to shreds, that's all. He's a bit of a coward.
Cherry picking? I listed most of the existing vaxxed vs unvaxxed studies (there are more described in Hooker & RFK's 2023 book "Vax-Unvax: Let the Science Speak).
Who is cherry picking? YOU didn't comment on the 2022 Daley study, as I mentioned was funded by the CDC with CDC "approved" researchers that found asthma rates increased with the number of vaccines (measured in mg AL).
You also failed to note ( or are probably unaware) that the unpublished Henry Ford Study was conducted by Dr. Marcus Zervos who is pro-vax; he conducted clinical trials for the Moderna Covid vaccine, and got vaccine mandates imposed on the Henry Ford staff. His bosses shit canned the study, and he kept his mouth shut to keep his job and career.
if you don't like the studies I cite, could you please give me references to the vaxxed vs unvaxxed studies that do suggest that the vaxxed are healthier? (please not the 2025 Danish study).
"YOU didn't comment on the 2022 Daley study that..."
I'm not going to chase down every cherry-picked study you conjure up and lie about. That would be me playing your game of cherry-picking which I have already exposed.
My interest lies in spreading the conclusions reached by RECOGNISED EXPERTS in the relevant fields of science, not discussing with a science illiterate fool his cherry-picked studies performed by his antivax arsehole buddies.
Yup..cherry picking. You tout the Daley et al study and over-interpret it. Please note that:
1. The exposure metric that is used (mgs of aluminium from vaccines) is a only a proxy for actual systemic dose/exposure and does not account for other major aluminium sources such as diet and environment.
2. Key confounders such as parental asthma/allergy history, smoking exposure, home allergens such as pets and socio-economic factors were either not measured or inadequately adjusted for.
3. Children who receive more vaccines and engage more with health-care services are also more likely to have asthma diagnosed and treated — raising strong concerns of detection bias.
4. The asthma outcome, in preschoolers, is heterogeneous and can reflect transient wheeze rather than true chronic asthma, which further limits causal interpretation. In addition, and as I know very well from over 40 years of medical practice, children with more frequent visits to their doctors for whatever reason are more likely to pick up a spurious diagnosis of asthma because the HCP has detected a bit of a wheeze.
5. This paper is a correlative one, so it cannot make any assumptions about causation, and cannot conclude that vaccines cause asthma. The authors explicitly say that, so please do not try and use this paper as "proof" that vaccination causes asthma.
....We should read the Henry Ford press release???
The one which stated: “This report was not published because it did not meet the rigorous scientific standards we demand as a premier medical research institution"?
“This report was not published because it did not meet the rigorous scientific standards we demand as a premier medical research institution"?
. . .
On October 7th, “Detroit Free Press” reporter Kristen Shamus interviewed Henry Ford Health executive Christine Cole Johnson (Chair of Public Health Science)*17 After “vetting” the study submitted to her by her subordinate co-author Lois Lamerato, Dr. Johnson described what she alleged were “multiple problems with the design” … “flaws in research” [three of the five flaws listed in the HFH 10/26 press release that accused the filmmakers of defamation*7].
Following the Oct 12th premiere of the documentary “An Inconvenient Study,” the HFH PR folks put out a revised press release*29 adding “Myth #5” that referred readers to that DFP interview “for more on our perspective.”
These “flaws” were first reported by “Washington Post” reporter Lauren Weber, who tweeted (9/11/25) a screenshot of the “flaws in the study, according to Henry Ford Health” x.com/LaurenWeberHP/sta…
Afterwards, on Sept 20th, I responded to Lauren Weber on X with the following tweets:
Point #0: "In the end, this report was not published because it did not even come close to meeting the rigorous scientific standards we [Henry Ford] demand—not because of the results." Really? None of their specific points hold up (see #1-5). And, the study design followed the 2015 CDC guidelines on studying the safety of the vax schedule. cdc.gov/vaccine-safety/…
Point #1: “The unvaccinated patient sample was vastly different than the vaccinated sample, with more males, more white children, less prematurity and less respiratory distress at birth.“ Vastly different? Besides, the authors “adjusted for all those variables: gender, race, birth weight, respiratory distress at birth, birth trauma and prematurity” Adjusted 2.54 HR vs unadjusted HR 2.59 No difference! {pp. 7, 18 of Henry Ford Study hsgac.senate.gov/wp-con…
Point #2: "The unvaccinated sample was very small in comparison to the vaccinated sample." 2K vs 18K. Big enough for results to have very high statistical significance Adjusted HR 2.54 CI 95% (2.16-2.97) p < 0.0001 See pp. 1, 18 hsgac.senate.gov/wp-con…
Point #3a: “time measuring occurrence of disease was much shorter for the unvaccinatedchildren.” True, AVERAGE 2.7 yrs vaxxed vs. 1.3 yrs unvaxxed. But, sensitivity analysis demonstrated consistent results for those enrolled at least 1-year (HR 2.84 CI 2.31-3.28 ), 3-years (HR 3.48 CI 2.67-4.30), and 5-years (HR 4.05 CI 2.82-5.83 ) HIGHER than the overall 2.54 HR! See pp. 6. 8 hsgac.senate.gov/wp-con… (hmmm, looks like a dose-response curve to me!) And, the KM survival curve shows that vaxxed children had more chronic disease over ALL ages from 1 to 10 years old.
Point #3b: “75% were only observed up until age 3, which is before doctors can confidently diagnose chronic pediatric diseases.” Really? The CDC guide on studying vax schedule safety shows that many more children are diagnosed < 2 years old with a chronic disease, than between 3 – 8 years old! See Table 3d, p. 32 cdc.gov/vaccine-safety/…
Point #4: “compared multiple vaccines vs. no vaccines. No consideration was given to the number of vaccines or the duration of time between.vaccines and the occurrence of disease.” The authors wrote in Limitations section, “We did not evaluate the influence of temporal relationships, individual vaccines, or the number of vaccines, which limits this investigation but also minimizes the potential for reverse causality.” See p. 14, hsgac.senate.gov/wp-con…
Point #5: “vaccine guidance has changed over time, but that was not taken into consideration.” Wouldn't changes affect both vaxxed & unvaxxed equally, since cohort study over same 16 year period? Unclear how adding new vaccines to CDC schedule would affect results one way or the other.
. . .
In his book “Vaccines, Amen”, ICAN attorney Aaron Siri wrote that the “reasons provided [by HFH for not allowing submission of the study] were … all plainly pretextual … easily addressed in the study itself by the sensitivity analyses ... Meaning they were excuses, not reasons to not submit for publication”*12
I agree with Aaron Siri's assessment that each of HFH's & Johnson's so-called “data flaws” can easily be rebutted. Overall, none of Henry Ford's “flaws” actually hold up to even cursory scrutiny. Is that the best they've got? Pretty pathetic “science” on the part of HFH! They're hardly in the position to “cast stones”!
“The authors wrote in Limitations section, “We did not evaluate the influence of temporal relationships, individual vaccines, or the number of vaccines, which limits this investigation”
It doesn’t just “limit” this analysis, it completely hamstrings it. Considering a child who has received one vaccine shot as being as equivalently vaccinated as a child who has had more than 30 vaccines (maybe even 72?) and lumping them all into one group [“vaccinated”] is ridiculous, when considering a toxigenic and presumably dose-response effect of vaccination, and considering that different vaccines are supposedly different in their potential to cause reactions/illness. Subjects should have been stratified by exposure, and by vaccine types.
End of.
“I agree with Aaron Siri's assessment”.
Really? Can you tell me why, in this specific instance why you agree with Siri’s dismissal of the HF criticism of the study I also outline here?
The authors were not trying to "study everything, everywhere, all at once" in their one study. This was an introductory study; it could be followed up by other studies to explore more details. They limited their scope to comparing unvaxxed to an average effect of vaccination (1 to >30 vaccines).
However, their sensitivity analysis implicitly revealed a dose-response relation: those enrolled at least 1-year (HR 2.84 CI 2.31-3.28 ), 3-years (HR 3.48 CI 2.67-4.30), and 5-years (HR 4.05 CI 2.82-5.83 ) HIGHER than the overall 2.54 HR! It would appear that as more vaccines were received, the rate of chronic disease went up (I don't think age by itself causes disease).
The 2020 Lyons-Weiler & Thomas study did explicitly stratify by quartiles of vaccines received, showing a strong dose-response relationship.
Your claim that the sensitivity analysis shows a dose-response effect is nonsensical.
What the sensitivity analyses show is that when you restrict the sample to children with longer follow-up or at least one healthcare encounter, the association (vaccinated vs unvaccinated) gets numerically stronger—but that is NOT the same as demonstrating that more *vaccinations* lead to higher risk.
They show that limiting to certain sub‐cohorts (e.g., ≥5 yrs enrolment) increases the risk ratio, but importantly they do not show that children with more vaccines had higher risk compared to vaccinated children with fewer vaccines (or none), and they do not present a gradient of exposure (doses) with gradient of risk, which is a standard requirement for a dose–response relationship claim.
I would suggest reading the 10/13/25 HFH PR press release (Reference #7):
On September 25th, on his show “The HighWire,” Del Bigtree reported that Henry Ford Health (HFH) had sent ICAN a cease-and-desist” letter on Sept 19th. He showed excerpts including, “the truth is that the draft study did not proceed past initial co-author and internal independent peer reviews and was never submitted due to significant and serious flaws in its data and methodology.” (@5:13)*6
Detroit Free Press reporter Kristen Shamus interviewed Christine Cole Johnson (HFH Chair of Public Health Science)*17 who was the boss of the study's co-author Dr. Lois Lamerato. Johnson claimed “she” [Dr. Lois Lamerato] came to her with concerns about her “draft” ...”
Johnson called the “fatally flawed” study “among the "worst studies I've ever seen” … "If this had been submitted to a journal of any credibility, they would have laughed it off." She described what she alleged were “multiple problems with the design … [five serious] flaws*7 in research.”
In contrast to Johnson's claim, I think that Aaron Siri (ICAN's attorney who presented the study at the Sept 9th Senate hearing) tells a more credible story about what actually happened during the so-called HFH “internal peer review” process:
“The study was “set to be submitted for publication [not a “draft”] in a medical journal after it was completed, but the researchers did not go through with the submission. I met with Dr. Lamerto ask why it was not submitted. She reaffirmed that she and Dr. Zervos both thought their study was well designed, executed, and worthy of publication [so much for Johnson's claim that Lamerato “had concerns”]*12
“The issue, she [Lamerato] explained, was that the higher-ups [Johnson, etc.] at Henry Ford Health, to whom she was required to send a copy before submission, made it plain that they did not want it submitted for publication.”*12
“I [Siri] kept asking what the substantive grounds were for not submitting. The reasons provided [HFH's & Johnson's list of “serious flaws”] were easily addressed. They were all plainly pretextual … they were excuses, not reasons to not submit for publication. The real reason it was not submitted for publication, no doubt, was because of its finding that vaxxed children suffered from multiple tmes the rate of various serious ailments.”*12
Why would Dr. Zervos fear losing his job? I think the answer lies with HFH's so-called “internal independent peer review.” This appears to be Henry Ford PR speak for “your bosses gate-keep your work and shove it in a drawer if they don't like it”! Although, it's not clear to me how your bosses are your “peers”? Or how an employee is “independent” of his bosses!).
Note: If you want more details on my take, see my pinned comments (about 23 pages) at Steve Kirsch's post https://kirschsubstack.com/p/my-email-to-henry-ford-media-relations. Since then, I've been revising my comments into a 30-page doc that I will (when I get the time) put out in my forthcoming Substack to be called “The Feral Firefighter.”
Not so. I have a post-graduate degree in health sciences; RFK can't cite any science to support his claims. Clearly, he is the science illiterate buffoon.
I'm a retired UK infection specialist. Before MMR was introduced in 1988, measles vaccine uptake was generally low (40-60%) and insufficient to prevent outbreaks of measles. There were over 50 thousand cases a year, and an average of 13 deaths from acute measles (and as many more later from SSPE).
MMR was embraced by the public; parents loved the idea that they could get a "3 in one" shot that could prevent all three diseases. Acceptance was high, and MMR uptake climbed over the following couple of years to over 90%, and measles coutbreaks declined and deaths dropped to virtually zero.
If MMR is broken down into its three components again, uptake will suffer, and doses will get missed. Outbreaks of measles will be the norm, and deaths will rise substantially. There have already been 3 deaths in the US from the 1,500 cases of measles seen this year so far...how many will there be when the uptake rate is 60% and there are hundreds of thousands of measles cases each year??
"If MMR is broken down into its three components again, uptake will suffer, and doses will get missed."
I think that's the plan.
But the single vaccines are no longer available, and they will never become available as long as RCTs are demanded for every new vaccine as is now the requirement in the US.
My granddaughter just got her MMRV , I would hate for her to get 4 injections and 4 different appointments to get it ! She is doing fine with the combo !
I fear that there will inevitably be a lost generation (or two maybe) of children who will remain largely unimmunised, and who will suffer the consequences throughout the rest of their lives. Because (bar major epidemics) the impact will not immediately be visible and the lives lost will likely spin out through the decades to come, Trump, RFKjr and MAGA will evade much of the responsibility.
Mike you’re over reacting. You got to get your reference out of the 1800’s in terms of mortality and treatments. The path we took (ever more vaccines) result in the highest rates of chronic illness. Measles as an example the morality had declined by over 98% before 1963. Mortality from scarlet fever went to zero without a vaccine. It’s not going to be that bad. Yes we’ll be back to every kids will go through getting infected and recovering and have true immunity one that last for life rather than the leaky vaccine immunity where people end up with these diseases when they are adults when there are more complications. Look at Covid the best time to get it was obviously the younger you were. Now that we have lost true herd immunity with vaccines it could be a rough ride as those with compromised immunity (the older vaccinated that have never experienced natural infection) transition back to a population with true herd immunity like we had in 1960. As long as the medical establishment tackle this task using treatment alternatives and don’t withhold treatment like they did during Covid to make a case for their agenda it’s good to be just fine.
Sorry Dag, nobody is going to believe your "It will be better if we roll the clock back to the 19th century..it's not going to be that bad!" BS.
In the immediate prevaccine era, the diseases that we vaccinate against killed around 20,000 kids a year in the US. Nobody but a sadistic child-hater wants that to happen again.
Point is you don’t need to worry about the 1800’s Mike, we had advances so far past that point before vaccines came along. It was not 20,000 per year. There was 300-400 from measles, the others had declined as well, and there are treatments now that didn’t exist in 1960 that if used properly will deal with children that become ill.
What you might not be able to see because you believe so firmly in the vaccine program is that what happens during Covid drove millions, maybe billions of people from trusting that program. Because you believe in it so firmly, there was nothing that was done during Covid that you will be able to see would offend people. You would have supported holding people down to be vaccinated for their own good. This view of the world is why you missed what is happening which is a complete rejection of the advice of the people that took us down that path. It was poorly managed by public health.
Anyway it’s gone to where I predicted when we are arguing about this years back, it seemed obvious.
I think people if they really care about wellness and not phamra’s fortunes will see there are so many other resources available to deal with this. At some point people have to realize when they are losing a battle and stop trying to put a square peg through a round hole.
Bill, you’re stuck in the era where the experts could simply dismiss questions, that’s boat has sailed. You guys should have enough awareness to recognize it was your profession’s actions that caused the level of mistrust that exists now. If you want to be relevant again you’re going to need to get on with accepting what’s happened and that the wound was self inflicted. What percent of the population is still getting Covid shots even with the ads that they are needed, that should be a barometer that you need to come to the table cap in hand.
And I’d love you pitching your “So what if kids die from diseases?” strategy to a room full of moms who have lost kids to diseases like meningitis and pertussis.
The fact that it isn’t published or have attention brought to it while the phamra mockingbirds pump the fabricated study reporting that mRNA shots are helping those fighting cancer further erodes any remaining trust in public health, doctors, or the corporate media that are owned by Phamra. You guys are shooting yourselves in the foot and too blind to recognize it. It’s actually helping the cause.
So, you implicitly believe, with absolutely zero evidence or reason for doing so, an unpublished study rumoured to indicate unvaccinated kids are healthier than vaxed kids, but you call a peer-reviewed, published study in Nature (which is robust and verified, and supports experimental findings) as being “fabricated”….?
Thanks for showing everyone here how rabidly antivaccine you are, and how you don’t even pretend to disguise your blatant confirmation bias, Dag.
Oh, here’s another one. When Mike Rowe the blue collar dirty jobs guy is making podcasts on the issue, you know the toothpaste isn’t going back in the tube. If I had been involved in doing this public health work, I’d want to be at the front of the line alerting people that we need to pump the brakes and have a look, there will be no up side being one of the ones to hold out till the end, it will be a bad look if it turns out these products did more harm than good. If they turn out to be ok, there will be no shame in having demonstrated caution. You’d think a profession that all it talks about is being safe it would be natural to be overly cautious, but apparently not.
The vaccinated baboons didn’t know they were packing disease, perfect they were super spreaders. They would be better off coughing so that they would know not to go out and get everyone else sick.
By the way,,,regarding your “superspreader” jibe against baboons that were vaccinated….
“In the present study we show that aP-vaccinated primates were heavily infected following direct challenge, and the time to clearance WAS NOT DIFFERENT compared with naïve animals. Similarly, THERE WAS NO DIFFERENCE in the kinetics or peak level of colonization between aP-vaccinated and naïve animals that were infected by natural transmission.”
So what the study showed was that prior vaccination did not mean baboons were uninfected after a challenge….they were infected [same as the unvaccinated baboons] and the peak and duration of bacterial detection WAS NOT DIFFERENT between the two groups.
Put simply for you…if you think the vaccinated baboons were “superspreaders”, then SO WERE THE UNVACCINATED BABOONS.
The study was important because it showed vaccinated animals who caught pertussis (following a heavy exposure, it must be emphasised) were able to TRANSMIT pertussis to a cage-mate, similar to the way an unvaccinated baboon was able to transmit infection.
This study confirms the benefits of vaccination (it prevents disease), but shows that even if vaccinated, primates can be infected and transmit infection IN THE SAME WAY THAT UNVACCINATED primates will do.
It was the same within a couple days wasn’t it. So basically the vaccinated baboon would be going around for a period of time contagious without realizing it.
Either way all we have to do is eliminate mandates, make it a choice.
The way it stands with public health doubling down on issues that caused the level of mistrust that exists now will only make it worse. Like it or not things are changing, getting the public back onside is going to require the experts to swallow some pride and embrace change that is underway.
They don’t “realize” anything about their pertussis infectivity. But maybe they did, and are cleverer than you are!
And the vaccinated ones are asymptomatic, with NO COUGH. Yes they could spread infection onward, but that bit of the study included only two baboons, confined 24/7 in a cage with another infected baboon. If you cough, you are likelier to spread infection.
Vaccine immunity is not as good. When there are breakouts vaccinated people get measles, not people who previously had measles. There is always a good percentage of the cases where they flag them as vaxx status unknown. If those in that category were born after 1965, there’s a high 90’s percent chance they were vaccinated, probably higher, because people that are unvaccinated know they are unvaccinated.
Pertussis, you know about the baboon study, the vaccinated get infected but were asymptomatic. Only the baboon with natural infection did not spread whooping couch to the naive group of baboons. And with DTaP those people are primed to be more susceptible to pertussis for life with no fix - proposed to just take boosters every 3 years.
Anyway there is much evidence that those taking vaccines are protecting those around them, so if you want them great, but forcing them on everyone when there is plenty of concern of harms caused by vaccines it should be a personal choice.
You will notice that the vaccines with the shortest duration of effective immunity (<5 years) are ones which are often given to cover a specific disease threat which happens over a limited time period.
For example, Pertussis vaccine immunity fades within around 5 years (but natural immunity doesn’t really last much longer). But the important time for protection is in infancy, when pertussis may be lethal; so the loss of immunity later on is less concening, since the disease tends to be very much milder. [The baboon study you have a woody for did indeed show that baboons exposed to pertussis were likely to carry the virus for longer than the non-vaccinated baboons who were infected. But please note…the vaccinated baboons did not get ill, so the vaccine worked well in its primary goal which is to prevent disease. The non-vaccinated baboons did get sick, even if they were less likely to have long carriage of the bacterium afterwards.]
Other vaccines with limited immunity can always be repeated (boosters) if further high level protection is needed.
You might also note that some infections confer no natural immunity at all…such as tetanus, diphtheria for example. (and Rabies also confers no immunity because the victim always dies from their first infection!)
You have lost ground this summer, keep it up. Whoever said we’d return to 500 deaths per year? Looks like you have thrown the towel in on 10’s of thousands, that’s progress.
Who doesn’t understand correlation, one day you’re saying that’s not science you fool and the next you’re putting up correlation studies as evidence. It’s getting to be comical the arguments you post.
With nobody vaxed in the US against measles, it wouldn’t be long before you’d be back to hundreds of thousands of cases each year, and around 1,000 deaths.
Other diseases would claw their way back too ….polio, rota, pertussis, meningitis, pneumonia, HiB, chickenpox, Hep A (and B)…and yes, you’d risk up to ten to twenty thousand deaths from these. Sure, with antibiotics you might cut the pneumonia, HiB and meningitis deaths (leaving some kids damaged rather than dead), but as I always say, prevention is better than cure.
Millions of cases, all the people with vaccine immunity aren’t protected as well as people that have immunity from natural infection - if measles are going around a good percentage of them will get it. After you get through that you basically have every kid getting it by 5 or 6 years old, so over 3 million per year on average. There was 300-400 deaths per year when there was 4 million births per year. That was in the years leading up to 1963, there are treatment options now that would make it better now than it was back then. Also with an emphasis on dealing with malnutrition they would reduce negative impacts further. Look at the vital statistics for the New England states (the rich states) pre 1963!mortality was significantly lower there.
But now that we’ve screwed up the natural herd immunity that existed in pre 1963 era we could be in for a rough ride. But public health is aware of this, they know the currently vaccines are failing, especially as the people with natural immunity become a smaller percentage of the population. When people with natural immunity are all gone and we’re down to vaccine immunity only, it could be a mess especially if alternative treatments are withheld to try and promote vaccines - just like happened during Covid.
Other than the screw up that destroyed natural herd immunity, there is no reason it would be worse now than it was pre 1963. There is no solid basis to predict 10’s thousands of deaths, that’s fear mongering. Where are all the deaths from scarlet fever? Morality from disease was winding down on its own, with or without vaccines.
1. The immunity conferred by vaccination against measles is as durable as natural immunity.
2. Prevaccine there were around 3 million cases per year, 500 reported acute measles deaths (one study indicated around 30% underreporting), and about one to two hundred measles SSPE deaths each year. Adjusted for the current US population, if there was no vaccination and all kids got measles, there would be over 1000 deaths each year)
3. Malnutrition does worsen measles outcomes, but there is no reason to imagine malnutrition was worse in the 1960s than it is now in the US, particularly as this administration seems intent on worsening the problem, not improving it.
4. There are few strategies that are now available to lessen the mortality of measles than were already available in the 60s. Intensive care/ventilation outcomes may be superior, but that isn’t going to save many more lives in practice. There is no antiviral that is effective for treating measles. Antibiotics to treat secondary bacterial pneumonias are not necessarily much better than those we had in the 60s; indeed antibiotic resistance has if anything blunted their impact.
5. I never predicted tens of thousands of measles deaths. I indicated that with no vaccinations, diseases like pertussis, measles, polio, meningitis, HiB, Viral hepatitis, influenza, pneumococcal infections would claim over ten thousand lives.
6. Scarlet fever is a red herring (sorry for the pun). It has never been a disease suited to vaccination. Its severity is greatly reduced in the antibiotic era as nasty strep throats are usually treated (some would say overtreated) with antibiotics, and the strains have evolved. It hasn’t disappeared, anyhow. In the UK around 10 years ago there was a large resurgence. My own son had it. There has been a further resurgence in the post Covid era, with notifications reaching the levels seen 80 years ago. Perhaps it’s all the raw milk RFKjr is advocating (it is a source) 😉
He said about 1000 deaths a year in this string, but we have a long history over the years that he has exaggerated risks from disease. He has a tendency to insinuate that mortality from disease will reflect those rates that existed in the 1800’s if vaccination rates decline. Having shared with him CDC stats that demonstrate the reductions like over 98% for measles before 1963 has resulted him greatly reducing his exaggeration. However even the 1000 he’s stating now is still double what it was in the years processing 1963.
I didn't see that claim in this string. You are correct in saying that 1,000 deaths/year in the US would be a higher rate than in 1963.
It is true that the death rate from measles in the US dropped a lot between the 1930s and the 60s before the measles vaccine was introduced in the US. (to 1/5th of the level)
But after the vax was introduced it dropped essentially to nothing. (like <1/100 the level). England has a similar very steep drop in measles deaths after routine vaccination was introduced.
It seems to me that a concerted global effort could eliminate measles (as was done with small pox), but it would require very high vax rates. And of course, "conventional public health measures" would are also very important. It is clear that the "under-vaccinated" communities are the drivers of measles cases in Canada and the US.
I'm curious as to what "alternative treatments" you are implying are/were available for Covid..
Dag Waddell is advocating that we return to the time when there were no vaccines and all children get infected and we all attain super powerful herd immunity.
I’m pointing out this strategy will generate a boom in the kiddie coffin market.
Erin McCanlies was listening to the radio one morning in April when she heard RFK Jr promising to find the cause of autism by September. The secretary of HHS said he believed an environmental toxin was responsible for the dramatic increase in the condition and vowed to gather “the most credible scientists from all over the world” to solve the mystery.
Nothing like that has ever been done before, he told an interviewer.
McCanlies was stunned. The work had been done. “That’s exactly what I’ve been doing!” she said to her husband, Fred.
As an epidemiologist at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, which Kennedy oversees, McCanlies had spent much of the past two decades studying how parents’ exposure to workplace chemicals affects the chance that they will have a child with autism. Just three weeks earlier, she’d been finalizing her fourth major paper on the topic when Kennedy ELIMINATED HER ENTIRE DIVISION. Kennedy has also overseen tens of millions of dollars in CUTS to federal FUNDING for RESEARCH on AUTISM, including its environmental causes.
RFK junior thinks that eliminating research into chronic disease eliminates chronic disease. I guess it's like eliminating infections by eliminating testing for infections.
The world is turning upside down and inside out and so many seem not to notice.
Pollution and Climate Change are also a threat to our children.
From DeSmog Blog:
"A long-awaited film is premiering worldwide on Netflix this Friday October 31.
"The White House Effect" has no narration, just incredible contemporary footage and documents from the 1970s and 1980s woven together to remind us there was a time when solving global warming was a priority for a Republican president, and protecting the environment from fossil fuel pollution was a bipartisan mission.
It’s no fairy tale, and it’s challenging to watch knowing that George H.W. Bush’s early enthusiasm to save the future would never come to pass, thanks to fossil fuel industry obstruction"
And the same multi-billionaires who finance antivaxxers also finance the fossil fuel industry.
We've seen our share of the victims and the perpetrators right here in this commentary section.
Re “RFK Jr. recently declared that healthy young children don’t need a Covid vaccine”.
It’s the same advice in Australia…
The Australian Immunisation Handbook states:
QUOTE
COVID-19 vaccine is not recommended for healthy infants, children or adolescents who do not have medical conditions that increase their risk of severe illness. This is because the risk of severe illness was extremely low in this cohort over the course of the pandemic, and benefits of vaccination are not considered to outweigh the potential harms.
Firstly, "children don’t need a Covid vaccine" is not the same as "not recommended for healthy infants, children or adolescents". Everyone can still get the vaccine in Australia if they wish.
Secondly, your claim that "benefits of vaccination are not considered to outweigh the potential harms" is deliberately misleading. The actual reason for the decrease in adverse effects of the infection is that population immunity is high as a result of vaccination and infection over the past 5 years, and because most of the vulnerable have already succumbed to the infection.
But here's the difference between Australia and the US:
Australia has:
1) Universal health care.
2) Higher health status
3) Greater access to health care.
Having the vaccines available in the US to everyone over 6 months of age means that they are free for children under the Vaccine for Children program and that they will be covered by insurance.
This is the quote from The Australian Immunisation Handbook: "COVID-19 vaccine is not recommended for healthy infants, children or adolescents who do not have medical conditions that increase their risk of severe illness. This is because the risk of severe illness was extremely low in this cohort over the course of the pandemic, and benefits of vaccination are not considered to outweigh the potential harms." https://immunisationhandbook.health.gov.au/contents/vaccine-preventable-diseases/covid-19
It's under the hyperlink: "Healthy infants, children and adolescents aged <18 years are not recommended to receive COVID-19 vaccine".
Thanks for confirming that the Australian Immunisation Handbook does NOT say "children don’t need a Covid vaccine".
As you now seem to have acknowledged, is that it actually says "COVID-19 vaccine is for healthy infants, children or adolescents who do not have medical conditions that increase their risk of severe illness".
Which, clearly, is not the same as, "children don’t need a Covid vaccine".
Thanks for confirming that the Australian Immunisation Handbook does NOT say "children don’t need a Covid vaccine".
As you now seem to have acknowledged, is that it actually says "COVID-19 vaccine is not recommended for healthy infants, children or adolescents who do not have medical conditions that increase their risk of severe illness".
Which, clearly, is not the same as, "children don’t need a Covid vaccine".
@ Billy Joe you seem to think that the vaccines saved lives? If that were so… Explain world data to me? Surely if the vaccines were so effective that trend would have flatlined as soon as they were introduced, Instead of taping off once the omicron became the dominant variant.
Typical leftard comment… The problem with you people is you have lost your brains to an ideology. This is why you’re more than willing to make a stupid comment like this without addressing the trend… That’s because your ideology doesn’t withstand an amount of scrutiny. Just like the other dumb ass that made a comment below… you both are light entertainment
The lives saved by Covid vaccines (14 million at most recent estimation) need to be seen in the context of background Covid virus mutations leading to renewed surges of infection and the fact that the vaccine immunity wears off after 6-12 months. And recall, it is mainly the unvaccinated who died during Covid surges.
A vaccine that saves lives isn’t by definition required to save every life.
Your trend is similar to mine and proves exactly what I’m talking about… How do you not see that? Models were wrong and way off target… Fact! You will recall they said the vaccines were 99% effective and you won’t die if you take them… This is amateur hour so don’t bother wasting any more of my time
What was the “trajectory”, prior to vaccination and prior to the pandemic?
The analysis of lives saved by the vaccine specifically uses the estimated trajectory for deaths, and then looks at what the observed numbers of death were during the era of vaccination.
If fewer deaths occurred than expected from Covid, that deficit is attributed to the life-saving effect of vaccination.
For example, if the predicted death toll for Covid was say 5 million in 2022, but it turned out to be “only” 3 million, then the epidemiologists will calculate how much of that 2 million difference is determined to be the result of vaccines. (It’s more complex than that, but I’ve dumbed it down to help show you what I mean).
Fuck right off with your bullshit, Liz. You've been ranting against ALL vaccines for over a decade.
"COVID-19 vaccine is not recommended for healthy infants, children or adolescents who do not have medical conditions that increase their risk of severe illness."
I’m glad you regard everything in the Australian Immunisation handbook as the gospel truth, Elizabeth.
Perhaps you can start publicising and promoting the rest of it.
Not just for Covid, where it states: “Primary course vaccination is recommended for all people aged 18 years and older”, but for all the other vaccinations too.
Offit has been an integral operator in pediatric health for 40 years. During that time period, the objective measurable health outcomes in American children have declined precipitously. In addition, confidence in the vaccine schedule has plummeted- to the point that fewer than 20% of US health care professionals heed his advice on flu and covid shots.
It would be nice to see him show some humility and contrition for his role in the collapse of faith in pediatric medicine in this country- alas, he is too busy counting his ducats for that.
Now- this:
"The totality of evidence supports a multifactorial model of ASD in which genetic predisposition, neuroimmune biology, environmental toxicants, perinatal stressors, and iatrogenic exposures converge to produce the phenotype of a post-encephalitic state. Combination and early-timed routine childhood vaccination constitutes the most significant modifiable risk factor for ASD, supported by convergent mechanistic, clinical, and epidemiologic findings, and characterized by intensified use, the clustering of multiple doses during critical neurodevelopmental windows, and the lack of research on the cumulative safety of the full pediatric schedule. As ASD prevalence continues to rise at an unprecedented pace, clarifying the risks associated with cumulative vaccine dosing and timing remains an urgent public health priority."
Josh excels at self-abasement - linking to an online blurb dressed up as an academic paper, put out by - WAKEFIELD MEDIA GROUP and MCCULLOUGH Foundation (He's using the name of an unrelated NY-based 501(c)(3). Every "author" employed directly and only by Peewee McCullough.
You've been paid by Bobby and CHD for years. You served up your own teenage daughter for CHD's and Aaron Siri's ambulance chasing, cash extracting crusade. You cynically and dishonestly invoke "religious freedom" for your own selfish purposes - and for cash.
Exodus 20:7 - "You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name."
Isaiah 29:13
"Offit has been an integral operator in pediatric health for 40 years." That bit is true. The rest, flawed talking points.
Accusing Offit of responsibility and complicity in the deterioration of [say] children's mental health in recent decades is just stupid.
Let's look at these "measurable health outcomes" which you say have declined preipitously, and Offit's possible contributory roles...
INFANT AND CHILD MORTALITY has significantly decreased, due to advances in healthcare, and vaccines (WELL DONE DR OFFIT!)
OBESITY AND PHYSICAL INACTIVITY have worsened and are a major public health issue [These have nothing to do with Offit]
MENTAL HEALTH issues in younger people have risen, particularly conditions like depression and anxiety. [I can't see how Offit could have played a role with this]
VACCINATION coverage has remained high and even improved [WELL DONE DR OFFIT!], but recent disruptions from Covid and antivax sentiment have led to some declines in coverage in some areas.
ENVIRONMENTL exposures to toxins have decreased, but new challenges like climate change are emerging.
I'm older than Offit. I'm also older than RFK. So, I will weigh in as I always do and give the readers a short history lesson. I encourage them to do their homework.
You don't have to spend the countless hours reading more than 10K pages of studies just to determine that vaccines will never be "safe and effective." All you need to do is to ask the thousands of families who have suffered catastrophic injuries. They know that "safe" did not apply to them.
The tired tropes and ad hominem attacks on RFK are now part of a concerted effort funded by and directed by Phrma and their shills.
If you want your due process rights suspended and you are fine with playing Russian roulette with your infant child by surrendering to the "expert" opinion of Offit, then feel free to do so. Commenters here are mostly those who say "nothing happened to my child." Great.
But, I'll post something that has changed minds ( if only a minority %) for more than a decade.
Today, I will not respond to any of the slander and standard mudslinging. The goals is the same as as always. Change how people think. One at a time.
“Vaccines Are Unavoidably Unsafe”
Don’t take my word for it. These are the words of Justice Scalia in Bruesewitz v. Wyeth, LLC in a Supreme Court decision in 2011.
Unfortunately, due to the protections afforded the vaccine maker in the National Childhood Vaccine Act of 1986, the Court ruled against a vaccine injured plaintiff in the case. How?
In the 1980s, children were having adverse reactions to the DTP (diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis) vaccine. Lots of lawsuits were being filed against docs and vaccine manufacturers. This caused the pharmaceutical industry to threaten pulling out of the vaccine market, and the alarm bells rang that the nation’s health and safety were at risk. Why were vaccine manufacturers getting ready to take their ball and go home? Because vaccines fall into a class of products considered “unavoidably unsafe.” I am not kidding you. This “unavoidable” word comes from the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act itself “products which, in the present state of human knowledge, are quite incapable of being made safe.”
In 1986, Congress decided on a way to compensate folks for these avoidable injuries and death. It is called the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. From 2001 until 2011 the program has compensated about 2500 families a total of $2 billion. There has been close to $6 billion paid to date since inception. But, that represents only a small fraction of those who actually brought claims to the Vaccine Court. You see, there is a 36 month window to bring the claim. There is no “tolling” granted for minors, unlike all the Civil Courts in the U.S. Guess what? Neurological injuries may not present in infants for long after 36 months. Furthermore, who knows how many cases were never brought by attorneys on behalf of a vaccine injured child, because the statute of limitations ran out?
Don’t let anyone tell you that vaccines don’t cause injury. They have, they do and they will do so in the future. For years, Thimerosal was used as a preservative in multi-dose vials. While still proclaiming it “safe”, vaccine makers “voluntarily” removed Thimerosal. It is still present in trace amounts and in flu vaccine. Thimerosal was never approved by the FDA, as the patents predated the establishment of said regulations. Worried?
My family sued Phrma vaccine makers in 2002. They ran to Congress and wrote the 'Lilly Rider" and attached it to the Homeland Security Act, literally in the middle of the night. Just to get our case dismissed in U.S. District Court. That's after a Federal Judge "stayed" the action pending a decision in USCFC. That had never happened before. The Judge obviously thought that "due process" as guaranteed by our Constitution was a pretty good idea.
With nearly 6,000 cases pending the USCFC held the “Omnibus Autism Hearings.” They decided not to make “autism” a “table injury.” How convenient. Since there would never be enough money to pay for all who claim an “autism” injury. But, there have been many cases compensated for “encephalopathy” as a diagnosis with reference to autism. You can read it for yourself:
For the record, I am not “anti-vaccine.” Both of my children were fully vaccinated. Unfortunately for us, our son was neurologically disabled by vaccines. It is indisputable, yet the government and the vaccine makers still think that there is a “greater good” to be served.
They may be right. But, let’s not fool ourselves. Vaccines should be made safer. It is about money.
The claim that Scalia declared “vaccines are unavoidably unsafe” in Bruesewitz v. Wyeth (2011) is false. He quoted the phrase from a 1965 legal treatise; a liability term describing certain products, like vaccines, that can’t be made ENTIRELY RISK FREE, but whose benefits outweigh their risks. In Bruesewitz, the Court ruled that federal law shields vaccine makers from design-defect lawsuits because Congress created a special compensation system for rare injuries, NOT because vaccines are inherently dangerous. The decision was about legal liability.
Neither. You proved the point. The Orwellian wordsmiths will do most anything to avoid saying the quiet part out loud. Please read everything I wrote about "safe."
The phrase is a technical legal term, not a scientific judgment. When vaccine opponents quote “Vaccines are unavoidably unsafe” and attribute it to Scalia or SCOTUS they misrepresent both the origin and meaning of the phrase.
Scalia’s opinion did not declare that “vaccines are unavoidably unsafe” as a factual statement. He used the legal phrase only to describe how Congress viewed vaccines under the NCVIA: as products that inevitably carry some small risk, and thus required a special compensation framework to ensure vaccine availability.
The decision;
Did not imply vaccines are inherently dangerous or unsafe in a general sense.
Did not suggest they’re “unavoidably unsafe” in everyday language.
Did not come from scientific evidence or a finding of risk by the Court.
"You don't have to spend the countless hours reading more than 10K pages of studies just to determine that vaccines will never be "safe and effective."
No, you just need to ask any doctor...they should tell you that nothing is 100% safe and effective. That's Nirvana thinking.
They will, if they know much about vaccines and human cognitive biases, tell you that reports of injury following vaccination are almost all coincidence...the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, where people misattribute something to be the cause of the problem merely because it preceded the problem.
As for vaccines being "unavoidably unsafe"? ...Yes, like all medical products, nothing can be made to be 100% safe...there will always be a risk, no matter how minuscule, that a vaccine might provoke a reaction.
Excellent summary of the facts. So, so sorry about your son. It's always interesting to me, the contempt that vaccine industry folks have for the vaccine injured and their families. It's like, "How DARE you have a problem with products manufactured or approved by such exalted beings as ourselves!" It's bad enough that they have no empathy or compassion, nor any curiosity about the possibility that their products are maiming children and ruining lives, but it's beyond the pale that they compound their sin by ridiculing the victims. Sick.
When the Institute of Medicine's Immunization Safety Review Committee was tasked with determining the validity of the alleged link between vaccines and autism, they pretended to study the issue between early 2001 and 2004, when they issued their report, which stated: "The committee concludes that the evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism" ... "The committee concludes that the evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between MMR vaccine and autism" ... "At this time, the committee does not recommend a policy review of the current schedule and recommendations for the administration of routine childhood vaccines based on hypotheses regarding thimerosal and autism." What was not known at the time was that at their very first session in January of 2001, the Chair of the committee, Dr. Marie McCormick, M.D., stated, "We are not ever going to come down that [autism] is a true side effect." At the same session, Study Director Kathy Stratton said, "The point of no return, the line we will not cross in public policy is ‘pull the vaccine, change the schedule.’ We wouldn’t say ‘compensate [the injured].’" From the transcripts, it appears that the main task of the committee was figuring out how to mislead the medical community and the public that there was nothing to worry about in terms of an autism connection, without telling any bald-faced lies. Our tax dollars at work. Another thing I didn't know until just recently is that the IOM (now the National Academy of Medicine) is a private entity that accepts donations from corporations, including drug companies. Incredible.
Your nonsense was trashed 15 years ago (Jan. 16, 2011):
In 2005, Salon published online a story by RFK Jr. that offered an explosive premise: that the mercury-based thimerosal compound present in vaccines until 2001 was dangerous, and that he was “convinced that the link between thimerosal and the epidemic of childhood neurological disorders is real.”
The piece was co-published with Rolling Stone magazine. In the days after running “Deadly Immunity,” we amended the story with five corrections (which can still be found logged here) that went far in undermining Kennedy’s exposé. At the time, we felt that correcting the piece and keeping it on the site, in the spirit of transparency, was the best way to operate. But subsequent critics, including Seth Mnookin 2011 book “The Panic Virus,” FURTHER ERODED AND FAITH WE HAD IN THE STORY'S VALUE. We’ve grown to believe the best reader service is to delete the piece entirely.
I guess we should allow "Salon" to determine due process rights? Only a 'Russian Nazi" would think that it should not be the justice system of the U.S to adjudicate such matters.
Salon published bobby's piece of shit. Shortly after which they corrected bobby's lies five times. Until they finally pulled it down, because it was BULLSHIT. Fifteen years ago. Simpsonwood that, Due Processor.
I watched the devastating Frontline episode on RFK Jr. last week. A real eye opener on how disturbed he is and his obsession to be someone important. Everyone should see it.
Yes, my mother is in this space, and the sin they both suffer from is vanity. And pride. And greed. Ok they are fucked up individuals.
A couple of weeks ago I watched the devastating documentary "An Inconvenient Study." A real eye opener on how the safety of the CDC's children's vaccine schedule has never been properly safety tested. Everyone should see it. aninconvenientstudy.com (Can also download pdf of study, Henry Ford's press releases & DFP interview, and ICAN's response)
The study was conducted by a pro-vax doctor at Henry Ford. The study's results suggest that vaxxed children suffer from about 2.5x the chronic disease rate of unvaxxed children. Sure, vaccines prevent targeted disease; but is that benefit worth the cost of permanent chronic disease?
Clown;
https://substack.com/@guymontage451/reads
Note: Here's Mary Makary's original comment to me: "Everything about you is shit;"
Everything? My military service? My 30 years on the fire department?
Thanks for your substantive, well-reasoned, non-emotional feedback! Bless your heart!
Are you the Fall Guy?
I don't get your reference. Are you referring to the 80's TV show with Lee Majors or the 2023 movie with Ryan Gosling? What's that got to do with me?
Why are you blindly regurgitating antivax lies.
THIS IS A BLATANT LIE--> "the CDC's children's vaccine schedule has never been properly safety tested" <-- THIS IS A BLATANT LIE.
THIS IS A BLATANT LIE --> "vaxxed children suffer from about 2.5x the chronic disease rate" <--THIS IS A BLATANT LIE.
Are you the monster or just a mule.
Either way, you are a disgusting person.
MISINFORMATION KILLS.
"Why are you blindly regurgitating antivax lies."
. . .
In September, ICAN attorney Aaron Siri published his book, "Vaccines, Amen. "Here's a couple quotes from his introduction:
"... most claims about vaccines are not grounded in evidence. They are beliefs. ... unlike doctors, who can appeal to their credentials, ... i need to prove claims with real data. .... something that will hold up in court. .... requires me to study the primary sources ... Incredibly, most of the information required to understand vaccine safety is freely available ... Most doctors and parents never bother to look or don't know it exists."
"The popular conception is that those who do not vaccinate are fanatics. Anti-science. Irrational. Emotional. Zealots. But my experience has generally been the opposite. ... highly knowledgeable about these products ... They are just people seeking to make good decisions for their children.""
"... the "Vaccines Amen" crowd. ... who have a fervent belief in vaccines. ... often impervious to reason or data, even when it is provided to them by their oracle, The CDC. ... the fanatics are not those who choose not to vaccinate. The fanatics are those who think everyone must be vaccinated ..."
The cumulative impact of infections without vaccinations are known and substantial:
1) Exposure to a wide range of preventable diseases, the cumulative burden of which were devastating
2) Permanent disability and death in a significant percentage of those infected.
3) Frequent infections in early childhood increase the risk of chronic conditions later in life, including asthma and developmental delays.
4) Childhood infections are associated with poorer school performance and developmental outcomes.
5) Repeated use of antibiotics, which contributes to resistance and gut microbiome disruption, as well as adverse effects of the antibiotics themselves.
The cumulative impact of vaccinations is theoretical and would clearly be dwarfed by the cumulative impact of vaccine preventable infections.
"the CDC's children's vaccine schedule has never been properly safety tested" <-- THIS IS A BLATANT LIE."
...
“... the Institute of Medicine [IOM] was commissioned [by HHS in 2013] … to review the entire body of existing scientific literature to assess the safety of the CDC's childhood schedule as a whole. ... it concluded, 'The studies designed to examine the long-term effects of the cumulative number of vaccines … have not been conducted.' … Lacking evidence to support safety, the best the IOM can conclude was, 'There is no evidence that the schedule is not safe.' This of course also means the IOM cannot find evidence to conclude that the schedule is safe.”*1
“The IOM report did say it is, 'Possible to make the comparison… through analyses of patient information contained in large databases such as the Vaccine Safety Datalink.' But to date, the government has still not conducted this comparison. ... [the CDC] published a white paper in 2015 on how to do that study. Has it been done? I don't know. Has it been published? No.”*2
REFERENCES:
*1: pp. 33-34, Aaron Siri, May 19. 2025 Senate testimony “Hearing Regarding the Corruption of Science and Federal Health Agencies...” https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/Siri-Testimony.pdf
*2: @ Aaron Siri oral testimony at Sept 9th from Senate hearing transcript @ 20:04): https://www.rev.com/transcripts/vaccine-critics-hearing AND
*2: 9/09/25 – How the Corruption of Science has Impacted Public Perception and Policies Regarding Vaccines https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/subcommittees/investigations/hearings/how-the-corruption-of-science-has-impacted-public-perception-and-policies-regarding-vaccines/
Here's what you failed to say, you antivax fraud:
- vaccines have been the most thoroughly studied of any pharmaceutical product in history.
- each individual vaccine in the schedule has been thoroughly tested and been shown to be safe and effective.
- there is no plausible reason that the entire vaccine schedule would not be safe when each individual vaccine has been thoroughly tested and been shown to be safe.
- the cumulative effect of all the infections that the vaccinations prevent is a known factor and known to be detrimental and clearly dwarfs any theoretical adverse effect of the cumulative vaccine schedule.
Vaccines have saved 3 million lives every year for 50 years. This dwarfs any theoretical concern anyone but a lying antivax lunatic would have about the "cumulative effect of the vaccine schedule"!
FFS!
Every antivax liar does three things:
1) Minimise the disease - if they even talk about the disease at all!
2) Maximise the adverse effects of the vaccines - including made up shit!
3) Minimise the safety and effectiveness of the vaccines.
This one does not disappoint.
As usual, no references to back up your claims. I'd suggest readers take a look at Aaron Siri's book, "Vaccines, Amen" which addresses every one of Billy Joes's claims listed above. Siri backs up his arguments with primary sources and evidence, not just unsupported opinion.
Aaron Siri is a grubby little antivax arsehole whose sole interest is accumulating wealth while spreading lies that kill our children.
Buying his book is like being an accessory to murder.
I suggest you look at my book “Advanced law for attorneys”.
I’m a medic, with no background in law.
I hope you find it as enlightening as you found Aaron Siri’s book!!!
"THIS IS A BLATANT LIE --> "vaxxed children suffer from about 2.5x the chronic disease rate" <--THIS IS A BLATANT LIE."
. . .
That's what the results from the Henry Ford study suggests. The data is the data.
The 2022 Daley study was funded by the CDC and included CDC 'approved" researchers.*1 It found the average rate of asthma in vaxxed children to be about 2.5x to 4x the rate of the "unvaxxed", comparable to the Henry Ford Study which found a rate of 4x. Table 3 in Daley's Supplementary Material”*28 shows a dose-response relationship; the rate of asthma rose from 1x to 4.00x as the amount of AL rises from 0 – 0.99 to 5 mg.
*1: Daley, et al https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36180331/
*2: Daley Supplementary Material https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acap.2022.08.006
Previous, smaller vaxxed vs unvaxxed studies, showed similar results for asthma and other chronic diseases:
Anthony R. Mawson, et al., “Pilot Comparative Study on the Health of Vaccinated and Unvaccinated 6 to 12-year-old U.S. Children,” Journal of Translational Science 3, no. 3 (2017): 1-12, doi: 10.15761/JTS.1000186
Anthony R. Mawson et al., “Preterm Birth, Vaccination and Neurodevelopmental Disorders: A Cross-Sectional Study of 6- to 12-Year-Old Vaccinated and Unvaccinated Children,” Journal of Translational Science 3, no. 3 (2017): 1-8, doi:10.15761/JTS.1000187.
Brian Hooker and Neil Z. Miller, “Analysis of Health Outcomes in Vaccinated and Unvaccinated Children: Developmental Delays, Asthma, Ear Infections and Gastrointestinal Disorders,” SAGE Open Medicine 8, (2020): 2050312120925344, doi:10.1177/2050312120925344.
Brian Hooker and Neil Z. Miller, “Health Effects in Vaccinated versus Unvaccinated Children,” Journal of Translational Science 7, (2021): 1-11, doi:10.15761/JTS.1000459.
James Lyons-Weiler and Paul Thomas, “Relative Incidence of Office Visits and Cumulative Rates of Billed Diagnoses along the Axis of Vaccination,” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17, no. 22 (2020): 8674, doi:10.3390/ijerph17228674.
Note: The above study was wrongly retracted; below is a follow-up study that exonerates the Lyons-Weiler/Thomas study of alleged bias.
James Lyons-Weiler, “Revisiting Excess Diagnoses of Illnesses and Conditions in Children Whose Parents Provided Informed Permission to Vaccinate Them” September 2022 International Journal of Vaccine Theory Practice and Research 2(2):603-618 DOI:10.56098/ijvtpr.v2i2.59
CAN YOU SPELL "CHERRY-PICKING"?
Look at the laughable list of antivax lunatics this antivax lunatic reLIES on:
Anthony R. Mawson, Brian Hooker, Neil Z. Miller, James Lyons-Weiler, Paul Thomas.
And the journals:
Journal of Translational Science, SAGE Open Medicine, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, International Journal of Vaccine Theory Practice and Research.
The "International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health" mistakenly published and then retracted the James Lyons-Weiler rubbish which was then published in the predatory journal "International Journal of Vaccine Theory Practice and Research". This journal is regarded by scientists as disreputable and pseudoscientific and is known for promoting anti-vaccine misinformation. It is not indexed in reputable databases.
The logical error committed by this lying antivax lunatic is:
CHERRY-PICKING
"The "International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health" mistakenly published and then retracted the James Lyons-Weiler rubbish"
...
In 2020, pediatrician Dr. Paul Thomas published a vaxxed-unvaxxed study with similar findings as the Henry Ford Study.*14 Five days later, the Oregon Medical Board held an emergency meeting and suspended his medical license. He lost his license, his practice, and his marriage. In 2021, his study was fraudulently "retracted" without cause*13 . So, his “inconvenient study” has been removed from the scientific literature and can't be cited by anyone. Jeremy Hammond wrote an excellent post/book on the subject. "The War on Informed Consent"*15
So, Henry Ford's Dr Zervos's fear that he could lose his career over publishing a Vaxxed-UnVaxxed study showing vaxxed children were unhealthier appears well founded!
REFERENCES:
*14: RETRACTED: James Lyon-Weiler & Paul Thomas, “Relative Incidence of Office Visits and Cumulative Rates of Billed Diagnoses Along the Axis of Vaccination” (11/18/20) https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/22/8674
*13: James Lyon-Weiler, “Revisiting Excess Diagnoses of Illnesses and Conditions in Children Whose Parents Provided Informed Permission to Vaccinate Them” (9/26/22) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363882194_Revisiting_Excess_Diagnoses_of_Illnesses_and_Conditions_in_Children_Whose_Parents_Provided_Informed_Permission_to_Vaccinate_Them
*13: https://jameslyonsweiler.com/2021/07/25/mdpis-the-international-journal-of-environmental-research-and-public-health-does-not-publish-unbiased-research-or-advances-in-methodology/
*15: Jeremy R. Hammond, “Oregon Medical Board Suspends Dr. Paul Thomas for Practicing Informed Consent” (3/26/21) https://www.jeremyrhammond.com/2021/03/26/oregon-medical-board-suspends-dr-paul-thomas-for-practicing-informed-consent/
You mistake free speech for truthfull speech, let alone true speech, which is very rare (because hard) anyway, even without the zone flooded with shit.
Much zoneflooding is coming from the government itselve nowadays. As also graphically expressed (admitted?) in this Nokings Trump-video.
So check your sources again.
Paul Thomas managed to get his medical license revoked - which takes a while lit if fuckery - GRIFTER - Your truth teller
Thomas had his license removed because the Oregon Medical Board found he had committed professional misconduct, and had put patients in harm's way. He also did not practice informed consent...he deliberately scared parents away from vaccination by saying "you wouldn't want your child to get autism, would you?" One child who was unvaccinated caught tetanus and spent 2 months in intensive care, following his recovery, instead of getting the child vaccinated, Thomas suggested some herbal snake oil.
Zervos has absolutely nothing to fear. If his study is sound, robust, and independently verifiable it will be embraced by medical colleagues, and he will gain considerable fame (and fortune). He obviously does not wish his study to be put in the scientific domain, because it would be torn to shreds, that's all. He's a bit of a coward.
Cherry picking? I listed most of the existing vaxxed vs unvaxxed studies (there are more described in Hooker & RFK's 2023 book "Vax-Unvax: Let the Science Speak).
Who is cherry picking? YOU didn't comment on the 2022 Daley study, as I mentioned was funded by the CDC with CDC "approved" researchers that found asthma rates increased with the number of vaccines (measured in mg AL).
You also failed to note ( or are probably unaware) that the unpublished Henry Ford Study was conducted by Dr. Marcus Zervos who is pro-vax; he conducted clinical trials for the Moderna Covid vaccine, and got vaccine mandates imposed on the Henry Ford staff. His bosses shit canned the study, and he kept his mouth shut to keep his job and career.
if you don't like the studies I cite, could you please give me references to the vaxxed vs unvaxxed studies that do suggest that the vaxxed are healthier? (please not the 2025 Danish study).
"YOU didn't comment on the 2022 Daley study that..."
I'm not going to chase down every cherry-picked study you conjure up and lie about. That would be me playing your game of cherry-picking which I have already exposed.
My interest lies in spreading the conclusions reached by RECOGNISED EXPERTS in the relevant fields of science, not discussing with a science illiterate fool his cherry-picked studies performed by his antivax arsehole buddies.
You cherry-picks the dregs and you know it.
These dudes are contrarians, outliers, and charlatans selling snake oil.
Yup..cherry picking. You tout the Daley et al study and over-interpret it. Please note that:
1. The exposure metric that is used (mgs of aluminium from vaccines) is a only a proxy for actual systemic dose/exposure and does not account for other major aluminium sources such as diet and environment.
2. Key confounders such as parental asthma/allergy history, smoking exposure, home allergens such as pets and socio-economic factors were either not measured or inadequately adjusted for.
3. Children who receive more vaccines and engage more with health-care services are also more likely to have asthma diagnosed and treated — raising strong concerns of detection bias.
4. The asthma outcome, in preschoolers, is heterogeneous and can reflect transient wheeze rather than true chronic asthma, which further limits causal interpretation. In addition, and as I know very well from over 40 years of medical practice, children with more frequent visits to their doctors for whatever reason are more likely to pick up a spurious diagnosis of asthma because the HCP has detected a bit of a wheeze.
5. This paper is a correlative one, so it cannot make any assumptions about causation, and cannot conclude that vaccines cause asthma. The authors explicitly say that, so please do not try and use this paper as "proof" that vaccination causes asthma.
....We should read the Henry Ford press release???
The one which stated: “This report was not published because it did not meet the rigorous scientific standards we demand as a premier medical research institution"?
That one?????
“This report was not published because it did not meet the rigorous scientific standards we demand as a premier medical research institution"?
. . .
On October 7th, “Detroit Free Press” reporter Kristen Shamus interviewed Henry Ford Health executive Christine Cole Johnson (Chair of Public Health Science)*17 After “vetting” the study submitted to her by her subordinate co-author Lois Lamerato, Dr. Johnson described what she alleged were “multiple problems with the design” … “flaws in research” [three of the five flaws listed in the HFH 10/26 press release that accused the filmmakers of defamation*7].
Following the Oct 12th premiere of the documentary “An Inconvenient Study,” the HFH PR folks put out a revised press release*29 adding “Myth #5” that referred readers to that DFP interview “for more on our perspective.”
These “flaws” were first reported by “Washington Post” reporter Lauren Weber, who tweeted (9/11/25) a screenshot of the “flaws in the study, according to Henry Ford Health” x.com/LaurenWeberHP/sta…
Afterwards, on Sept 20th, I responded to Lauren Weber on X with the following tweets:
Point #0: "In the end, this report was not published because it did not even come close to meeting the rigorous scientific standards we [Henry Ford] demand—not because of the results." Really? None of their specific points hold up (see #1-5). And, the study design followed the 2015 CDC guidelines on studying the safety of the vax schedule. cdc.gov/vaccine-safety/…
Point #1: “The unvaccinated patient sample was vastly different than the vaccinated sample, with more males, more white children, less prematurity and less respiratory distress at birth.“ Vastly different? Besides, the authors “adjusted for all those variables: gender, race, birth weight, respiratory distress at birth, birth trauma and prematurity” Adjusted 2.54 HR vs unadjusted HR 2.59 No difference! {pp. 7, 18 of Henry Ford Study hsgac.senate.gov/wp-con…
Point #2: "The unvaccinated sample was very small in comparison to the vaccinated sample." 2K vs 18K. Big enough for results to have very high statistical significance Adjusted HR 2.54 CI 95% (2.16-2.97) p < 0.0001 See pp. 1, 18 hsgac.senate.gov/wp-con…
Point #3a: “time measuring occurrence of disease was much shorter for the unvaccinatedchildren.” True, AVERAGE 2.7 yrs vaxxed vs. 1.3 yrs unvaxxed. But, sensitivity analysis demonstrated consistent results for those enrolled at least 1-year (HR 2.84 CI 2.31-3.28 ), 3-years (HR 3.48 CI 2.67-4.30), and 5-years (HR 4.05 CI 2.82-5.83 ) HIGHER than the overall 2.54 HR! See pp. 6. 8 hsgac.senate.gov/wp-con… (hmmm, looks like a dose-response curve to me!) And, the KM survival curve shows that vaxxed children had more chronic disease over ALL ages from 1 to 10 years old.
Point #3b: “75% were only observed up until age 3, which is before doctors can confidently diagnose chronic pediatric diseases.” Really? The CDC guide on studying vax schedule safety shows that many more children are diagnosed < 2 years old with a chronic disease, than between 3 – 8 years old! See Table 3d, p. 32 cdc.gov/vaccine-safety/…
Point #4: “compared multiple vaccines vs. no vaccines. No consideration was given to the number of vaccines or the duration of time between.vaccines and the occurrence of disease.” The authors wrote in Limitations section, “We did not evaluate the influence of temporal relationships, individual vaccines, or the number of vaccines, which limits this investigation but also minimizes the potential for reverse causality.” See p. 14, hsgac.senate.gov/wp-con…
Point #5: “vaccine guidance has changed over time, but that was not taken into consideration.” Wouldn't changes affect both vaxxed & unvaxxed equally, since cohort study over same 16 year period? Unclear how adding new vaccines to CDC schedule would affect results one way or the other.
. . .
In his book “Vaccines, Amen”, ICAN attorney Aaron Siri wrote that the “reasons provided [by HFH for not allowing submission of the study] were … all plainly pretextual … easily addressed in the study itself by the sensitivity analyses ... Meaning they were excuses, not reasons to not submit for publication”*12
I agree with Aaron Siri's assessment that each of HFH's & Johnson's so-called “data flaws” can easily be rebutted. Overall, none of Henry Ford's “flaws” actually hold up to even cursory scrutiny. Is that the best they've got? Pretty pathetic “science” on the part of HFH! They're hardly in the position to “cast stones”!
References:
*7: Henry Ford Health, “Henry Ford Health Denounces Claim That System Suppressed Research, Cautions Against Dangerous Viral Disinformation and Misinformation” (9/26/250 https://www.henryford.com/news/2025/09/vaccine-study-henry-ford-health
*12: Excerpts from Aaron Sir's book, pp. 242-243, “Vaccines, Amen” https://www.amazon.com/Vaccines-Amen-Religion-Aaron-Siri-ebook/dp/B0D486KY77?ref_=ast_author_mpb
*17: 10/07/25 – Kristen Jordan Shamus, “Henry Ford Health warns anti-vaccine group to stop using info from 'fatally flawed' project” was published in The Detroit Free Press (Detroit Free Press) https://www.freep.com/story/news/health/2025/10/07/henry-ford-health-vaccine-study-informed-consent-action-network/86372042007/
*29: Revised 10/13/25 HFH “Fact-Check” (original published 9/26/25): https://www.henryford.com/news/2025/09/henry-ford-health-vaccine-study-fact-check
“The authors wrote in Limitations section, “We did not evaluate the influence of temporal relationships, individual vaccines, or the number of vaccines, which limits this investigation”
It doesn’t just “limit” this analysis, it completely hamstrings it. Considering a child who has received one vaccine shot as being as equivalently vaccinated as a child who has had more than 30 vaccines (maybe even 72?) and lumping them all into one group [“vaccinated”] is ridiculous, when considering a toxigenic and presumably dose-response effect of vaccination, and considering that different vaccines are supposedly different in their potential to cause reactions/illness. Subjects should have been stratified by exposure, and by vaccine types.
End of.
“I agree with Aaron Siri's assessment”.
Really? Can you tell me why, in this specific instance why you agree with Siri’s dismissal of the HF criticism of the study I also outline here?
The authors were not trying to "study everything, everywhere, all at once" in their one study. This was an introductory study; it could be followed up by other studies to explore more details. They limited their scope to comparing unvaxxed to an average effect of vaccination (1 to >30 vaccines).
However, their sensitivity analysis implicitly revealed a dose-response relation: those enrolled at least 1-year (HR 2.84 CI 2.31-3.28 ), 3-years (HR 3.48 CI 2.67-4.30), and 5-years (HR 4.05 CI 2.82-5.83 ) HIGHER than the overall 2.54 HR! It would appear that as more vaccines were received, the rate of chronic disease went up (I don't think age by itself causes disease).
The 2020 Lyons-Weiler & Thomas study did explicitly stratify by quartiles of vaccines received, showing a strong dose-response relationship.
Your claim that the sensitivity analysis shows a dose-response effect is nonsensical.
What the sensitivity analyses show is that when you restrict the sample to children with longer follow-up or at least one healthcare encounter, the association (vaccinated vs unvaccinated) gets numerically stronger—but that is NOT the same as demonstrating that more *vaccinations* lead to higher risk.
They show that limiting to certain sub‐cohorts (e.g., ≥5 yrs enrolment) increases the risk ratio, but importantly they do not show that children with more vaccines had higher risk compared to vaccinated children with fewer vaccines (or none), and they do not present a gradient of exposure (doses) with gradient of risk, which is a standard requirement for a dose–response relationship claim.
I would suggest reading the 10/13/25 HFH PR press release (Reference #7):
On September 25th, on his show “The HighWire,” Del Bigtree reported that Henry Ford Health (HFH) had sent ICAN a cease-and-desist” letter on Sept 19th. He showed excerpts including, “the truth is that the draft study did not proceed past initial co-author and internal independent peer reviews and was never submitted due to significant and serious flaws in its data and methodology.” (@5:13)*6
Detroit Free Press reporter Kristen Shamus interviewed Christine Cole Johnson (HFH Chair of Public Health Science)*17 who was the boss of the study's co-author Dr. Lois Lamerato. Johnson claimed “she” [Dr. Lois Lamerato] came to her with concerns about her “draft” ...”
Johnson called the “fatally flawed” study “among the "worst studies I've ever seen” … "If this had been submitted to a journal of any credibility, they would have laughed it off." She described what she alleged were “multiple problems with the design … [five serious] flaws*7 in research.”
In contrast to Johnson's claim, I think that Aaron Siri (ICAN's attorney who presented the study at the Sept 9th Senate hearing) tells a more credible story about what actually happened during the so-called HFH “internal peer review” process:
“The study was “set to be submitted for publication [not a “draft”] in a medical journal after it was completed, but the researchers did not go through with the submission. I met with Dr. Lamerto ask why it was not submitted. She reaffirmed that she and Dr. Zervos both thought their study was well designed, executed, and worthy of publication [so much for Johnson's claim that Lamerato “had concerns”]*12
“The issue, she [Lamerato] explained, was that the higher-ups [Johnson, etc.] at Henry Ford Health, to whom she was required to send a copy before submission, made it plain that they did not want it submitted for publication.”*12
“I [Siri] kept asking what the substantive grounds were for not submitting. The reasons provided [HFH's & Johnson's list of “serious flaws”] were easily addressed. They were all plainly pretextual … they were excuses, not reasons to not submit for publication. The real reason it was not submitted for publication, no doubt, was because of its finding that vaxxed children suffered from multiple tmes the rate of various serious ailments.”*12
Why would Dr. Zervos fear losing his job? I think the answer lies with HFH's so-called “internal independent peer review.” This appears to be Henry Ford PR speak for “your bosses gate-keep your work and shove it in a drawer if they don't like it”! Although, it's not clear to me how your bosses are your “peers”? Or how an employee is “independent” of his bosses!).
REFERENCES:
*6: “The HighWire” (9/25/25 Episode 443) https://rumble.com/v6zgl0m-episode-443-cease-and-desist.html?e9s=src_v1_clr%2Csrc_v1_ucp_a @4:03 Cease & Desist Letter and trailer with hidden camera footage.
*7: Henry Ford Health, “Henry Ford Health Denounces Claim That System Suppressed Research, Cautions Against Dangerous Viral Disinformation and Misinformation” (9/26/250 https://www.henryford.com/news/2025/09/vaccine-study-henry-ford-health
*12: Excerpts from Aaron Sir's book, pp. 242-243, “Vaccines, Amen” https://www.amazon.com/Vaccines-Amen-Religion-Aaron-Siri-ebook/dp/B0D486KY77?ref_=ast_author_mpb
*17: 10/07/25 – Kristen Jordan Shamus, “Henry Ford Health warns anti-vaccine group to stop using info from 'fatally flawed' project” was published in The Detroit Free Press (Detroit Free Press) https://www.freep.com/story/news/health/2025/10/07/henry-ford-health-vaccine-study-informed-consent-action-network/86372042007/
Note: If you want more details on my take, see my pinned comments (about 23 pages) at Steve Kirsch's post https://kirschsubstack.com/p/my-email-to-henry-ford-media-relations. Since then, I've been revising my comments into a 30-page doc that I will (when I get the time) put out in my forthcoming Substack to be called “The Feral Firefighter.”
Thanks for the heads up. Just watched it. A ton MORE reasons to worry about public health.
If you were impressed by that pile of excrement, you are a science illiterate buffoon.
Not so. I have a post-graduate degree in health sciences; RFK can't cite any science to support his claims. Clearly, he is the science illiterate buffoon.
Apologies, I misunderstood your comment. :(
Such is the nature of typed communication compared to face-to-face interaction.
thanks for aggregating the tsunami of destructive decisions by donOLD and Bobby, making a mock of their MAHA adage.
I'm a retired UK infection specialist. Before MMR was introduced in 1988, measles vaccine uptake was generally low (40-60%) and insufficient to prevent outbreaks of measles. There were over 50 thousand cases a year, and an average of 13 deaths from acute measles (and as many more later from SSPE).
MMR was embraced by the public; parents loved the idea that they could get a "3 in one" shot that could prevent all three diseases. Acceptance was high, and MMR uptake climbed over the following couple of years to over 90%, and measles coutbreaks declined and deaths dropped to virtually zero.
If MMR is broken down into its three components again, uptake will suffer, and doses will get missed. Outbreaks of measles will be the norm, and deaths will rise substantially. There have already been 3 deaths in the US from the 1,500 cases of measles seen this year so far...how many will there be when the uptake rate is 60% and there are hundreds of thousands of measles cases each year??
"If MMR is broken down into its three components again, uptake will suffer, and doses will get missed."
I think that's the plan.
But the single vaccines are no longer available, and they will never become available as long as RCTs are demanded for every new vaccine as is now the requirement in the US.
My granddaughter just got her MMRV , I would hate for her to get 4 injections and 4 different appointments to get it ! She is doing fine with the combo !
Thank you Dr. Offit!!
Thank you dr Offit
Please everyone, ignore the cranks. There already seem to be fewer
There's often a bolus of crackpots later in the day, after one of Substack's leading grifters rants about the latest Offit essay.
Thanks Paul, from your lips to god’s ears. Keep speaking the truth and being the voice of science and reason.
We are being ruled by stupid and crazy. Trump and RFK jr the prime examples. Woe onto our country.
A reckoning will come but not before the needless suffering of children.
I fear that there will inevitably be a lost generation (or two maybe) of children who will remain largely unimmunised, and who will suffer the consequences throughout the rest of their lives. Because (bar major epidemics) the impact will not immediately be visible and the lives lost will likely spin out through the decades to come, Trump, RFKjr and MAGA will evade much of the responsibility.
Mike you’re over reacting. You got to get your reference out of the 1800’s in terms of mortality and treatments. The path we took (ever more vaccines) result in the highest rates of chronic illness. Measles as an example the morality had declined by over 98% before 1963. Mortality from scarlet fever went to zero without a vaccine. It’s not going to be that bad. Yes we’ll be back to every kids will go through getting infected and recovering and have true immunity one that last for life rather than the leaky vaccine immunity where people end up with these diseases when they are adults when there are more complications. Look at Covid the best time to get it was obviously the younger you were. Now that we have lost true herd immunity with vaccines it could be a rough ride as those with compromised immunity (the older vaccinated that have never experienced natural infection) transition back to a population with true herd immunity like we had in 1960. As long as the medical establishment tackle this task using treatment alternatives and don’t withhold treatment like they did during Covid to make a case for their agenda it’s good to be just fine.
Sorry Dag, nobody is going to believe your "It will be better if we roll the clock back to the 19th century..it's not going to be that bad!" BS.
In the immediate prevaccine era, the diseases that we vaccinate against killed around 20,000 kids a year in the US. Nobody but a sadistic child-hater wants that to happen again.
Point is you don’t need to worry about the 1800’s Mike, we had advances so far past that point before vaccines came along. It was not 20,000 per year. There was 300-400 from measles, the others had declined as well, and there are treatments now that didn’t exist in 1960 that if used properly will deal with children that become ill.
What you might not be able to see because you believe so firmly in the vaccine program is that what happens during Covid drove millions, maybe billions of people from trusting that program. Because you believe in it so firmly, there was nothing that was done during Covid that you will be able to see would offend people. You would have supported holding people down to be vaccinated for their own good. This view of the world is why you missed what is happening which is a complete rejection of the advice of the people that took us down that path. It was poorly managed by public health.
Anyway it’s gone to where I predicted when we are arguing about this years back, it seemed obvious.
I think people if they really care about wellness and not phamra’s fortunes will see there are so many other resources available to deal with this. At some point people have to realize when they are losing a battle and stop trying to put a square peg through a round hole.
The Dag <-- "trying to put a square peg through a round hole"
A contributor to the fortunes of The Wellness Industry.
And the silly thing does it all for free like the good little gaslit boy that he is.
Bill, you’re stuck in the era where the experts could simply dismiss questions, that’s boat has sailed. You guys should have enough awareness to recognize it was your profession’s actions that caused the level of mistrust that exists now. If you want to be relevant again you’re going to need to get on with accepting what’s happened and that the wound was self inflicted. What percent of the population is still getting Covid shots even with the ads that they are needed, that should be a barometer that you need to come to the table cap in hand.
The Dag,
You have bee gaslit by science illiterate antivax liars grifting for fame and fortune on social media by spreading misinformation that kills.
But you can vaccinate yourself against their lies:
GET A SCIENCE EDUCATION.
There's a good boy!
And I’d love you pitching your “So what if kids die from diseases?” strategy to a room full of moms who have lost kids to diseases like meningitis and pertussis.
Where is this Henry Ford study published?
…oh, it isn’t? 😂😂😜
The fact that it isn’t published or have attention brought to it while the phamra mockingbirds pump the fabricated study reporting that mRNA shots are helping those fighting cancer further erodes any remaining trust in public health, doctors, or the corporate media that are owned by Phamra. You guys are shooting yourselves in the foot and too blind to recognize it. It’s actually helping the cause.
So, you implicitly believe, with absolutely zero evidence or reason for doing so, an unpublished study rumoured to indicate unvaccinated kids are healthier than vaxed kids, but you call a peer-reviewed, published study in Nature (which is robust and verified, and supports experimental findings) as being “fabricated”….?
Thanks for showing everyone here how rabidly antivaccine you are, and how you don’t even pretend to disguise your blatant confirmation bias, Dag.
The Dag is back!
He STILL doesn't understand the difference between correlation and causation.
He STILL thinks we should go back to 500 measles deaths every year.
He STILL does not understand that rampant infections kill herd immunity.
He STILL lies about all children recovering from every childhood infectious disease.
The Dag is a clueless buffoon.
Nonsense.
Oh I’m sorry from what you said about only 10% of the population getting them I meant to say not infectious.
Don’t be like that. Dr Drew says it’s time to pump the brakes, time to have another look at vaccines. Cat’s out of the bag buddy.
https://open.spotify.com/episode/5H1kM0GlbKjoL7lNsssYnB?si=-tsShQjDRK26W0HTALbMKg
It’s hard watching you melt down so dramatically. I almost feel sorry for you. You know we should really go for a beer and put this behind us.
No chance. Your beer might realise you were going to drink it, and get on the next bus.
https://rumble.com/v716hfe-you-wont-believe-whats-really-in-vaccines-gavin-de-becker-456-the-way-i-hea.html
Oh, here’s another one. When Mike Rowe the blue collar dirty jobs guy is making podcasts on the issue, you know the toothpaste isn’t going back in the tube. If I had been involved in doing this public health work, I’d want to be at the front of the line alerting people that we need to pump the brakes and have a look, there will be no up side being one of the ones to hold out till the end, it will be a bad look if it turns out these products did more harm than good. If they turn out to be ok, there will be no shame in having demonstrated caution. You’d think a profession that all it talks about is being safe it would be natural to be overly cautious, but apparently not.
So you’ll be going for your shot every 3 years, great.
Which one?
The vaccinated baboons didn’t know they were packing disease, perfect they were super spreaders. They would be better off coughing so that they would know not to go out and get everyone else sick.
By the way,,,regarding your “superspreader” jibe against baboons that were vaccinated….
“In the present study we show that aP-vaccinated primates were heavily infected following direct challenge, and the time to clearance WAS NOT DIFFERENT compared with naïve animals. Similarly, THERE WAS NO DIFFERENCE in the kinetics or peak level of colonization between aP-vaccinated and naïve animals that were infected by natural transmission.”
So what the study showed was that prior vaccination did not mean baboons were uninfected after a challenge….they were infected [same as the unvaccinated baboons] and the peak and duration of bacterial detection WAS NOT DIFFERENT between the two groups.
Put simply for you…if you think the vaccinated baboons were “superspreaders”, then SO WERE THE UNVACCINATED BABOONS.
The study was important because it showed vaccinated animals who caught pertussis (following a heavy exposure, it must be emphasised) were able to TRANSMIT pertussis to a cage-mate, similar to the way an unvaccinated baboon was able to transmit infection.
This study confirms the benefits of vaccination (it prevents disease), but shows that even if vaccinated, primates can be infected and transmit infection IN THE SAME WAY THAT UNVACCINATED primates will do.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1314688110
Well done, Mike.
But note the lame reply from "The Dag" everyone, and then no follow up.
Who does "The Dag" think he's kidding?
What was that time to clear about 30 day?
In baboons, yes.
It was the same within a couple days wasn’t it. So basically the vaccinated baboon would be going around for a period of time contagious without realizing it.
Either way all we have to do is eliminate mandates, make it a choice.
The way it stands with public health doubling down on issues that caused the level of mistrust that exists now will only make it worse. Like it or not things are changing, getting the public back onside is going to require the experts to swallow some pride and embrace change that is underway.
Anthropomorphisms be gone!
….These are baboons, not humans. 🙊
They don’t “realize” anything about their pertussis infectivity. But maybe they did, and are cleverer than you are!
And the vaccinated ones are asymptomatic, with NO COUGH. Yes they could spread infection onward, but that bit of the study included only two baboons, confined 24/7 in a cage with another infected baboon. If you cough, you are likelier to spread infection.
🙄
If you have pertussis but do not cough (like the vaccinated baboons, or vaccinated kids), you spread less infection than if you cough.
Coughing is so explosive and persistent in cases of clinical pertussis disease that it used to be called “the hundred day cough”.
Vaccine immunity is not as good. When there are breakouts vaccinated people get measles, not people who previously had measles. There is always a good percentage of the cases where they flag them as vaxx status unknown. If those in that category were born after 1965, there’s a high 90’s percent chance they were vaccinated, probably higher, because people that are unvaccinated know they are unvaccinated.
Pertussis, you know about the baboon study, the vaccinated get infected but were asymptomatic. Only the baboon with natural infection did not spread whooping couch to the naive group of baboons. And with DTaP those people are primed to be more susceptible to pertussis for life with no fix - proposed to just take boosters every 3 years.
Anyway there is much evidence that those taking vaccines are protecting those around them, so if you want them great, but forcing them on everyone when there is plenty of concern of harms caused by vaccines it should be a personal choice.
With measles, vaccine immunity is good, and durable.
To help you, here is an article reviewing the evidence of vaccine-induced immunity durability.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14760584.2024.2331065#abstract
You will notice that the vaccines with the shortest duration of effective immunity (<5 years) are ones which are often given to cover a specific disease threat which happens over a limited time period.
For example, Pertussis vaccine immunity fades within around 5 years (but natural immunity doesn’t really last much longer). But the important time for protection is in infancy, when pertussis may be lethal; so the loss of immunity later on is less concening, since the disease tends to be very much milder. [The baboon study you have a woody for did indeed show that baboons exposed to pertussis were likely to carry the virus for longer than the non-vaccinated baboons who were infected. But please note…the vaccinated baboons did not get ill, so the vaccine worked well in its primary goal which is to prevent disease. The non-vaccinated baboons did get sick, even if they were less likely to have long carriage of the bacterium afterwards.]
Other vaccines with limited immunity can always be repeated (boosters) if further high level protection is needed.
You might also note that some infections confer no natural immunity at all…such as tetanus, diphtheria for example. (and Rabies also confers no immunity because the victim always dies from their first infection!)
You have lost ground this summer, keep it up. Whoever said we’d return to 500 deaths per year? Looks like you have thrown the towel in on 10’s of thousands, that’s progress.
Who doesn’t understand correlation, one day you’re saying that’s not science you fool and the next you’re putting up correlation studies as evidence. It’s getting to be comical the arguments you post.
With nobody vaxed in the US against measles, it wouldn’t be long before you’d be back to hundreds of thousands of cases each year, and around 1,000 deaths.
Other diseases would claw their way back too ….polio, rota, pertussis, meningitis, pneumonia, HiB, chickenpox, Hep A (and B)…and yes, you’d risk up to ten to twenty thousand deaths from these. Sure, with antibiotics you might cut the pneumonia, HiB and meningitis deaths (leaving some kids damaged rather than dead), but as I always say, prevention is better than cure.
Millions of cases, all the people with vaccine immunity aren’t protected as well as people that have immunity from natural infection - if measles are going around a good percentage of them will get it. After you get through that you basically have every kid getting it by 5 or 6 years old, so over 3 million per year on average. There was 300-400 deaths per year when there was 4 million births per year. That was in the years leading up to 1963, there are treatment options now that would make it better now than it was back then. Also with an emphasis on dealing with malnutrition they would reduce negative impacts further. Look at the vital statistics for the New England states (the rich states) pre 1963!mortality was significantly lower there.
But now that we’ve screwed up the natural herd immunity that existed in pre 1963 era we could be in for a rough ride. But public health is aware of this, they know the currently vaccines are failing, especially as the people with natural immunity become a smaller percentage of the population. When people with natural immunity are all gone and we’re down to vaccine immunity only, it could be a mess especially if alternative treatments are withheld to try and promote vaccines - just like happened during Covid.
Other than the screw up that destroyed natural herd immunity, there is no reason it would be worse now than it was pre 1963. There is no solid basis to predict 10’s thousands of deaths, that’s fear mongering. Where are all the deaths from scarlet fever? Morality from disease was winding down on its own, with or without vaccines.
1. The immunity conferred by vaccination against measles is as durable as natural immunity.
2. Prevaccine there were around 3 million cases per year, 500 reported acute measles deaths (one study indicated around 30% underreporting), and about one to two hundred measles SSPE deaths each year. Adjusted for the current US population, if there was no vaccination and all kids got measles, there would be over 1000 deaths each year)
3. Malnutrition does worsen measles outcomes, but there is no reason to imagine malnutrition was worse in the 1960s than it is now in the US, particularly as this administration seems intent on worsening the problem, not improving it.
4. There are few strategies that are now available to lessen the mortality of measles than were already available in the 60s. Intensive care/ventilation outcomes may be superior, but that isn’t going to save many more lives in practice. There is no antiviral that is effective for treating measles. Antibiotics to treat secondary bacterial pneumonias are not necessarily much better than those we had in the 60s; indeed antibiotic resistance has if anything blunted their impact.
5. I never predicted tens of thousands of measles deaths. I indicated that with no vaccinations, diseases like pertussis, measles, polio, meningitis, HiB, Viral hepatitis, influenza, pneumococcal infections would claim over ten thousand lives.
6. Scarlet fever is a red herring (sorry for the pun). It has never been a disease suited to vaccination. Its severity is greatly reduced in the antibiotic era as nasty strep throats are usually treated (some would say overtreated) with antibiotics, and the strains have evolved. It hasn’t disappeared, anyhow. In the UK around 10 years ago there was a large resurgence. My own son had it. There has been a further resurgence in the post Covid era, with notifications reaching the levels seen 80 years ago. Perhaps it’s all the raw milk RFKjr is advocating (it is a source) 😉
He has not predicted thousands of death from measles in a single year.
He said about 1000 deaths a year in this string, but we have a long history over the years that he has exaggerated risks from disease. He has a tendency to insinuate that mortality from disease will reflect those rates that existed in the 1800’s if vaccination rates decline. Having shared with him CDC stats that demonstrate the reductions like over 98% for measles before 1963 has resulted him greatly reducing his exaggeration. However even the 1000 he’s stating now is still double what it was in the years processing 1963.
I didn't see that claim in this string. You are correct in saying that 1,000 deaths/year in the US would be a higher rate than in 1963.
It is true that the death rate from measles in the US dropped a lot between the 1930s and the 60s before the measles vaccine was introduced in the US. (to 1/5th of the level)
But after the vax was introduced it dropped essentially to nothing. (like <1/100 the level). England has a similar very steep drop in measles deaths after routine vaccination was introduced.
See this for Australia:
https://www.aihw.gov.au/getmedia/c828baef-75d9-4295-9cc9-b3d50d7153a2/aihw-phe-236_measles.pdf.aspx
It seems to me that a concerted global effort could eliminate measles (as was done with small pox), but it would require very high vax rates. And of course, "conventional public health measures" would are also very important. It is clear that the "under-vaccinated" communities are the drivers of measles cases in Canada and the US.
I'm curious as to what "alternative treatments" you are implying are/were available for Covid..
Why do you assume that nobody would be vaxxed? What future scenario are you envisioning where that happens?
Dag Waddell is advocating that we return to the time when there were no vaccines and all children get infected and we all attain super powerful herd immunity.
I’m pointing out this strategy will generate a boom in the kiddie coffin market.
Erin McCanlies was listening to the radio one morning in April when she heard RFK Jr promising to find the cause of autism by September. The secretary of HHS said he believed an environmental toxin was responsible for the dramatic increase in the condition and vowed to gather “the most credible scientists from all over the world” to solve the mystery.
Nothing like that has ever been done before, he told an interviewer.
McCanlies was stunned. The work had been done. “That’s exactly what I’ve been doing!” she said to her husband, Fred.
As an epidemiologist at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, which Kennedy oversees, McCanlies had spent much of the past two decades studying how parents’ exposure to workplace chemicals affects the chance that they will have a child with autism. Just three weeks earlier, she’d been finalizing her fourth major paper on the topic when Kennedy ELIMINATED HER ENTIRE DIVISION. Kennedy has also overseen tens of millions of dollars in CUTS to federal FUNDING for RESEARCH on AUTISM, including its environmental causes.
https://www.propublica.org/article/rfk-jr-autism-environment-research-funding
RFK junior thinks that eliminating research into chronic disease eliminates chronic disease. I guess it's like eliminating infections by eliminating testing for infections.
The world is turning upside down and inside out and so many seem not to notice.
Pollution and Climate Change are also a threat to our children.
From DeSmog Blog:
"A long-awaited film is premiering worldwide on Netflix this Friday October 31.
"The White House Effect" has no narration, just incredible contemporary footage and documents from the 1970s and 1980s woven together to remind us there was a time when solving global warming was a priority for a Republican president, and protecting the environment from fossil fuel pollution was a bipartisan mission.
It’s no fairy tale, and it’s challenging to watch knowing that George H.W. Bush’s early enthusiasm to save the future would never come to pass, thanks to fossil fuel industry obstruction"
And the same multi-billionaires who finance antivaxxers also finance the fossil fuel industry.
We've seen our share of the victims and the perpetrators right here in this commentary section.
Trump is helping RFK Jr destroy the thing he values most; his legacy.
no. rfk is actually building his own and helping the President build his legacy.
The silly little fv<ker means the stupid little fv<ker, rfk JUNIOR.
ummm kay…
RFK junior is a disgrace to the memory of RFK.
Don't do it again.
sure, pal. thanks!
You are welcome. |:
Thanks, Dr. Offit. Appreciate your continued medical advice.
Re “RFK Jr. recently declared that healthy young children don’t need a Covid vaccine”.
It’s the same advice in Australia…
The Australian Immunisation Handbook states:
QUOTE
COVID-19 vaccine is not recommended for healthy infants, children or adolescents who do not have medical conditions that increase their risk of severe illness. This is because the risk of severe illness was extremely low in this cohort over the course of the pandemic, and benefits of vaccination are not considered to outweigh the potential harms.
END OF QUOTE
Ref: https://immunisationhandbook.health.gov.au/contents/vaccine-preventable-diseases/covid-19
Elizabeth Hart is an Aussie "informed consent" OCD patient.
Firstly, "children don’t need a Covid vaccine" is not the same as "not recommended for healthy infants, children or adolescents". Everyone can still get the vaccine in Australia if they wish.
Secondly, your claim that "benefits of vaccination are not considered to outweigh the potential harms" is deliberately misleading. The actual reason for the decrease in adverse effects of the infection is that population immunity is high as a result of vaccination and infection over the past 5 years, and because most of the vulnerable have already succumbed to the infection.
But here's the difference between Australia and the US:
Australia has:
1) Universal health care.
2) Higher health status
3) Greater access to health care.
Having the vaccines available in the US to everyone over 6 months of age means that they are free for children under the Vaccine for Children program and that they will be covered by insurance.
Re "benefits of vaccination are not considered to outweigh the potential harms".
That's not my claim - I quoted The Australian Immunisation Handbook, as clearly stated in my original comment.
Should I talk to you like you're10 years of age?
Here it is dumbed down just for you, dear child:
1) RFK Jr: "healthy young children don’t need a Covid vaccine”
2) Australian Immunisation Handbook: "COVID-19 vaccine is not recommended for healthy infants, children or adolescents"
The quote in 1) is not the same as the quote in 2).
It was a minor point that allowed you to ignore the rest of my comment.
Crazy Lizzy has been vaccine headfucked forever.
This is the quote from The Australian Immunisation Handbook: "COVID-19 vaccine is not recommended for healthy infants, children or adolescents who do not have medical conditions that increase their risk of severe illness. This is because the risk of severe illness was extremely low in this cohort over the course of the pandemic, and benefits of vaccination are not considered to outweigh the potential harms." https://immunisationhandbook.health.gov.au/contents/vaccine-preventable-diseases/covid-19
It's under the hyperlink: "Healthy infants, children and adolescents aged <18 years are not recommended to receive COVID-19 vaccine".
Here's the direct link: https://immunisationhandbook.health.gov.au/recommendations/healthy-infants-children-and-adolescents-aged
Thanks for confirming that the Australian Immunisation Handbook does NOT say "children don’t need a Covid vaccine".
As you now seem to have acknowledged, is that it actually says "COVID-19 vaccine is for healthy infants, children or adolescents who do not have medical conditions that increase their risk of severe illness".
Which, clearly, is not the same as, "children don’t need a Covid vaccine".
Congratulations for finally getting there. |:
CORRECTION OF ABOVE REPLY:
(no idea how those two words disappeared)
Thanks for confirming that the Australian Immunisation Handbook does NOT say "children don’t need a Covid vaccine".
As you now seem to have acknowledged, is that it actually says "COVID-19 vaccine is not recommended for healthy infants, children or adolescents who do not have medical conditions that increase their risk of severe illness".
Which, clearly, is not the same as, "children don’t need a Covid vaccine".
Congratulations for finally getting there. |:
@ Billy Joe you seem to think that the vaccines saved lives? If that were so… Explain world data to me? Surely if the vaccines were so effective that trend would have flatlined as soon as they were introduced, Instead of taping off once the omicron became the dominant variant.
A NoVax:
"Surely if the vaccines were so effective that trend would have flatlined as soon as they were introduced"
Thanks for illustrating your abysmal science illiteracy and arrogance of ignorance.
Please respond so I can kick your arse some more.
Typical leftard comment… The problem with you people is you have lost your brains to an ideology. This is why you’re more than willing to make a stupid comment like this without addressing the trend… That’s because your ideology doesn’t withstand an amount of scrutiny. Just like the other dumb ass that made a comment below… you both are light entertainment
A NoVax:
"... leftard ... you people ... lost your brains ... ideology ... "
I think you just kicked your own arse, you silly little twerp.
RELIGION IS DOGMA.
POLITICS IS IDEOLOGY
SCIENCE IS A DISCIPLINE.
You "leftard!"
You'll never know what you're missing - deluded grifter dick is sweeter Down Under.
The lives saved by Covid vaccines (14 million at most recent estimation) need to be seen in the context of background Covid virus mutations leading to renewed surges of infection and the fact that the vaccine immunity wears off after 6-12 months. And recall, it is mainly the unvaccinated who died during Covid surges.
A vaccine that saves lives isn’t by definition required to save every life.
Your trend is similar to mine and proves exactly what I’m talking about… How do you not see that? Models were wrong and way off target… Fact! You will recall they said the vaccines were 99% effective and you won’t die if you take them… This is amateur hour so don’t bother wasting any more of my time
What are you talking about, exactly.
Without vaccines, covid deaths would be double, or treble the number there were.
Both our charts show that as vaccines were rolled out, covid deaths declined.
…QED
Then why did the trend in worldwide deaths stay on the same trajectory? Ffs mate use your brain…
What do you mean by the “same trajectory”
What was the “trajectory”, prior to vaccination and prior to the pandemic?
The analysis of lives saved by the vaccine specifically uses the estimated trajectory for deaths, and then looks at what the observed numbers of death were during the era of vaccination.
If fewer deaths occurred than expected from Covid, that deficit is attributed to the life-saving effect of vaccination.
For example, if the predicted death toll for Covid was say 5 million in 2022, but it turned out to be “only” 3 million, then the epidemiologists will calculate how much of that 2 million difference is determined to be the result of vaccines. (It’s more complex than that, but I’ve dumbed it down to help show you what I mean).
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9537923/
Models vs actual data…
Are you delibrately making idiotic statements?
Fuck right off with your bullshit, Liz. You've been ranting against ALL vaccines for over a decade.
"COVID-19 vaccine is not recommended for healthy infants, children or adolescents who do not have medical conditions that increase their risk of severe illness."
I’m glad you regard everything in the Australian Immunisation handbook as the gospel truth, Elizabeth.
Perhaps you can start publicising and promoting the rest of it.
Not just for Covid, where it states: “Primary course vaccination is recommended for all people aged 18 years and older”, but for all the other vaccinations too.
Offit has been an integral operator in pediatric health for 40 years. During that time period, the objective measurable health outcomes in American children have declined precipitously. In addition, confidence in the vaccine schedule has plummeted- to the point that fewer than 20% of US health care professionals heed his advice on flu and covid shots.
It would be nice to see him show some humility and contrition for his role in the collapse of faith in pediatric medicine in this country- alas, he is too busy counting his ducats for that.
Now- this:
"The totality of evidence supports a multifactorial model of ASD in which genetic predisposition, neuroimmune biology, environmental toxicants, perinatal stressors, and iatrogenic exposures converge to produce the phenotype of a post-encephalitic state. Combination and early-timed routine childhood vaccination constitutes the most significant modifiable risk factor for ASD, supported by convergent mechanistic, clinical, and epidemiologic findings, and characterized by intensified use, the clustering of multiple doses during critical neurodevelopmental windows, and the lack of research on the cumulative safety of the full pediatric schedule. As ASD prevalence continues to rise at an unprecedented pace, clarifying the risks associated with cumulative vaccine dosing and timing remains an urgent public health priority."
https://zenodo.org/records/17451259
Josh excels at self-abasement - linking to an online blurb dressed up as an academic paper, put out by - WAKEFIELD MEDIA GROUP and MCCULLOUGH Foundation (He's using the name of an unrelated NY-based 501(c)(3). Every "author" employed directly and only by Peewee McCullough.
You've been paid by Bobby and CHD for years. You served up your own teenage daughter for CHD's and Aaron Siri's ambulance chasing, cash extracting crusade. You cynically and dishonestly invoke "religious freedom" for your own selfish purposes - and for cash.
Exodus 20:7 - "You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name."
Isaiah 29:13
"Offit has been an integral operator in pediatric health for 40 years." That bit is true. The rest, flawed talking points.
Exodus 23:1
Proverbs 6:16–19
Deuteronomy 19:16–19
Proverbs 19:5
Accusing Offit of responsibility and complicity in the deterioration of [say] children's mental health in recent decades is just stupid.
Let's look at these "measurable health outcomes" which you say have declined preipitously, and Offit's possible contributory roles...
INFANT AND CHILD MORTALITY has significantly decreased, due to advances in healthcare, and vaccines (WELL DONE DR OFFIT!)
OBESITY AND PHYSICAL INACTIVITY have worsened and are a major public health issue [These have nothing to do with Offit]
MENTAL HEALTH issues in younger people have risen, particularly conditions like depression and anxiety. [I can't see how Offit could have played a role with this]
VACCINATION coverage has remained high and even improved [WELL DONE DR OFFIT!], but recent disruptions from Covid and antivax sentiment have led to some declines in coverage in some areas.
ENVIRONMENTL exposures to toxins have decreased, but new challenges like climate change are emerging.
It's also quite sinful, coming from such a fine "Christian" (of convenience) as Josh. Just like falsely claiming "religious" vaccine prohibitions.
Exodus 20:7 and 23:1
Titus 1:16
Proverbs 6:16–19 and 19:5
Deuteronomy 19:16–19
Gosh, I'm amazed Mazer is back after the trashing he got last time. But he has bared his arse once more.
I'm older than Offit. I'm also older than RFK. So, I will weigh in as I always do and give the readers a short history lesson. I encourage them to do their homework.
You don't have to spend the countless hours reading more than 10K pages of studies just to determine that vaccines will never be "safe and effective." All you need to do is to ask the thousands of families who have suffered catastrophic injuries. They know that "safe" did not apply to them.
The tired tropes and ad hominem attacks on RFK are now part of a concerted effort funded by and directed by Phrma and their shills.
If you want your due process rights suspended and you are fine with playing Russian roulette with your infant child by surrendering to the "expert" opinion of Offit, then feel free to do so. Commenters here are mostly those who say "nothing happened to my child." Great.
But, I'll post something that has changed minds ( if only a minority %) for more than a decade.
Today, I will not respond to any of the slander and standard mudslinging. The goals is the same as as always. Change how people think. One at a time.
“Vaccines Are Unavoidably Unsafe”
Don’t take my word for it. These are the words of Justice Scalia in Bruesewitz v. Wyeth, LLC in a Supreme Court decision in 2011.
Unfortunately, due to the protections afforded the vaccine maker in the National Childhood Vaccine Act of 1986, the Court ruled against a vaccine injured plaintiff in the case. How?
In the 1980s, children were having adverse reactions to the DTP (diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis) vaccine. Lots of lawsuits were being filed against docs and vaccine manufacturers. This caused the pharmaceutical industry to threaten pulling out of the vaccine market, and the alarm bells rang that the nation’s health and safety were at risk. Why were vaccine manufacturers getting ready to take their ball and go home? Because vaccines fall into a class of products considered “unavoidably unsafe.” I am not kidding you. This “unavoidable” word comes from the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act itself “products which, in the present state of human knowledge, are quite incapable of being made safe.”
In 1986, Congress decided on a way to compensate folks for these avoidable injuries and death. It is called the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. From 2001 until 2011 the program has compensated about 2500 families a total of $2 billion. There has been close to $6 billion paid to date since inception. But, that represents only a small fraction of those who actually brought claims to the Vaccine Court. You see, there is a 36 month window to bring the claim. There is no “tolling” granted for minors, unlike all the Civil Courts in the U.S. Guess what? Neurological injuries may not present in infants for long after 36 months. Furthermore, who knows how many cases were never brought by attorneys on behalf of a vaccine injured child, because the statute of limitations ran out?
Don’t let anyone tell you that vaccines don’t cause injury. They have, they do and they will do so in the future. For years, Thimerosal was used as a preservative in multi-dose vials. While still proclaiming it “safe”, vaccine makers “voluntarily” removed Thimerosal. It is still present in trace amounts and in flu vaccine. Thimerosal was never approved by the FDA, as the patents predated the establishment of said regulations. Worried?
My family sued Phrma vaccine makers in 2002. They ran to Congress and wrote the 'Lilly Rider" and attached it to the Homeland Security Act, literally in the middle of the night. Just to get our case dismissed in U.S. District Court. That's after a Federal Judge "stayed" the action pending a decision in USCFC. That had never happened before. The Judge obviously thought that "due process" as guaranteed by our Constitution was a pretty good idea.
With nearly 6,000 cases pending the USCFC held the “Omnibus Autism Hearings.” They decided not to make “autism” a “table injury.” How convenient. Since there would never be enough money to pay for all who claim an “autism” injury. But, there have been many cases compensated for “encephalopathy” as a diagnosis with reference to autism. You can read it for yourself:
http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1681&context=...
For the record, I am not “anti-vaccine.” Both of my children were fully vaccinated. Unfortunately for us, our son was neurologically disabled by vaccines. It is indisputable, yet the government and the vaccine makers still think that there is a “greater good” to be served.
They may be right. But, let’s not fool ourselves. Vaccines should be made safer. It is about money.
The claim that Scalia declared “vaccines are unavoidably unsafe” in Bruesewitz v. Wyeth (2011) is false. He quoted the phrase from a 1965 legal treatise; a liability term describing certain products, like vaccines, that can’t be made ENTIRELY RISK FREE, but whose benefits outweigh their risks. In Bruesewitz, the Court ruled that federal law shields vaccine makers from design-defect lawsuits because Congress created a special compensation system for rare injuries, NOT because vaccines are inherently dangerous. The decision was about legal liability.
You are correct but annapoLIES will never stop repeating the LIES.
Neither. You proved the point. The Orwellian wordsmiths will do most anything to avoid saying the quiet part out loud. Please read everything I wrote about "safe."
"Rare" injuries, my ass.
Who's misleading who?
IT IS ABOUT MONEY.
AnnapoLIES,
You have been corrected so many times it is amazing you continue to push this trash.
You do not understand science.
You do not understand the law.
Period.
STOP EMBARRASSING YOURSELF.
He gets off on being insufferable. Probably some dementia too.
Annapolism LIES always;
The phrase is a technical legal term, not a scientific judgment. When vaccine opponents quote “Vaccines are unavoidably unsafe” and attribute it to Scalia or SCOTUS they misrepresent both the origin and meaning of the phrase.
Scalia’s opinion did not declare that “vaccines are unavoidably unsafe” as a factual statement. He used the legal phrase only to describe how Congress viewed vaccines under the NCVIA: as products that inevitably carry some small risk, and thus required a special compensation framework to ensure vaccine availability.
The decision;
Did not imply vaccines are inherently dangerous or unsafe in a general sense.
Did not suggest they’re “unavoidably unsafe” in everyday language.
Did not come from scientific evidence or a finding of risk by the Court.
Thanks for that, it saves me the trouble of correcting this clown once again!
"You don't have to spend the countless hours reading more than 10K pages of studies just to determine that vaccines will never be "safe and effective."
No, you just need to ask any doctor...they should tell you that nothing is 100% safe and effective. That's Nirvana thinking.
They will, if they know much about vaccines and human cognitive biases, tell you that reports of injury following vaccination are almost all coincidence...the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, where people misattribute something to be the cause of the problem merely because it preceded the problem.
As for vaccines being "unavoidably unsafe"? ...Yes, like all medical products, nothing can be made to be 100% safe...there will always be a risk, no matter how minuscule, that a vaccine might provoke a reaction.
Excellent summary of the facts. So, so sorry about your son. It's always interesting to me, the contempt that vaccine industry folks have for the vaccine injured and their families. It's like, "How DARE you have a problem with products manufactured or approved by such exalted beings as ourselves!" It's bad enough that they have no empathy or compassion, nor any curiosity about the possibility that their products are maiming children and ruining lives, but it's beyond the pale that they compound their sin by ridiculing the victims. Sick.
When the Institute of Medicine's Immunization Safety Review Committee was tasked with determining the validity of the alleged link between vaccines and autism, they pretended to study the issue between early 2001 and 2004, when they issued their report, which stated: "The committee concludes that the evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism" ... "The committee concludes that the evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between MMR vaccine and autism" ... "At this time, the committee does not recommend a policy review of the current schedule and recommendations for the administration of routine childhood vaccines based on hypotheses regarding thimerosal and autism." What was not known at the time was that at their very first session in January of 2001, the Chair of the committee, Dr. Marie McCormick, M.D., stated, "We are not ever going to come down that [autism] is a true side effect." At the same session, Study Director Kathy Stratton said, "The point of no return, the line we will not cross in public policy is ‘pull the vaccine, change the schedule.’ We wouldn’t say ‘compensate [the injured].’" From the transcripts, it appears that the main task of the committee was figuring out how to mislead the medical community and the public that there was nothing to worry about in terms of an autism connection, without telling any bald-faced lies. Our tax dollars at work. Another thing I didn't know until just recently is that the IOM (now the National Academy of Medicine) is a private entity that accepts donations from corporations, including drug companies. Incredible.
Caught telling the truth:
https://archive.org/stream/TheSimpsonwoodDocuments/The-Simpsonwood-Documents_djvu.txt
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2005-feb-08-fi-vaccine8-story.html
Your nonsense was trashed 15 years ago (Jan. 16, 2011):
In 2005, Salon published online a story by RFK Jr. that offered an explosive premise: that the mercury-based thimerosal compound present in vaccines until 2001 was dangerous, and that he was “convinced that the link between thimerosal and the epidemic of childhood neurological disorders is real.”
The piece was co-published with Rolling Stone magazine. In the days after running “Deadly Immunity,” we amended the story with five corrections (which can still be found logged here) that went far in undermining Kennedy’s exposé. At the time, we felt that correcting the piece and keeping it on the site, in the spirit of transparency, was the best way to operate. But subsequent critics, including Seth Mnookin 2011 book “The Panic Virus,” FURTHER ERODED AND FAITH WE HAD IN THE STORY'S VALUE. We’ve grown to believe the best reader service is to delete the piece entirely.
https://www.salon.com/2011/01/16/dangerous_immunity/
I guess we should allow "Salon" to determine due process rights? Only a 'Russian Nazi" would think that it should not be the justice system of the U.S to adjudicate such matters.
Salon published bobby's piece of shit. Shortly after which they corrected bobby's lies five times. Until they finally pulled it down, because it was BULLSHIT. Fifteen years ago. Simpsonwood that, Due Processor.