Dear WHO, CDC & NYT: Your industry bias is showing

This is a collaborative post put together by janny organically + Samantha Lynn. We are not doctors and in no way should anything we write be taken as medical advice. We understand this is a lengthy post, but felt that it was necessary to give appropriate amounts of airtime to the less-talked about, but important to provide a wider lens into the world of vaccination and mandates.

You can play the podcast version by clicking below:

The WHO, CDC and NYT, in an effort to silence legitimate questions and concerns around immunization, scientific integrity and industry bias and corruption, have tried to bucket us into a single category that elicits disdain and repulsion:


This term is purely clickbait as they admit this Anti-Vaxx tag applies to just 2% of parents, while the rest sit along a spectrum of “vaccine hesitancy.” The Anti-Vaxx term is used in hopes that the Pro-Vaxx camp will publicly shame and humiliate the others into silence.

Whether Pro-Vaxx, Anti-Vaxx or anywhere in between, the majority of parents are simply ANTI-MANDATED VACCINES and this gives us common ground. We do not appreciate being categorized into one of two buckets and refuse to be used as pawns in these games of identity politics. Those sitting along that spectrum are beginning to stand up and fight back.

As aware, alert and educated individuals, we have a general distrust of the pharmaceutical industry and their profit motives, the government regulatory body’s competence in protecting the citizens from the industry and level of training provided to the medical industry which is largely supplied by the pharmaceutical industry.

the global health threats

Let’s back up a bit. What got this all started and why are we up in arms? Last week, The World Health Organization (WHO)  listed ‘Vaccine Hesitancy’ as one of their top 10 global threats of 2019.

WHO says the public’s trusted advisor and influencer of vaccine decisions should be the health workers and call for support in providing them trusted, credible information on vaccines. This seems like a valid goal, but what qualifies as trusted and credible? Are diseases making a comeback? If, so, why? Were they ever really gone? What about herd immunity? How much of the herd is enough? The science is settled right? Not so fast.

The New York Times has written numerous articles about the dangers of questioning vaccine safety and the history of disease and eradication, but specifically, they detail an action plan on How to Inoculate Against Anti-Vaxxers. Let’s look at some of their claims and the data they seem to have overlooked, starting with the pharmaceutical companies.

Jump to:

Pharmaceutical Industry Influence

In the United States, the pharmaceutical companies who manufacture the vaccines:

  • Are exempt from being held liable for injury or death caused by their vaccines

  • Familiarize yourself with the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 and how the taxpayers have burdened over $4 billion in vaccine injury payouts thus far and how after this law went into effect, they were free to recommended increasing the pediatric vaccine schedule from 24 doses of 7 vaccines to 69 doses of 16 vaccines.

  • Push for combination vaccines so parents cannot choose single-dose vaccinations for specific diseases

    • In fact, a recent independent evaluation of Infanrix, GlaxoSmithKline’s (GSK) 6-in-1 pediatric vaccine, exposed that not only was this vaccine cross-contaminated with 65 chemical toxins, 65% of which were unknown, but there were NO protein antigens of the diseases it claimed to protect against: Diphtheria, Tetanus, Pertussis, Hepatitis B, Influenza B, Poliomyelitis.

    • A confidential internal GSK document about this vaccine revealed 825 different types of complications and adverse effects including 503 serious effects not listed and 36 deaths, most of which occurred within 3 days of the vaccine administration. Full document linked here.

      • “Another extremely salient aspect is that among the very serious adverse effects recorded by GSK we can see: autism, sudden infant death (SIDS) and ‘child abuse syndrome.’  These are all conditions which the health authorities have always denied to have even the slightest link with vaccines.”

  • Fund the studies that “prove” vaccines are safe, even though evidence shows industry-funded trials publish positive outcomes 35% more often than government-funded trials

  • Financially contribute to non-profit, non-federal organization studies which report positive outcomes over 23% more than those without industry funding

  • Withhold publishing studies that convey a negative outcome for their product

    • “According the the published literature, it appeared that 94% of the trials conducted were positive. By contrast, the FDA analysis showed that 51% were positive.

  • Do not use inert placebo (i.e. saline) control studies, instead, they use an adjuvant, such as aluminum/thimerosal, or another vaccine, and compare the results as if it is a real placebo control, yet it is really vaccine vs. adjuvant or vaccine vs. other vaccine.

    • A recent study used an inert placebo control group against a vaccine group and an adjuvant group were able to show the vast difference between the 3 groups in the development of granulomas post injection

  • Are able to financially contribute to the editors of journals they submit their studies for publication

  • Have financial ties to healthcare companies/doctors which are not disclosed 63% of the time in their published studies, and in fact, in one example a doctor stated “no conflicts of interest” when in fact he received upwards of $8 million from the industry for “research.” (The New York Times themselves reporting this!)

  • Give millions of dollars to authors of medical textbooks

  • Spends the most money lobbying in Washington; as of 2018, that number is close to $4 billion in the past 20 years

  • Financially contribute to members of congress; over $27 million in 2018 alone

Without scientific integrity and with current pharmaceutical bias and influence, mandated vaccines are lacking justification and should be considered a violation of human rights.

The Health and Human Services (HHS) Lawsuit

After signing the National Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 into effect,  HHS was required to comply with the following:

(a) General rule

In the administration of this part and other pertinent laws under the jurisdiction of the Secretary, the Secretary shall—

(1) promote the development of childhood vaccines that result in fewer and less serious adverse reactions than those vaccines on the market on December 22, 1987, and promote the refinement of such vaccines, and

(2) make or assure improvements in, and otherwise use the authorities of the Secretary with respect to, the licensing, manufacturing, processing, testing, labeling, warning, use instructions, distribution, storage, administration,

field surveillance, adverse reaction reporting, and recall of reactogenic lots or batches, of vaccines, and research on vaccines, in order to reduce the risks of adverse reactions to vaccines.

(b) Task force

(1) The Secretary shall establish a task force on safer childhood vaccines which shall consist of the Director of the National Institutes of Health, the Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, and the Director of the Centers for Disease Control.

(2) The Director of the National Institutes of Health shall serve as chairman of the task force.

(3) In consultation with the Advisory Commission on Childhood Vaccines, the task force shall prepare recommendations to the Secretary concerning implementation of the requirements of subsection (a).

(c) Report

Within 2 years after December 22, 1987, and periodically thereafter, the Secretary shall prepare and transmit to the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Labor and Human Resources of the Senate a report describing the actions taken pursuant to subsection (a) during the preceding 2-year period.

ICAN (Informed Consent Action Network) submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for any information or documentation related to the work done by HHS pursuant to the reporting requirement required mentioned above. Although agencies are required to respond to FOIA requests within 20 days, ICAN waited over a year for a response.

Eventually, a lawsuit was filed, with the sole intention of confirming whether or not HHS had complied with the requirements in section 300aa-27 as detailed above. ICAN requested one of the following: 1) documents or records proving that the work was completed as mandated, 2) a credible response detailing why the documents cannot be released, or 3) a statement confirming that the work was never completed.

The lawsuit went to court, and they settled with a court-ordered stipulation confirming that HHS had not acted in its duties regarding vaccine safety. They have failed to submit biennial reports over the last 30 years.

ICAN had issued a 20+ page document questioning how the HHS establishes safety without the appropriate studies and the HHS responded in an 11 page reply, signed off by all the government-powers-that-be:

  • HHS

  • Centers for Disease Control (CDC)

  • National Vaccine Program Office (NVPO)

  • Office of General Council (OGC)

  • Office of Government and Community Affairs (OGCA)

  • Federal Drug Administration (FDA)

  • Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA)

  • National Institutes for Health (NIH)

  • Agency for Healthcare and Research Quality (AHRQ)

  • Assistant Secretary for Financial Services (ASFR)

From what we know so far, their response cited over 1,000 studies, so ICAN took a year to read them and sent back an 80 page response. The initial concerns surround the placebo control studies:

  • HHS claims many clinical trials included a placebo yet later say, “Inert placebo controls are not required to understand the safety profile of a new some cases inclusion of placebo control groups is considered unethical.”

  • ICAN points out the contradiction of these statements including HHS’s own definition which states that a placebo IS an inert substance that has no effect on human beings. According to HHS, “The ‘gold standard’ for testing interventions in people is the ‘randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial,’” which they admit they simply don’t do.

Vaccine safety is repeatedly championed as “well-studied” and “proven.” Yet, regulatory agencies allowing older vaccines (for which there were no inert placebo controls to begin with) to be used as the controls in clinical trials is irresponsible and clearly cannot provide a thorough safety profile.

Vaccines are not inert, yet as seen in the chart below, you can see the flow of how vaccines are compared to other vaccines instead of a placebo. Well, all except one, which we’ll go into later, but basically, the HPV study that used a placebo control showed zero adverse effects, so those results were combined with a non-inert “placebo” group that did have adverse effects.


By the way, if you haven’t realized it by now, a vaccine like Hepatitis B, which also isn’t tested against an inert placebo, is given on the first day of an infant’s life. Coincidentally America has the highest first day infant death rate of all industrialized countries in the world combined! Vaccination; the leading cause of coincidence?

Overall, we have highest rate of infant mortality out of all developed countries, with more deaths being attributed to SIDS than other causes.

It wouldn’t be a conversation about freedom without directing your attention to the United States Constitution. Although vaccination is in violation of the valid and sincerely-held religious beliefs of many, the right to opt out on religious grounds is slowly disappearing, and already has in some states. This is a blatant disregard for (among many other things) our First Amendment right to practice our religion freely.

The Free Exercise clause, which would allow force vaccination in the interest of “public safety,” simply cannot, in good conscience, apply without sufficient evidence demonstrating the safety and effectiveness of the vaccinations in question. The response from ICAN to the HHS is a great example of the failure to do so. 


Thwarting this danger [vaccine hesitancy] will require a campaign as bold and aggressive as the one being waged by the anti-vaccination contingent. And to launch such a campaign would require overcoming strong inertia: a waning public health a apparatus, countervailing politics and a collective amnesia over the havoc the diseases in question once wrought. 

No one with any historical knowledge grounded in reality would deny that infectious diseases were serious prior to the implementation of water treatment facilities, proper sanitation, and nutrition. If anything, there has been a “collective amnesia” over the importance of sanitation and the cost of vaccination. Although, it can hardly be called amnesia when the complete, unbiased history of infectious diseases and their respective vaccines has largely been deliberately left out of the conversation on public health.


The failure of vaccine mandates to achieve disease eradication is likely best showcased by the town of Leicester in the 1800s and what came to be known as “The Leicester Method.” Despite strict mandatory vaccination laws, smallpox incidence remained high. It was only when the residents of Leicester abandoned vaccination and implemented quarantine and sanitation practices that they saw a dramatic reduction in smallpox cases

  • Leicester fared much better than surrounding populations. For example, in the 1893 smallpox outbreak, the well-vaccinated district of Mold in Flintshire, England, had a death rate about 32 times higher than Leicester (Suzanne Humphries, MD, Dissolving Illusions).

  • Leicester is one of the first of many examples which validates the successes of quarantine and sanitation in the reduction of infectious disease rates. Ironically, it was also the inception of one of the first large-scale “anti-vaccine” movements. And Andy Wakefield wasn’t even there! ;)


Since the original New York Times article highlighted the United States specifically, here is a look at just how filthy our living conditions were here prior to water treatment, sanitation, etc.:

  • By the second half of the century, according to public health reports from around the country, thousands of dead horses, goats, pigs, and cattle lay imbedded in uncollected filth, often for days and weeks. The streets of Boston, Chicago, New York, New Orleans, and other growing communities were filthy with accumulations of manure from the horses that traversed the area, as well as dead dogs, cats, and rats, and household and vegetable refuse. In some cities, public health officials estimated that in winter, refuse accumulated to depths of two to three feet.”

  • “In city after city, although no vaccines, antitoxins, or other technologies were available, older, traditional tools such as quarantine, isolation, suspension of school and church meetings, and limits on public gatherings were used to lessen contacts that might lead to the spread of the [influenza] epidemic.”

  • Another study on disease rates echoes this fact: A 2004 statistical study of disease rates in cities found clean water to be the reason for rapid declines in urban death rates during the late 19th and early 20th Centuries. The study concludes that clean water was responsible for “nearly half of the total mortality reduction in major cities, three-quarters of the infant mortality reduction, and nearly two-thirds of the child mortality reduction.” The study puts forth a striking finding — that chlorination and filtration reduced typhoid fever by 91 percent within 5 years, leading to its near-eradication by 1936.

As you can see, the fatalities from these particular infectious diseases were on a noticeable decline well before the introduction of a vaccine.

The evidence supports the notion that the contribution of medical measures to decrease in mortality in the twentieth century is questionable.

  • “In general, medical measures (both chemotherapeutic and prophylactic) appear to have contributed little to the overall decline in mortality in the United States since about 1900 - having in many instances been introduced several decades after a marked decline had already set in and having no detectable influence in most instances. More specifically, with references to those five conditions (influenza, pneumonia, diphtheria, whooping cough, and poliomyelitis) for which the decline in mortality appears substantial after the point of intervention - and on the unlikely assumption that all of this decline is attributable to the intervention - it is estimated that at most 3.5 percent of the total decline in mortality since 1900 could be ascribed to medical measures introduced for the diseases considered here.”

  • Per the article linked above, there are several graphs which show the decline of various diseases and the interventions which are commonly credited with their decline. To the right are graphs showing rates for Measles, Influenza, Whooping Cough, and Poliomyelitis, along with an indication of the introduction of their respective vaccines.


The consequences of [vaccine hesitancy] are substantial: a surge in outbreaks of measles, mumps, pertussis and other diseases; an increase in influenza deaths; and dismal rates of HPV vaccination, which doctors say could effectively wipe out cervical cancer if it were better utilized.

Be clear. Vaccines, to some extent, are victims of their own success. In the United States especially, they’ve beaten so many infectious foes into oblivion...In developing countries, people line up for hours to get these shots.

Get tough. After the 2014 California measles outbreak, the state eliminated nonmedical exemptions for mandatory vaccinations...Other states ought to follow this lead, and the federal government should consider tightening restrictions around how much leeway states can grant families that want to skip essential vaccines.

“Measles is one of the most contagious and most lethal of all human diseases....if the percentage of children in a community who have received the measles vaccine falls below 90 percent to 95 percent, we can start to see major outbreaks, as in the 1950s.”


The 95% Herd Immunity Threshold is a mathematical theory that has never been tested. In fact, we can see how it doesn’t hold true with China as an example:

The reported coverage of the measles–rubella (MR) or measles–mumps–rubella (MMR) vaccine is greater than 99.0% in Zhejiang province. However, the incidence of measles, mumps, and rubella remains high.”

Dr Russell Blaylock, retired Neurosurgeon explains:

“In the original description of herd immunity, the protection to the population at large occurred only if people contracted the infections naturally. The reason for this is that naturally-acquired immunity lasts for a lifetime. The vaccine proponents quickly latched onto this concept and applied it to vaccine-induced immunity. But, there was one major problem – vaccine-induced immunity lasted for only a relatively short period, from 2 to 10 years at most, and then this applies only to humoral immunity. This is why they began, silently, to suggest boosters for most vaccines, even the common childhood infections such as chickenpox, measles, mumps, and rubella.

Then they discovered an even greater problem, the boosters were lasting for only 2 years or less. This is why we are now seeing mandates that youth entering colleges have multiple vaccines, even those which they insisted gave lifelong immunity, such as the MMR. The same is being suggested for full-grown adults. Ironically, no one in the media or medical field is asking what is going on. They just accept that it must be done.

That vaccine-induced herd immunity is mostly myth can be proven quite simply. When I was in medical school, we were taught that all of the childhood vaccines lasted a lifetime. This thinking existed for over 70 years. It was not until relatively recently that it was discovered that most of these vaccines lost their effectiveness 2 to 10 years after being given. What this means is that at least half the population, that is the baby boomers, have had no vaccine-induced immunity against any of these diseases for which they had been vaccinated very early in life. In essence, at least 50% or more of the population was unprotected for decades.

Mandating to vaccines by eliminating personal, religious and even medical exemptions to reach 95%+ compliance based on theory is misguided. While parents have avoided mandates by choosing to homeschool, a so-called loophole, others are not in a position to do so and are literally forced to watch as their children receive medical procedures based on fear, faulty logic and media sound bites.


  • Measles has never been eliminated. It’s a cyclical illness and averages 120 cases per year with cases during the year they say it was eliminated in 2000

  • Complications of measles are grossly overstated in the media. The CDC itself documents these percentages in the most popular ones used to instill fear:

    • Encephalitis (0.1%)

    • Death (0.2%)

  • Conversely, The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) statistics are underreported representing less than 1% of actual vaccine adverse events. VAERS is far from being utilized properly in order to effectively compare statistics.

  • The vaccine was introduced in 1963, so you can see according to the CDC’s statistics to the right, the rate of measles fatalities was practically zero prior to the vaccine (see more diseases that track similarly).

  • In the decade before the vaccine was introduced, the CDC estimates 3 to 4 million people in the United States got measles each year. Among reported cases, an estimated 400 to 500 people died. If we use the high end of these estimates, your risk of death once you had measles was 0.000125 (.01%). The population in 1960 was 179,323,175, so your TOTAL risk for contracting measles and dying in 1960 (before the vaccine) was 0.0000028 (0.0002%). Just for fun, here is a quick look at the public perception on measles before the vaccine was introduced.

  • Studies show that measles complications arise in nutrient-deficient individuals (namely vitamin A), and, as with most diseases, lack of access to clean water and sanitation. By catching wild measles, one acquires lifelong immunity, and immune-mothers would pass their immunity to their baby during the risk zone of infancy. With artificial immunization, no one has lifelong immunity and now infants, pregnant mothers and the elderly are at risk unless they receive continual vaccination, assuming they’re not in the 10% of the population who fail to mount antibody levels from vaccination.

Consider this perspective from this publication in The Journal of Infectious Diseases:

  • “Children of mothers vaccinated against measles and, possibly, rubella have lower concentrations of maternal antibodies and lose protection by maternal antibodies at an earlier age than children of mothers in communities that oppose vaccination. This increases the risk of disease transmission in highly vaccinated populations. MMR vaccine induces lower antibody levels than natural infection with measles, mumps, and rubella and that antibody levels of vaccinated cohorts are no longer boosted by exposure to wild-type infection.”



Arguably one of the most concerning aspects of the flu vaccine is the way in which media presents the “threat” of influenza.

  • In 2004, the CDC’s Glen Nowak shared a presentation titled, “Increasing Awareness and Uptake of Influenza Immunization” at the National Influenza Vaccine Summit in Atlanta, Georgia. Nowak explained how to create demand for influenza vaccination. The presentation stated “Dominant strain and/or initial cases of disease are in cities and communities with significant media outlets” and included a “recipe” for creating vaccine demand. A couple interesting ingredients of the recipe:

    • Calling for medical experts and public health authorities to “publicly (e.g., via media) state concern and alarm (and predict dire outcomes) and urge influenza vaccination.

    • framing of the flu season in terms that motivate behavior (e.g., as ‘very severe,’ ‘more severe than last or past years,’ ‘deadly’).”

    • Fostering demand, particularly among people who don’t routinely receive an annual influenza vaccination, requires creating concern, anxiety, and worry. For example: A perception or sense that many people are falling ill; A perception or sense that many people are experiencing bad illness; A perception or sense of vulnerability to contracting and experiencing bad illness.”

  • In an article published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ), Dr. Peter Doshi posed the question, “Are US Flu Death Figures More PR Than Science?

    • “David Rosenthal, director of Harvard University Health Services, said, ‘People don't necessarily die, per se, of the [flu] virus—the viraemia. What they die of is a secondary pneumonia. So many of these pneumonias are not viral pneumonias but secondary [pneumonias].’”

    • According to the CDC's National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), ‘influenza and pneumonia’ took 62,034 lives in 2001 - 61,777 of which were attributed to pneumonia and 257 to flu, and in only 18 cases was flu virus positively identified. Between 1979 and 2002, NCHS data show an average 1,348 flu deaths per year.

    • The article includes the following from Dr. Nowak: “At that point, the manufacturers were telling us that they weren't receiving a lot of orders for vaccine for use in November or even December,” recalled Dr Nowak on National Public Radio. “It really did look like we needed to do something to encourage people to get a flu shot.

In 2006, Cochrane Collaboration’s Dr. Tom Jefferson issued a report about the flu vaccine in the BMJ.

  • Of particular interest and relevance to our response: Cochrane’s stated goal as an organization is to provide “health information that is free from commercial sponsorship and other conflicts of interest.” What a concept!

  • Dr. Jefferson’s report found a “large gap between policy and what the data tell us” and “a gross overestimation of the impact of influenza.”

  • The large gap between policy and what the data tell us (when rigorously assembled and evaluated) is surprising.” He also references “potential confusion between influenza and influenza-like illness - when any case of illness resembling influenza is seen as real influenza.

  • Dr. Jefferson points out that, “The optimistic and confident tone of some predictions of viral circulation and of the impact of inactivated vaccines, which are at odds with the evidence, is striking.” He noted that a “re-evaluation [of the use of the flu vaccine] should be urgently undertaken.

Some studies show the influenza vaccine effectiveness is limited and can increase your risk for other illness.

  • The Cochrane database concluded “...the general quality of influenza vaccines studies is very low and that publication in prestigious journals is associated with partial or total industry is likely that that data presented in this review are so biased as to be virtually uninterpretable.

  • According to Cochrane database: “At best, vaccines might be effective against only influenza A and B, which represent about 10% of all circulating viruses” and furthermore, “Our results may be an optimistic estimate because company-sponsored influenza vaccines trials tend to produce results favorable to their products and some of the evidence comes from trials carried out in ideal viral circulation and matching conditions and because the harms evidence base is limited.”

  • Another study shows influenza vaccines have a modest effect in reducing influenza symptoms and working days lost. There is no evidence that they affect complications, such as pneumonia, or transmission.

  • One study demonstrated that receiving the flu shot, increases your risk four-fold for upper respiratory infection.

Again, time-proven methods of disease management are virtually ignored. This paper continues to validate the importance of quarantine and sanitation: “For the most part, despite our advances, the basic means of addressing influenza remain the same as those nearly a century ago. Public health education, isolation, sanitation, lessening congestion, closures, and surveillance are essential tools.


HPV usually resolves without intervention within a few years. Further reduction of cervical cancers might be best achieved by optimizing cervical screening.

  • “More importantly, it is well known that 70% of cytologically expressed infections will resolve within one year and more than 90% of HPV will resolve within two to three years. Of these unresolved HPV infections, only 5% will eventually progress to pre-cancerous CIN 2/3 lesions.”

  • “Almost 90% of cervical cancer deaths occur in developing countries which have an insufficient medical infrastructure to fully implement regular Papanicolaou (Pap) screening programmes.”

  • “In contrast, in developed countries cervical cancer mortality rates are very low (1.4-1.7/100,000 women).”

HPV vaccine studies are flawed, resulting in unreliable safety and efficacy data.

  • The FDA’s licensing approval for Gardasil was largely based on efficacy and safety results from studies that were designed, sponsored and conducted by the vaccine manufacturer.

  • The current widespread misconceptions regarding the long-term benefits of HPV vaccination appear to have resulted from (1) significant misinterpretation of clinical trials data… and biased and selective reporting of clinical trial results.”

  • Unlike screening and LEEP, HPV vaccines offer no therapeutic benefits as they cannot cause regression of pre-existing HPV-16/18 infections or associated lesions. On the contrary, Gardasil may exacerbate cervical cancer disease in women with pre-existing HPV-6/11/16/18 infections.” Pre-screening for these infections prior to vaccination is not required.

HPV vaccines are responsible for more adverse reactions than other recommended vaccines.

  • Since 2006, VAERS received a total of 20,663 adverse reactions from HPV vaccines, 8% of which were serious (1592), including 73 deaths, 348 life-threatening reactions and 581 events which resulted in permanent disability (Table 7).

  • In comparison to all other vaccines given to females aged 6 to 29 years, HPV vaccines were associated with more than 60% of all life-threatening adverse reactions (including death) reported after vaccines and 82% of all reported permanent disability in females under 30 years of age.

Merck presented misleading data from clinical trials in the Gardasil insert (Mary Holland, J.D.,The HPV Vaccine On Trial: Seeking Justice For A Generation Betrayed).

  • Although the package insert combines both groups into one result, a closer look at the data from the clinical trials demonstrates that the results from the AAHS comparator group and the saline placebo group were quite different. Table 229 shows NONE of the 9-to-15-year-olds in the true placebo group had any serious adverse events (SAEs) within 1 to 15 days after vaccination.

  • Their presentation combines data from the comparator and saline placebo group, collectively naming them the “placebo.” As you can see in table 295, the number of serious adverse events for both groups combined is 43. Since we know that there were no SAEs in the group that received the saline placebo, we can conclude that all the SAEs were from the group that received the AAHS comparator.


Corvelva set out to determine the chemical-protein composition of HPV vaccine and their results demonstrate disparity between the antigens listed on the package insert and what is actually found in the vaccine.

  • Per the package insert, Gardasil 9 should contain 9 antigens, for 9 different subtypes of the HPV virus (subtype 6 -11 - 16 - 18 - 31 - 33 - 45 - 52 - 58 ). Of these, they did NOT detect:

    • L1 Type 11 Protein of Human Papillomavirus (one of the subtypes most commonly associated with cervical lesions)

    • L1 Type 58 Human Papillomavirus (one of the subtypes most frequently associated with cervical cancer)

  • In addition, 338 signals of chemical contaminants were detected, of which 78% are unknown.

  • They also found 10 chemical toxins, thought to be cross-contaminants from manufacturing of other vaccine production lines.


  • 95% of Polio cases are asymptomatic (patients experience no symptoms) and less than 1% experience paralysis

  • The 1916 epidemic was not the fault of Italian Immigrants, as was originally claimed, though interestingly enough, the timing coincided with an experiment 3 miles away at Rockefeller Laboratories where scientists were infecting monkeys with their mutant strain of polio with “hope of increasing its virulence”

  • Provocation Polio cases are vaccine induced paralytic poliomyelitis

  • In 1939 Rockefeller labs licensed their arsenic to treat syphilis which was shown to cause, within hours, distinct lesions of the spinal cord, of the type known as acute central myeltis or acute poliomyelitis.

  • The Salk vaccine was fast tracked in 1954 using a method which did not completely inactivate the virus, and when doctors questioned the suppressed information during the field trial presentations, they were dropped from the advisory committee.

  • The Cutter Incident followed shortly after this approval when due to this suppression of information, Cutter Laboratories infected over 200,000 people with the live virus resulting in over 70,000 paralysis cases and at least 10 deaths (and more still to be known)

  • Polio cases increased by 50% between 1957-1958 and then 80% between 1958-1959. The inventor Jonas Salk admitted that the live-virus vaccine was the “principal, if not sole cause” of all reported polio cases since 1961 (Washington Post, September 1976).

  • The diagnostic procedures for Polio changed when the vaccine was introduced so it appeared Polio was on the decline due to the vaccine. But really, what would have been previously diagnosed as Polio before the vaccine, was fanned out into multiple other conditions such as: Coxsackie or ECHO, Arsenic or DDT Toxicity, Lead Poisoning, Hand Foot Mouth, Aseptic Meningitis, Acute Flaccid Paralysis, Transverse Myelitis, Guillain Barre Syndrome (Hearings Before the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, 87th Congress, 2nd Session on HR 10541. May 1962:94–112)

  • Recent outbreaks of Acute Flaccid Myelitis is a subtype of Transverse Myelitis (or what would have been diagnosed as Polio prior to diagnostic changes) is listed as a side effect in the following vaccinations: Hep B, MMR, DTaP, HPV, Influenza, H1N1

  • International outbreaks of Polio in Niger, Nigeria, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Papua New Guinea, Horn of Africa and Somalia are all from vaccine-derived polioviruses

Black and White Statements

It’s also O.K. to get out of the gray zone. Scientists, especially, are uncomfortable with black-and-white statements, because science is all about nuance. But, in the case of vaccines, there are some hard truths that deserve to be trumpeted. Vaccines are not toxic, and they do not cause autism. Full stop.

This was the part that made us drop everything to write this article. The Anti-Mandate crowd has been repeating for hundreds of years: Vaccination is not certainty, this is why there needs to be transparency and (informed) choice.

Giving people permission to make unsubstantiated claims and encouraging black-and-white thinking regarding a medical procedure that is designed to affect the immune system long-term is irresponsible. Science is always evolving. There are numerous, virtually unexplored matters within the complex issue that is vaccination and immunity, especially since the suppression of dissent creates gaps in research and knowledge.

The most important point here, is that making all-or-nothing claims about vaccines does not allow for informed consent. We can argue over how much risk there is with vaccination, but no one can deny there is risk. To deny parents true informed consent, to prohibit them from weighing the risks and benefits, and to provide them with an illusion of total safety and efficacy is dishonest. We are not willing to trade medical freedom for collectivism and a false sense of security.


We’re not here to convince you that vaccines cause autism; but here are the stories the media may not have brought to your attention.

Sharyl Attkisson and The Full Measure staff recently aired a segment that the rest of mainstream media wouldn’t touch: A renowned pro-vaccine pediatric neurologist specializing in autism, Dr. Andrew Zimmerman (and other experts featured in the segment) agree that vaccines can and do cause autism in some children.

  • Dr. Zimmerman was the top expert defending vaccines on behalf of the US Government in the Federal Vaccine Court, and he says “he told the government that vaccines can cause autism in ‘exceptional’ cases, but says the government hid the information and misrepresented his opinion.”

  • Per his affidavit, he stated, “I explained [to DOJ attorneys] that I was of the opinion that there were exceptions in which vaccines can and do cause autism… I explained that in a subset of children, vaccine induced fever and immune stimulation did cause regressive brain disease with features of autism spectrum disorder.

The CDC references a 2011 IOM report on their page titled, “Vaccines Do Not Cause Autism.” However, in that very report, the IOM states, “The evidence is inadequate to accept or reject a causal relationship between diphtheria toxoid–, tetanus toxoid–, or acellular pertussis–containing vaccine and autism.”

We suppose this article would be incomplete if we didn’t address the Andy - I mean, elephant - in the room: Dr. Andrew Wakefield. Here are the facts for the discerning reader.

  • In the infamous study (now retracted - see third bullet point), the authors wrote, “We did not prove an association between measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and the syndrome described.” You wanted a black and white statement? There it is. I guess the media never actually read the study (hence the repeated misrepresentation).

  • The GMC convicted two of the co-authors of the study, Dr. Andrew Wakefield and Dr. John Walker-Smith, of professional misconduct. Almost all the charges filed against Wakefield and Walker-Smith were the same. Dr. Walker-Smith was able to get funding to appeal his conviction. After thorough review, a British court completely overturned the GMC’s ruling, stating: “The panel’s overall conclusion that Professor Walker-Smith was guilty of serious professional misconduct was flawed, in two respects: inadequate and superficial reasoning and, in a number of instances, a wrong conclusion… The end result is that the finding of serious professional misconduct and the sanction of erasure are both quashed.” Walker-Smith’s license to practice medicine was restored.

  • The other co-authors did not retract the findings of the study, but the interpretation of the study: “We wish to make it clear that in this paper no causal link was established between MMR vaccine and autism as the data were insufficient. However, the possibility of such a link was raised and consequent events have had major implications for public health. In view of this, we consider now is the appropriate time that we should together formally retract the interpretation placed upon these findings in the paper, according to precedent.

We don’t want to beat a dead scapegoat horse; but suffice to say, there are a number of facts to consider before reaching the conclusion that “Andy Wakefield is a fraud who said vaccines cause autism.”

It’s also worth noting some vaccine inserts list autism as a potential adverse reaction. Also, don’t forget autism was listed as a side effect in GSK’s confidential document on Infanrix, as discussed at the beginning of this article.

We are calling for exhaustive research to address the concerns of vaccine-induced autism that thousands of parents are claiming to have witnessed in their children because:

  1. Parents are reliable in assessing their children’s health. I don’t think we need to explain why a parent knows their child best. Let’s practice listening to understand and stop with the “crazy mothers” accusations, and

  2. The data certainly isn’t sufficient to dismiss said claims, as seen in this entire article.

The Enemy…Oh wait, that’s us

Know the enemy. On the internet, anti-vaccine propaganda has outpaced pro-vaccine public health information… Defense against this onslaught has been meager. The C.D.C., the nation’s leading public health agency, has a website with accurate information, but no loud public voice. The United States Surgeon General’s office has been mum. So has the White House — and not just under the current administration. That leaves just a handful of academics who get bombarded with vitriol, including outright threats, every time they try to counter pseudoscience with fact.

Well, you know what they say… “Truth is treason in an empire of lies.” Painting us as “the enemy” destroys any possibility of finding common ground and sets us up for a battle instead of a discussion. As noted throughout this response, our concerns go far beyond the NYT article, to include, but not limited to: scientific fraud, industry bias, lack of studies examining vaccinated versus unvaccinated children, the concomitant administration of multiple vaccines which have not been tested for their synergistic effects… need we go on at this point?

Are the dissenting doctors, scientists, and researchers seen as “the enemy” too? It appears so. Doctors or scientists who question vaccines (dissenters) are seen as a threat (and treated as such) to the public perception that all experts support vaccination.

  • “Dissenters from the dominant views about vaccination sometimes are subject to adverse actions, including abusive comment, threats, formal complaints, censorship, and deregistration, a phenomenon that can be called suppression of dissent.”

  • “According to the highest ideals of science, ideas should be judged on their merits, and addressed through mustering evidence and logic. Suppression of dissent is a violation of these ideals.”

  • Unfortunately, the suppression of dissent has widespread consequences: scientists are afraid to pursue certain topics (resulting in gaps in knowledge) and the general public is afraid voice their concerns for fear of being ostracized and labeled an “anti-vaxxer.”

Per the original article, there seems to be concern over the lack of “loud public voices” for vaccines. And yet, everywhere we turn, there is a vaccine ad (positioned as a PSA without mentioning potential side effects) and free flu shots around every corner (step right up - get your free turkey!). Even Instagrammers are getting paid to promote vaccines - and we thought the weight loss tea was bad.

Bottom line: The CDC doesn’t need a bigger megaphone. It’s arguably the most cited source by pro-vaccine proponents everywhere. But perhaps there is no loud public voice from the HHS (which oversees the CDC) because they failed to complete biennial safety reports on vaccines (as required by the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986) for the last 30+ years.

 Now what?

The next major disease outbreak “will not be due to a lack of preventive technologies,” Heidi Larson, a professor at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, writes in the journal Nature, but to an “emotional contagion, digitally enabled.”

We acknowledge the WHO for taking global health seriously, but it’s obvious that developed and underdeveloped countries often face very different threats and require their own respective solutions. We wish you would have created at least two separate top ten lists, but then everyone would have been obligated to look at one of the most unwelcome aspects of health threats in America; our very own healthcare system. Iatrogenesis (medical error) is the third leading cause of death in the US, contributing to 225,000+ deaths each year - and these are conservative numbers.

Because it will inevitably need clarifying: We aren’t calling for the abolishment of modern medicine. By all means, in an emergency, please don’t call your homeopath. Well, you can, but we wouldn’t. But that’s your choice - and that is all we are trying to preserve: medical freedom and informed consent.

The accusations of “emotional contagion” are coming from a New York Times article almost entirely based on emotion, which has conveniently left out the real reasons parents/individuals are hesitant. In reality, those who ask reasonable, valid questions about the scientific integrity or risks of vaccines are met with patronizing, hostile responses and are called “the enemy” (per the original NYT article). The medical community and public health officials have left us wanting for answers. We must go in search of them on our own. And we are lucky we are still “digitally enabled” to do so.

So what can you, the reader, do?

Dear WHO, CDC & NYT: Your industry bias is showing | janny: organically.
  • Share this post with a fellow discerning advocate for medical freedom

  • Register an account at to see current legislation and action alerts for your state (keep an eye on states with current “outbreaks”)

  • Review and share the referenced data when appropriate, i.e.

    • Write and email your Governor and ALL your state senators and representatives the concerning data and what you expect of them as your elected officials (demand for inert placebo controls, unvaccinated vs. vaccinated studies, removal of pharmaceutical influence on all fronts, etc.)

    • Welcome the newly appointed California’s first state surgeon general, Dr. Nadine Burke Harris who will be sworn in on February 11.

      • According to the Governor’s announcement, “Her work will focus on combating the root causes of serious health conditions — like adverse childhood experiences and toxic stress.” Dr. Burke is the founder and CEO of Center for Youth Wellness which acknowledges getting “shots at the doctor” is a source of toxic stress in children. Let’s send her our concerns!

    • Please don’t assume everyone else reading this will do this, if mandates concern you AT ALL, please write! Let your voices be heard!

  • Don’t engage hate with hate. Encourage people to read the data and don’t oblige the trolls with attention. Block and move on if the intent is to bully or shame you

  • Outside of a few situations, you are not obligated to share private health information, including vaccination history for you or your children. This includes friends and family

“I’m not surprised because the WHO has devolved from a sterling public health agency to a subsidiary of the pharmaceutical industry,Robert F. Kennedy Jr. told Healthline. “We’re seeing more and more orchestrated efforts by the industry to not only co-opt health officials but to control international health policies,” he added. Kennedy says the agency ignores research, and pushes vaccines that haven’t been properly vetted using its own gold standard safety testing methods. “Parents have an obligation to be skeptical. They have an obligation to protect their children.