Why Do Scientists and Physicians Lose Objectivity When It Comes to Vaccines?

A RECENT NY TIMES opinion piece shed bright light on an issue that has bothered me since I decided to write a chapter on vaccines in “Cures vs. Profits”. The piece, written by Melinda Wenner Moyer, has a strange, but safe title – “Anti-Vaccine Activists Have Taken Vaccine Science Hostage“. Given the title, one would expect the same old tired tropisms about the vaccine risk aware community.

However, in reading the opinion piece, the forces at work are clearly scientists and physicians themselves, who, as Moyer correctly points out, censor themselves against speaking about vaccine risk out of fear of criticism from other professionals:

Scientists are so terrified of the public’s vaccine hesitancy that they are censoring themselves, playing down undesirable findings and perhaps even avoiding undertaking studies that could show unwanted effects. Those who break these unwritten rules are criticized.

So why the title? Why blame the public? If the public develops vaccine risk awareness because scientists make them aware of vaccine risk, that’s a success for science and research, not a failure. Why does Moyer, and the vaccinologists who, at every turn, introduce bias into studies, and inject bias into so-called systematic reviews, all to hide vaccine risk, then try to blame those for whom the risk was nevertheless manifest (the vaccine injured and their families)?

These are the families who carry the burden of the cost – despite the professionals’ efforts to minimize the perception of vaccine risk, when in reality those scientists and physicians are responsible for not taking the necessary steps to minimize vaccine risk itself?

Reading the opinion piece, it is clear than the thin veil of denialism is gone. Cochrane Nordic published a scathing review of an allegedly independent and unbiased systematic review published by Cochrane on HPV vaccine safety – which means there are a growing number of scientists and phyisicians who will no longer play by what Moyer calls “unwritten rules”. [Read my review of the Cochrane review]

To my fellow scientists and to physicians who know they should speak up, now is the time. The opinion piece cites Paul Offit, an MD who is infamous for making ludicrously unsupported claims (aluminum might be a nutrient because stillborn infants have more aluminum than healthy newborns is one). Moyer cites Offit as saying that “researchers should handle findings differently when there’s a chance they might frighten the public”.

No. Researchers should stand atop building and mountains and declare their knowledge of vaccine risk – and demand that the Congressional mandates in 1986 to identify those most at risk and make vaccines safer be enforced before the public gives up on artificial immunization entirely.


Because the alternative is to stand by for another 15 years as ACIP gleefully and irresponsibly adds more vaccines to the pediatric schedule using weak vaccine science – underpowered correlation studies that fail to detect adverse event and that are overcooked to make serious adverse events disappear so as to not scare the public – all the while chronic illnesses such as asthma, autoimmune diseases, ADHD, autism, autoimmune diabetes all rip across the trusting public – all conditions with links to vaccines which “unwritten rules” state we should not make the public aware of – all so they can continue to trust those who are misleading them.


In the Times piece, Offit is also represented as holding what to some is a correct view: that low-powered studies perhaps should not be published. Of course, those low-powered studies cited by IOM that failed to detect an association between vaccines and autism – the five that were actually four studies, one with 97 and 196 patients… perhaps those should not have been published? (I’ve done power calculations for any impressive positive odds ratio – 3/4 studies cited by IOM failed to have power enough to detect an association if one did, in fact, exist. That research is now under peer review).

To those of my colleagues who will no longer bow to the unwritten rules that have caused you to hide in fear, I salute you. We must work together to create a future in which vaccines are treated like any other topic, before new unwritten rules are put into place about side effects of other pharmaceutical products, like psychotropic medicines, and before clinical trials are routinely conducted without acquiring informed consent from patients, as is now permitted under the 21st Century Cures Act if those conducting the trial determine – prior to the study – that the medical procedure or treatment comes with low risk for those unwittingly enrolled without their consent.

I made a simple commitment to myself when I embarked on my journey of writing “Cures vs. Profits” – it was intended to be a celebration of the very best advances in biomedical research. That commitment was simply this: If I found anything negative, I would remain objective, and report the bad with the good, as any true scientist would.

Since writing the book, I found more than I cared to know about the ills of vaccine safety research – and the design of vaccines. For example, although we know that pathogens carry unsafe epitopes with high similarity to human proteins that can cause autoimmunity… but they are not excluded from vaccines. And although we know that that pediatric dosing of aluminum in vaccines is far higher per body weight in the first six months of life than the amount received from breastmilk and formula, and we know that aluminum accumulates in the brain, the vaccination of newborns on day one with 250 mcg of aluminum hydroxide continues – even in the NICU – in spite our #NICUChallenge for anyone to produce a study that shows the safety of injection of 250 mcg of aluminum in the NICU population. No such studies have been sent our way.

Those professionals who are interested in joining with the safety of numbers, you can also join Physicians for Informed Consent – an organization of members who are wise enough to realize that many parents stop vaccinating after an early bad experience, learning the hard way that their child may have higher risk than others. This increased risk is either due to de novo mutations or to inherited risk – and that the right for parents to choose (aka exemptions) therefore provide a safeguard against widespread vaccine injury.

You will also find informative material at World Mercury Project’s Kennedy News and Views – although sometimes characterized as “Anti-vax” (what else?) when in reality they provide a counterpoint to the now clearly admitted misinformation campaign designed to warp the public’s view of vaccine risk.

A great number of articles at Age of Autism will inform those willing to read decades of critical thought from people who are extremely well-informed and intelligent – and who are motivated to protect people from harm.

For a more entertaining approach, visit The Highwire on Facebook or YouTube and subscribe. A related resource is ICANDECIDE.org with important, well-researched white papers that set the record straight.

If you would like a purely academic resource, visit this searchable database companion to my book “The Environmental and Genetic Causes of Autism“.

Other useful resources are

Vaccine Guide

JB Handley’s Blog


Ginger Taylor’s List (last count 151 papers)

If you know of a resource and would like to see it listed, post a comment!dennet


  1. Well stated. It is indeed time we all start talking about the piss-poor “science” that keeps coming out in support of vaccines, studies that look at the wrong outcome variables, studies without proper placebos, studies that are too short to pick up the autoimmune and neurologic damage that takes months or years to develop. As one of the founders of PIC and author of The Vaccine-friendly Plan I am 100% convinced we must remove vaccine mandates. Informed consent must be elevated as the only ethical way forward and doctors who kick children and families out of their practices for not following the CDC schedule should be listed everywhere possible as doctors and practices to avoid. Forced vaccination IS harming children. Wake up America. Wake up world. The conflicts of interest run deep. We have a perfect storm leading to the poor health outcomes we see today.
    1. Over vaccinate and trigger autoimmunity and direct neurological and developmental issues. (Vaccines are No. 3 money maker for pharma)
    2. Treat autoimmunity conditions with immunosuppressants (No. 1 money maker)
    3. Trigger infections and cancer (no. 2 money maker).

    Want to avoid the chronic diseases and illnesses that are plaguing Americans? Don’t do what everyone else is doing! Eat organic, avoid toxins (vaccines inject toxins), supplement nutrient deficiencies – most common is vitamin D, minimize stress, get adequate restorative sleep and enough exercise and live in harmony with a community of like-minded people who are supportive and living a similarly healthy life-style. If you struggle with addictions of any kind – get help and check out my new book: The Addiction Spectrum.

    1. I loved the article and also the comment from Dr. Thomas, especially the 1,2,3. We vaccinate, we treat the consequence and then we treat the consequences of the consequence. You should do an article!

  2. Thank you Dr. Lyons-Weiler and Dr. Thomas. The tide is turning. The Italians overthrew their government largely because of vaccine mandates, and Trump is an indication that Americans are fed up with business as usual. Despite active censorship, the internet has become a wonderful educational tool for waking up the public to the dangers of what I consider 18th-Century quackery, as the media cowers in fear of losing ad revenue, which would change their status from life support to DOA.

  3. Thank you JLW. Why should anyone be silent when medicine is wrong? If no one ever spoke up, nothing would change.
    Great Article,

    1. Maybe it’s the type of person you grow to be. Some can look the other way while you don’t.

  4. In Australia, doctors are no longer allowed to speak about about vaccine dangers – the ones who have, have been made an example of and have lost their medical licenses. Thank you for your bravery – it is people like you who will be catalysts for change.I have been educating people for over 30 years since vaccines killed my son. The risk was 100% for him. The initial doctor who jabbed him did admit it was the vaccine – after all the reaction happened within a few hours of the jab (twice – at 2 and 4 months). When I got into the hospital system however, there was nothing said about vaccines, even though I told them the reactions happened within hours of being vaccinated. Not a word was ever said about vaccines for the entire 4 months my son was in hospital. It was many years later that I read a product insert for the vaccine (I didn’t know it existed), and sure enough on that insert were listed ALL the reactions my son had, including the ultimate reaction, death.

  5. Thank you Dr. Lyon-Weils for another valuable article, and for the wealth of research and articles you’ve produced exposing the tobacco science, manipulated statistics etc. regarding the vaccine holy cow.
    I’m sure you’re already aware of the following website which is focused on vaccines and allergies, anaphylaxis etc. ***On the off chance you aren’t, here it is: http://www.deadlyallergy.com/science
    On a non-vaccine note, I wonder if you or a colleague have critiqued this specific study which has been used to rubber stamp and justify giving Statins to kidney transplant patients? …* I realize that most of your work focuses on dissecting and critiquing vaccine “science” but hope you don’t mind my asking re. the above just in case you have a good lead for a critique of:
    Study of Heart and Renal Protection (SHARP)
    A friend of mine who had a kidney transplant 30 years back follows her specialist’s instructions re. taking the flu shot annually (insane!) and has been on Lipitor for a decade or so. I’ve tried to share general info with her on the pseudo-science and dangers of Statins and her eyes have started to open, but any specific critique of this study — in addition to the clear conflict of interest having been conducted by Merck — that you know of and could forward would be of great value.
    My sincere thanks to you for your valuable time and professional insights,

Leave a Reply