Dr. Lyons-Weiler is a research scientist and author of three books, the latest of which is "The Environmental and Genetic Causes of Autism". He is available for speaking engagements and book signing events at your location. To contact, follow on twitter @lifebiomedguru, email ebolapromo[at]gmail.com, and connect via LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/in/jameslyonsweiler
YESTERDAY IN OREGON, I gave testimony, registered as neither for nor against, to educate the Ways and Means Committee on scientific facts relevant one of the most draconian bills conceived (HB3063). Oregon has classically been among the most politically diverse and yet tolerant society among all of the US States. The aim of the bill is to remove religious and personal exemptions recognized by the State for school attendance after a handful of measles cases, many in adults. The argument in support of the bill is that immunocompromised kids attending school might become infected with measles, mumps, pertussis, or any of the other allegedly “vaccine preventable diseases”.
The religious exemption removal is breathtaking in its scope, and will likely be found to be unconstitutional if passed. Clearly, if the medical community fails to attribute vaccine adverse events to the vaccine, the law will prevent parents from exercising a personal exemption after a vaccination that their child is vaccine intolerant that their own doctor believes is not due to the vaccine.
A couple of pediatricians gave testimony before mine describing how terrible pertussis infection is in very young infants, and they claimed that vaccination could prevent those infections.
Originally I had intended to testify on asymptomatic measles transmission, but in my two minute period I felt compelled to use time to address the fact that TdaP and DTaP are recognized as failed vaccines and that they can create carriers of pertussis infection without symptoms. These potential asymptomatic carriers including anyone who is vaccinated, as has been robustly shown by a baboon study. This includes school nurses, teachers, pediatricians and ob/gyn doctors as well as grandparents, aunts, uncles and older siblings of newborn infants, and so pointed out that I found it odd that out of the thousands of non-vaccinating families I have come to know, none have told me that they have had a pertussis infection, and yet here we see families who receive allopathic care including vaccination against pertussis have infants that develop pertussis infections. I suggested that perhaps they should consider mandating that doctors be tested weekly for pertussis infection to find the hidden reservoir of asymptomatic carriers.
In a compelling piece of testimony, a school Superintendent told the Ways and Means Committee that he would not comply with the exclusionary policies that would result if the bill were to pass. His reasoning was that the school would by denying that child access to education, and that his school would lose federal funding for every child that left the school to be homeschooled.
In the hallway afterwords, I was interviewed by the press, and during that time I brought up the reality that science shows that like pertussis, like the mumps, measles can be transmitted via asymptomatic carriage and transmission (See For Health Officials and School Boards: Asymptomatic Transmission is Real). I made the point that the logic of excluding the unvaccinated from schools is therefore dangerous because schools cannot know that they have an active transmission chain of measles, mumps, pertussis or chickenpox unless some kids develop symptoms, and therefore excluding the unvaccinated places the immunocompromised at higher danger of unknowingly being exposed. Therefore, the unvaccinated are a boon to public health. This reality shows the fatal flaw in the logic of excluding the unvaccinated from school: it only works if you deny asymptomatic transmission.
The people who use vaccine exemptions often do so after first-hand experience with vaccine injury. CDC classifies febrile seizures as mild, and yet they can lead to seizure disorders and can kill. CDC denies that vaccines cause autism (although not all vaccines have been tested for causing autism and the studies conducted on the MMR are truly poor science).
In Salem yesterday, after I left to fly back to Pittsburgh, the vote passed out of the first Ways and Means Committee along party lines. Democrats who want to pass legislation mandating this and other flawed products are mandating them not only for Democrats but also for children of Republicans, for Independents, and for Greens.
There is a strong message here for those who seek truth. Vaccines are not only not safe for everyone. Vaccines also perpetuate the perception of the need for vaccination while perpetuating invisible transmission chains that can kill the immunocompromised via asymptomatic transmission. The palliations that the pediatricians will provide medical exemptions are unfathomably untrue: the CDC’s misinformation campaign that “Vaccines Are Safe” requires vaccine risk, injury and death denialism, and medical doctors are facing persecution in California where Senator Pan was pushing a bill the very same day as HB3063 to restrict medical exemptions because, according to him, there are too many medical exemptions.
This issue is quickly become a very risk, divisive and partisan issue. I know ten people in Oregon who told me yesterday that they left the Democratic Party. A lifelong Democrat myself, I left last year and registered as an Independent.
There is an even more dire message here for Democrats: The vaccine injured population grows every week with more and more families joining as a result of vaccine injury. These families have massive amounts of pent up anger and resentment which has been building up since Congress indemnified Pharma and doctors for vaccine injury.
I predict that if the bill passes in Oregon, it will be eventual political undoing of the Democratic party in that legislature.
I predict that if HB3063 passes, the blame for all vaccine injuries and deaths from 2019 may fall at the feet of the Democratic Party, and pending a party line vote to pass the bill, that is, in my somber but professional view, precisely where the responsibility will belong.
The Senator who brought HB3063 forward had previously pulled a similar bill in 2015 because the discussion centered on the science instead of what she called the health of the people of Oregon. The health and lives of the vaccine intolerant and the vaccine risk aware matter. I did some calculations while in Oregon: there are between 35,000-40,000 families who are not fully vaccinated. Of these, if 80% stopped vaccinating due to injuries, Oregon can expect between 18,000-22,000 new vaccine injuries per year. Vaccines risk is likely genetic. While vaccines do not check your party affiliation before they injure, they also create political activists who are vaccine risk aware, and they turn Democrats into Independents or Republicans.
Listen to Oregon State Senator Dallas Heard’s passionate plea to his colleagues made just prior to the vote.
The US military intelligence and Homeland Security community is surely aware that enemies of the US exist who desire to harm American citizens by any manner possible. Images of trucks traveling through major metropolitan areas misting the air with bioterrorism weapons are enough to make any parent shudder and keep Homeland Security policy makers awake at night.
Recently, former Sen. Joe Lieberman and former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge offered their views in USA Today that the measles cases in the US represent a national security threat. Citing H1N1 flu as a previous example of a deadly disease that provided a past scare, they refer to the measles as the current deadly disease.
While their concerns over bioterrorism and national security are warranted, their hyperbole over measles morbidity and mortality is unfounded. According to CDC, the US say 450-500 deaths per year prior to 1960, in a population of 180,000,000 citizens. Any of those citizens who experinced measles and survived developed lifelong immunity. This contrasts with people vaccinated against measles with the MMR who now face news that as adults, they, too, might “need” an MMR booster. The US believes they are dependent on Merck to save us from measles and mumps – and to the extent the previously vaccinated require boosters for bouts of temporary immunity of increasingly short duration, the dependency is a construct, created by trust given to a corporation who has betrayed the public health trust time and again, with 55,000 fraud-based deaths from Vioxx.
Why is there only one measles vaccine in the US, and why does the Lieberman/Ridge narrative ring hollow?
In my view, they have missed their mark completely by portaying the measles infections as a threat to national security in part because measles is not a deadly disease in the US. But more importantly, as I tweeted out last month, the fact that the entire recently vaccinated crew of a Navy ship (The USS Fort McHenry) is still quarantined at sea after her crew developed paratoditis – mumps in all but name – means that the MMR vaccine itself may be a serious thrat to national security (this point was seconded by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr).
In reality, every jab creates another patient (civilian or otherwise) dependent on future vaccination for their immunity, and there are signs of waning efficacy due to mutations that occur every year in both the wild type measles and mumps viruses and in the vaccine type, propagated by serial passages in cell lines. The evidence is all around us: outbreaks of mumps and measles in highly vaccinated populations, evidence of asymptomatic infection and transmission of both viruses and the pertussis bacterium, pointing to the vaccinated as unknowing reservoirs of wild-type pathogens which cannot be eradicated due to the use of mismatched vaccines that make wild-type imfections silent in some, and more deadly to others.
The fact is that the US has no readiness plan to deal with waning vaccine efficacy of aging vaccines other than more increasingly futile boosters. And that is no plan at all.
Billions of Dollars Heisted in False Zika Narrative
The horrific encephalopathy in newborns reported following whole-cell pertussis vaccination that led to the development of acellular pertussis vaccines was later denied by a false narrative of “unsubstantiated reports” and “rumors”. For vaxtremists, only issues detected with epidemiological studies occur – and even when no such has been conducted, the absence of evidence carries the same weight as a gold standard double-blinded prospective randomized clinical trial. This habit is unscientific and unacceptable.
In 2016, during the months following Zika season in Brazil, no increase in microcephaly was detected. No increase in microcephaly occurred outside of Brazil, either – even during the 2015 microcephaly scare. What did occur in 2015/2016 – which I can prove with emails- is that the scientist involved in a new whole-cell pertussis vaccine study in the slums of NE Brazil – the epicenter of the microcephaly outbreak – was informed of a concern that perhaps her whole-cell pertussis vaccine was causing microcephaly. The cessation of that research could explain the sudden end to microcephaly in Brazil.
The basis of the CDC’s conclusion that Zika infection caused the increase in microcephaly came in the form of a report from one aborted fetus. The autopsy was not conducted in the US, and the result has not been reproduced. We do not know the incidence of MC in cases of Zika infection, nor vice versa – especially given no increased in microcephaly in 2016 in spite of infection rates on par with 2015, something is amiss.
The fact is that the Lieberman/Ridge analysis is shallow because even a minor scratch beneath the surface shows a repeated pattern of the use of fear and exaggerated threats to maintain a multi-billion dollar governmental complex via which corporations routinely access billion dollar contracts. Since CDC and health departments are unwilling to provide full-spectrum public health policies founded on Science instead of shallow, one-note songs that lead inevitably and singularly to more vaccinations, the agenda is to use a cynical paternalism to induce an expectation of widespread unquestioning compliance for the eventuality of a bioterrorism attack.
The problem with this approach is found in its cynicism. Most vaccine refusal is derived from religious objections to the practice and to the manifestation of ill effects of vaccines that occur in some people which, in spite of the CDC’s best effortd, are now impossible to deny. The awkward, ineffectual and legally questionable practice of government induced – and possibly coerced – censorship of discuasions of vaccine risk on social media has only served to increase distrust of government public health policies, compounding the mistrust derived from vaccine injury and death denialism amidst the growing recognition of flaws and alleged fraud in vaccine safety studies.
If maintaining bioterrorism readiness is to be used to motivate support for increasingly extreme vaccination policies, which re: measles includes no plan to deal with subclinical infections and asymptomatic transmission, nor any plan to accommodate those who will be injured, then certainly a fair and salinet question is how much of the billions bilked from the US Treasury for an unnecessary Zika vaccine is being used to create readiness for a recombined Frankenstein bioweapon? Where was US readiness in 2014 and 2015 during the largest Ebola outbreak in history?
The lack of readiness was then, is now and will be attributable to a private industry that has captured public agencies, has hijacked Congress, and that has dictated massively profitable agendas that have alienated and dischenfranchised much of the US public.
I and others have been calling for safer vaccines and have laid out a clear path to renewing the public trust. These voices do not care to perpetuate contracts for Merck, GSK, or other vaccine developers. We care about accountability and product improvement, which are impossible without product liability.
Summary: Vaccine injury and death denial-based policies have failed, and mandates without exemptions designed to mask transmission chains will only serve to increase vaccine risk awareness and will further fuel mistrust of vaccine-centric public health policies in the US and abroad. Attempts to sustain public support for vaccination-based public health policy based on gross exaggerations of risks to childhood illnesses is irresponsible because it will likely backfire and reduce the public’s confidence in calls to action when national security is a under sincere and credible imminent threat.
WHEN GOVERNMENT AND CORPORATIONS WORK TOGETHER to advance and perpetuate their power and wealth at the cost of the average citizen’s well-being, we have a few terms that we can use. Some use “corporatism”, but, in a capitalist society, being pro-corporation has a positive sheen. It’s intermingled with being “pro-American”.
The corporatism that has a stranglehold on our regulatory bodies has occured via a process call “regulatory capture”, which means nothing less that a take-over of certain arms of the executive branch of government. Regulatory agency directors are appointed, not elected, and thus pro-corporate policies can take hold and stay in place as long as the officials in the agency remain in place. That’s why CDC can get away with scientific fraud, with not doing the right science, or even with not doing more of the wrong science. They are guarding the bodies – and this will eventually be their legacy: criminals acting at the behest of corrupt and greedy corporations hiding behing the guise of protecting public health, when, in reality, they are protecting contracts for aging and increasingly ineffective vaccines.
One step that is taken by fascist dictators is to dissolve the separatation of powers. The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (aka “Vaccine Court”) is administered by the HHS. They are an arm of the executive branch that expresses HHS (executive) policy. This is wrong. There is a move afoot to increase the use of “Special Masters”in many areas of law that impact liability – and when corporations write the rules, they remove themselves as defendants, make the government the defendant, and the corporatist government arm that is the defendant (as HHS is in every vaccine injury case), the defendant oversees the “judges”. That turns my stomach.
Every American citizen whose grandfather- or grandmother- fought European fascism in World War II should bristle and act upon how corporations have all but consumed US regulatory agencies. Those who stand to profit from this neofascism actually applaud regulatory capture. But in a US in which corporations can make unlimited donations to political candidates, including via dark-money organizations and SUPER PACS, either we work to change the rules, or will submit to a new form of government of the corporation, by the corporation and for the corporation.
It’s all too easy to throw the term “fascism” across party lines, as if undue corporate influences that better the position of candidates in one party is more evil than the same level of undue corporate influences that better the positions of candidates in another party. As fascists keep the people separarated and confused along “party lines” defined by token divisive variations on social norms, partisans tend to fall into the trap of demonizing their fellow citizens across party lines without being able to see the puppet strings of those who want to keep the populus separated, numb and uninformed to the chronic pilfering of our wealth, and our health.
I honestly wonder if modern fascists realize they are fascists?
NB:This article was originally published on Medium but that account was silenced following publication.
“GET YOUR VACCINES! HERD IMMUNITY! You anti-vaxxers are putting other people at risk!”
This level of ‘debate’ is an emotional appeal to fear and is a form of coercion.
In reality, many current vaccines have reached the limit of their usefulness, and there is no hiding it.
Worse, some current vaccines may make the vaccinated more susceptible to infection from the very pathogens they were designed to immunize against- or other pathogens that the vaccine does not target.
I’ve looked at toxicity of metals like aluminum and mercury in great detail and find a great deal of support in the scientific literature for serious issues with injection of thimerosal and aluminum. Tens of thousands of hours and two and half papers later, we have a viable theory for how vaccines can cause autism, and we have a determination that a series of mistakes have led to doses of aluminum in vaccines that are intolerably unsafe for some.
I’m now of the opinion that if you are partaking of aluminum-containing vaccines, you should never accept a thimerosal-containing vaccine due to additive toxicity. And if one does choose to vaccinate with aluminum-containing vaccines, one should never accept a thimerosal-containing vaccine due to synergistic toxicity. I’m also of the opinion that digging up metals and injecting them into our newborns and our expectant mothers is, well, quite possibly the most stupid idea from medicine. Ever.
I am sharing bluntly from an informed position. My forthcoming review on the role of aluminum and mercury in autism has 250 references, all supporting a key role of vaccine metals in inducing — with the help of some inherited and de novo mutations — ER Hyperstress. Our just-published reconsideration of aluminum study took over a year in peer review — the editor graciously handled the process and the paper was vetted in the end, by an additional three independent reviewers. There is no question in my mind that there is too much aluminum in the CDC vaccine schedule for some, and there is no credible basis for the dosing of aluminum in vaccines, period. This is not hyperbole, we did the math.
The Flu Vaccine Makes Us More Susceptible to Acute Infections from Non-Influenza Respiratory Viruses
Studies are confirming that vaccination against the flu virus leads to increased rates of respiratory infections by non-influenza viruses. See, for example, Rikin et al., 2018 who wrote “Among children there was an increase in the hazard of ARI caused by non-influenza respiratory pathogens post-influenza vaccination compared to unvaccinated children during the same period. and “Post-vaccination risk of non-influenza respiratory pathogen was higher in children”. This is in the journal VACCINES.
Public health policy around influenza must change so deaths due to “flu-like illnesses” are no longer considered deaths due to influenza. Every cadaver should be swabbed for an exact determination of the virus(es) involved — again, another policy update needed. Americans deserve to know what they are dying from.
But the issue for today is waning immunity. Emblazoned across CNN’s website— complete with a video that includes artificial immunization 101, sure to tell you serious side effects are rare.
The flu vaccine, we were told, was only 10–18% effective this year. I’ve analyzed trends of flu vaccine efficacy and found that higher vaccine uptake in any given two years is associated with decreased efficacy of the vaccine in the next year. I’m convinced that part of that is immune system compromise due to the effects of thimerosal on the protein ERAP1 — which is essential for proper shortening of immune proteins.
The other problem is that viruses evolve. They experience mutations in the wild — and the strains in the vaccines experience mutations in the cultures in which they are grown. The mumps vaccine uses the Jeryl Lynn strain of mumps — isolated from a throat culture of the daughter of Dr. Maurice Hilleman in 1963.
To calculate the number of mutational differences between the 2018 circulating strains and the 1955 strain should be straightforward — sequence the stored isolates and sequence the currently circulated strains. In mumps, this has been done every year — and while overall the predicted amino acid sequences are very similar, for some wild type mumps isolates, protein divergence from the Jeryl Lynn strain are much higher- with divergence as high as 15% (See example study here). Faster divergence in some proteins than others is confirmed in a study conducted on isolates in China.
But, as I’ve said about Ebola — it’s not the rate, it’s the mutation. A series of individual mutations, or a single mutation could render the MMR significantly less effective than it had been in previous years. Or, a new strain of the mumps could come into prominence due to the efficacy of the mumps vaccine.
The disease burden from vaccination is not adequately assessed. Here are some facts worth considering:
(2) Live Vaccine Types Can Directly Cause Disease. Persistent infection of mumps wild-type virus (Jeryl Lynn 5 mumps virus) has been detected in cases of chronic encephalitis. (See Morfopoulou et al.) This evidence is as strong as the evidence used by CDC to conclude that Zika contributed to microcephaly in Brazil.
(3) Whooping Cough Bug Persists in Vaccinated Medical Professionals.Medical professionals, including pediatricians, who vaccinate every ten years against pertussis may be the reservoir of wild-type infectious because they are not immune to B. pertussis, the bacterium that causes whooping cough-they just show no symptoms. (See my article at World Mercury Project). Medical professionals should be swabbed every Monday morning for asymptomatic B. pertussis infection.
(5) Type Replacement is Real. Type replacement is accepted in influenza, and always has been. It is denied by CDC to be occurring in HPV vaccinated populations, in spite of the fact that most studies show type replacement (See my article on this in Epoch Times). The CDC’s own study (Markovitz et al. (2016)) found no net change in overall HPV infection rates after the 4-valent HPV vaccines came to market but somehow concluded that their data did not support type replacement.
We at IPAK have re-analyzed the Markovitz study data in the simplest manner possible to ask a very simple question: Was there a significant shift in the prevalence of non-vaccine targeted types after the introduction of the 4-valent HPV vaccine? Recall that Markovitz et al. (2016) concluded that no type replacement had occurred after the HPV 4-valent vaccine had been brought to market.
The study data were ambiguously labeled with a column “non-4v HPV” but a close read of the text points to “Any HPV” — “4v HPV” vs. “non-4v HPV” as the data of interest to use in a 2 x 2 contingency test. We used Fisher’s exact test on counts (not frequencies). Counts were estimated from the prevalence data, data are represented as percentages for clarity.
Here is the result:
Fisher’s exact test on the count data was significant at p<0.0001.
This means that for HPV, type replacement is real. Due to using weak statistical testing, when more powerful tests are available, CDC can be considered culpable for new infections that occur when doctors tell patients “you are protected from HPV”. In my view, the Markovitz et al. paper should be retracted because it is misleading, and clinicians should warn patients that they could still be infected with rarer, potentially more dangerous types of HPV if they have other risk factors (unprotected sex, multiple sex partners, drug use, etc). To be fair, I contacted CDC some time ago and asked them to consider whether their data might necessarily show type replacement, like other studies published at that time had shown. Dr. Markovitz declined direct dialog, and an underling stopped replying after I pointed out the obvious.
In spite of attempts of individuals to claim that data show that HPV vaccine reduces HPV-related cancers rates, one must always read the fine-print. The studies look at surrogate outcome (CIN rates), and they often only report rates of CIN lesions associated with vaccine-targeted HPV types. We may not know if rarer types sweep into populations and increase overall HPV-related cancer rates for decades.
The second reason that HPV vaccination-induced type replacement is possibly quite dangerous is that both intra-typic and inter-typic recombination could lead to increased new types of pathogenicity. With hundreds of rare types, those that increase in frequency due to vaccination may be different in different parts of the world. Evolution is fastest in semi-divided populations with gene flow due to low migration rates and high genetic diversity within subpopulations. And recombination occurs in HPV. This study shows recombination occurring between European and African HPV types.
Interestingly, impaired normal recombination of the human genome is the virus’ cancer-causing calling card. As an evolutionary biologist, I’d say that enabling recombination among types is part of this virus’s phenotype. Evolution loves diversity. Evidence of recombination among HPV types is strong (see for example this study). And since recombination is most likely to occur between different HPV types in individuals with >1 HPV types, prevention of exposure to new HPV types in individuals who are already infected is very important.
And the age distribution, by Aboriginal status. The outbreak involved only the Aboriginal population — and mumps can lead to sterility, as the presenter of these images describe in this video.
Clearly, the FluQuadri and FluQuadri, Jr. vaccine may have an an unforeseen effect on the aboriginal population. Hyperimmunization could be responsible. (Neither vaccine contains thimerosal, according to the vaccine manufacturer The product insert from 2015 is available via the WayBack machine.)
This is what happens when we do whole-population experimentation without informed consent and do not insist on randomized clinical trials to assess long-term safety of vaccines and vaccine schedules before unleashing them on to an uninformed, non-consented population. None of the patients — Aboriginals or not — were informed they were part of a safety testing for Sanofi-Pasteur’s new vaccine. However, additional vaccines were also used and it is possible that simultaneous administration of aluminum-containing vaccines occurred.
In general, the sources of waning immunity are likely two-fold: the damaging effects of metals in non-live vaccines on the immune system, combined with vaccine driven evolution (antigenic drift) leading to type replacement.
Discussions of “breakthrough infections” in populations vaccinated against mumps should consider the importance of individual amino acid differences in viral biology and immune escape.
Jeryl Lynn, like the mumps viruses, has changed a bit since 1955.
It’s time for a ruling on the MMR efficacy controversy, and for research on safer and and more effective means of artificial immunization. And it’s time that governments in countries that use vaccines to inform their populations that post-marketing surveillance studies mean they are enrolled in safety studies, and that they have the right to expect that the medical professional will honor their basic human right to opt out of any such study under laws inspired by The Nuremberg Code. There are many reasons why that is the right thing to do… reason #1 for me is that, in spite of what we had all hoped, vaccines are no longer what they used to be.
IF I HAVE PERSONAL EXPERIENCE that causes me to understand something, I have personal knowledge (“on the basis of information and belief”). It is completely rational for me to act on the basis of my personal belief, even if I’m wrong. It would be irrational for me to continue to believe something once confronted with evidence that (a) fundamentally contradicts my understanding, or (b) demonstrates that the assumptions underlying my personal knowledge are false. If sufficient new information comes my way that contradicts my understanding, I should, rationally, change my mind. If the assumptions of my personal knowledge are shown to be untrue, I should at the very least seek new information, and my personal knowledge should become uncertainty. If I were to hold onto a specific something in the face of (a) or (b), or both (a) and (b), that personal knowledge would be re-classified into personal belief.
The question of the basis of knowledge claims about vaccine safety is an area of interest to many people, and it should be of interest to anyone who represents themselves as a scientist or a medical professional concerned with human health and well-being. Here, I will contrast the basis of the knowledge claims about vaccines. But first, let’s dispense with knowledge claims about vaccines, because studies done only on a single vaccine are irrelevant to claims about other vaccines, just as studies done on one drug is irrelevant to the safety of other drugs.
The basis of knowledge claims of safety of any given vaccine requires control over factors that might influence our assessment of health outcomes. For example, if I arbitrarily assigned patients into a group to be vaccinated based on availability (such as patients enrolled in a practice from 2008-2012), and compared those health outcomes to outcomes observed in a new set of patients who received the vaccine (2013-2017), any health outcomes that were trending already for reasons not related to the vaccine could appear to be signficantly different between the groups. This is called a cohort effect. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) control for such variation by putting a randomization scheme (called “random allocation”) between the investigator and the decision on which group each patient is assigned. With large enough sample sizes, randomization practically guarantees that arbitrary factors (called confounders) are not mistaken for the effect of a treatment effect.
Randomized clinical trials are true experiments, and true experiments are stronger science than observational studies. Epidemiological association are used to assess long-term vaccine safety, and are a weaker form of science. In particular, they do not objectively correct for confounders; instead, they are often used in a manner that leads investigators to correct for variables after they have initially found an association, repeating analyses until an association is lost. In other sciences, this is called p-hacking; there is no fixed data analysis plan, a priori power analyses are not conducted, and the result of the study is only published after a problematic health outcome is made to be no longer significant. For example, most of the studies used to assess the question of “vaccines” and autism were based on the study of one vaccine, they were all retrospective studies, and according to my analyses, most were underpowered, meaning that a negative result could be due to having too few patients.
When it comes to the safety of a vaccine, the following flowchart applies
If a long-term “total health outcome awareness” RCT with valid placebos (saline) has been conducted, the answer to the question is objectively knowable. Hopefully the results are negative (e.g., no serious adverse events or increased deaths in the treatment group compared to the control group) and in support of the conclusion that the vaccine is safe. Even then, however, the standard of objective knowledge in science is that the study be independently replicated by competitors or by individuals who have no vested interest in the outcome of the study. If such independent replication exists, then the conclusion that the vaccine is safe can be adopted as objective knowledge.
If, by contrast, no such studies exist, the answer to the question of the safety of a vaccine is unknown and the conclusion that the vaccine is safe requires reliance on personal (subjective) knowledge, aka personal belief.
Policies and laws should be based on objective knowledge. As Neil Degrasse Tyson explained to Joe Rogan in the The Joe Rogan Experience (#1159):
“If you create laws that requires that I go with that, you just imposed your personal belief on me, and your personal belief is not true for everyone, it’s only true for you.
An objective truth is true for everyone. If you’re going to have governance, you’re going to want to base governance on what is objectively true, because it would apply to everyone, independent of your belief system.”
“Wait!”, you might say, “the scientific consensus is that vaccines are safe and effective, and their knowledge is based on retrospective observational studies, and it’s good enough for them, so why should we listen to you, your standards are too high, get with the program!”.
To which I would answer there is a term for a belief system in which hundreds – or millions – of people ardently believe something with their whole heart. It’s called religion. Personal belief is personal belief no matter how many people hold that belief. That’s fine, anyone can choose to believe that a vaccine is safe, or even that vaccines are safe, even when sufficient evidence does not exist to support that belief. Just call it religion. Don’t call it science.
There is another form of knowledge that is worth considering here. Neil Degrasse Tyson also explained Political Truth – and that is belief that is something someone holds because it has been repeated over and over. I have a flowchart for that, too.
The mantra “Vaccines are Safe and Effective” has certainly been repeated over and over. The question is whether one is willing to accept dogma, and there are many reasons why someone might want to, none of which make a vaccine safe. The fear of infection, for example, or fear of ridicule, and derision. Fear of harming someone else with an infection. Lack of personal experience with vaccine injury. Or, some people just go with the flow, they don’t have time to look into the state of vaccine safety science. Either way, their belief is personal belief, not objective knowledge. For those unwilling to accept repeated statements as sufficient reason to adopt the mantra as their personal belief, the only recourse is to fall on personal experience with vaccine injury, the experiences of others, or science.
This is why I, and others are calling for RCTs testing individual vaccine long-term safety and for RCTs of the entire CDC pediatric schedule – replicated by independent research teams with no ties to corporations with financial and agencies with financial interest- so we can have policies and laws based on objective knowledge. And that is why personal belief exemptions are necessary – so those with personal knowledge of vaccine injury are not forced to participate in an activity which they know- based on information and belief – may harm themselves, or further harm their child (or children).
Scientific American risks taking on the stigma of the loss of credibility
The American Council on Science and Health, which was busted in a scam to trick people all around the world into thinking that glyphosate – an ingredient in RoundUp(TM) was safe – advertises itself as a “pro-industry” not-for-profit. Monsanto (now Bayer Crop Sciences). RTK (Right to Know) considers ACSH a “corporate front” (Read: Glyphosate:GEOFFREY KABAT’S TIES TO TOBACCO AND CHEMICAL INDUSTRY GROUPS (RTK)). GM Watch describes how discovery in the first trial on fake science constructed in an attempt to refute studies that supported that Glyphosate is a cancer-causing agent. (Read:Glyphosate and Cancer: Buying Science (GM Watch)). ACSH’s involvement in the fake science came out in the Dewayne Johnsons’ successful lawsuit against Monsanto which led to an historic ruling that Monsanto influenced studies that were represented as independent. Emails obtained on discovery showed that Monsanto employees were openly discussing “Ghost Writing” (as they had done in past studies).
The Journal Critical Reviews in Toxicology (CRT) published a series of papers reviewing the carcinogenic potential of weed-killing agent glyphosate. In a special issue of CRT entitled “An Independent Review of the Carcinogenic Potential of Glyphosate,” the review found that the weight of evidence showed the weed killer was unlikely to pose any carcinogenic risk to people. These conclusions ran counter to previous studies, which ACSH was involved in a coordinated campaign in which they (and others with ties to Monsanto) attempted to discredit past studies showing that that glyphosate is a carcinogen.
In the review, sixteen scientists from “four independent panels” had declared in their paper that their conclusions were free of Monsanto’s intervention. The Declaration of Interest section reads: “Neither any Monsanto company employees nor any attorneys reviewed any of the Expert Panel’s manuscripts prior to submission to the journal.”
In reality, William Heydens, Monsanto’s chief of regulatory science, emailed: “I have gone through the entire document and indicated what I think should stay, what can go, and in a couple spots I did a little editing.“ A confidential document dated May 11, 2015 identified several candidate scientists who could be used as authors to give the papers credibility. The Monsanto documents show discussion of “ghost-writing” strategies employing non-Monsanto scientists as authors to lend credibility to the study’s findings.
In the trial, Heydens admitted that he had received copies of the papers in advance of publication, and that he had read “parts of some of them,” before the study was sunmitted to the journal for publication. He testified that he did not “recall” making the 28 edits that plaintiffs’ attorneys found after in-depth review of the internal records. (Read: EHN A story behind the Monsanto cancer trial — journal sits on retraction).
Now, Scientific American has published an article authored by an ACSH author in which he, and a astrophysicist compare mothers of vaccine injured children to drunk drivers. The analogy they make is a terrible logical fit in innumerable ways. For one, drunk drivers make bad choices with impaired judgement, whereas mothers of vaccine injury are super-informed and have been conscripted to be vaccine risk aware as a result of direct personal experience and have chosent to not repeat the risk of vaccine injury in their family. What is society’s monument of gratitude for the families who stop vaccinating after death or serious injury? Denialism, lack of research on treatments of vaccine injury, ridicule, censorship, comparison to terrorists and pedophiles, and drunk drivers, and, in Rockland County, NY, a new executive order that they cannot bring their children into the public without risking arrest and imprisonment. This degree of abuse is not sustainable because vaccines continue to add more injured families to the population. The real public health crisis is the growing amount of chronic illness that mechanistic studies tell us can manifest in some people. The American public is experiencing gas-lighting on vaccine risk. Full Stop.
There is insufficient research on identifying families at risk prior to vaccine injury. Instead, post-market surveillance studies are used to find rates of vaccine injury – but vaccine injury denialism is hard-wired into the vaccination promotion paradigm. The families who pay the cost of vaccine injury learn that vaccine injuries are not reported, as required by law, by their doctors to VAERS – which captures 1% of vaccine adverse events and is touted both as a critical tool for tracking vaccine injury and a flawed tool because causality cannot be assessed. More gas-lighting.
Society must take heed and carefully consider anything put out by institutions that are comfortable selling their reputation to corporations. Ghost writing, of course, is not new. Flaherty (2013) warned:
“Industry-sponsored ghost- and guest-authored clinical research publications are a continuing problem in medical journals. These communications are written by unacknowledged medical communication companies and submitted to peer-reviewed journals by academicians who may not have participated in the writing process. These publications, which are used for marketing purposes, usually underestimate the adverse effects and medical risks associated with the products evaluated. Since peer-reviewed data are used to develop health care paradigms, misleading information can have catastrophic effects. A failure to curb ghost and guest authorship will result in an erosion of trust in the peer-review system, academic research, and health care paradigms.”
Scientific American can do better. The medical establishment can do better. The public has the right – and in a democracy the civic duty – to hold scientific institutions accountable for not conducting the type of science required to generate knowledge of causation of the epidemic of chronic illnesses, autism and autoimmunity, anxiety, anorexia, depression and suicide. The mainstream press is participating due to their conflict of interest from direct-to-consumer marketing of pharmaceutical products.
As Robert F. Kennedy Jr. recently said in an event at Yale University: “It’s time to start listening to women. My body, my choice. Whatever happened to that?”
James Lyons-Weiler, PhD
Allison Park, PA
UPDATE: In February 2019 a University of Washington meta-analysis concluded that glyphosate raises cancer risk by 41 per cent. That study was publishced in the journal Reviews in Mutation Research.
AS ONE WHO IS INVITED with increasing frequency to educate legislators on the reality of relative risk of vaccines and infections, I have witnessed arguments for stripping away parents’ rights to refuse vaccination. They involve a mix of hyped fear and a misrepresentation of facts-on-the-ground, even by state officials. Here I outline the myths used to fool people into supporting the loss of rights, with the counter arguments.
(1) “We could eradicate measles if it were not for personal belief exemptions by reaching 95% coverage via herd immunity.”
Wrong on at least three counts.
(a) This statement is often accompanied by a claim that we “eradicated measles” in 2000 In reality, there were 86 cases of measles in the US in 2000.
(b) Also, most adults vaccinated againt measles are simply not immune due to waning immunity. Thus, vaccinating >95% of children will not provide 95% immunity. Vaccine immunity is not the same as natural immunity.
(c) Don’t blame philosophical exemptions. Personal belief exemptions, or PBEs, are the law in 17 states. Also known as philosophical exemptions, these are often accompanied by religious exemptions. The recent measles outbreak in Washington State (Clark County) did not involve a widespread outbreak among so-called “anti-vaxxers”; rather, it involved a Ukranian community which does not vaccinate because they are exercising their religious exemptions. The outbreak in the Bronx and in Rockland County, NY are similarly isolated to an ethnoreligious community (in this case, the Orthodox Jewish community), members of whom are merely exercising their right to abstain from participating in an act that they feel goes against their religious beliefs.
2. Exemption rates are up. This is not relevant thus far, because outbreaks are limited to communities who vaccinate due to the religious reasons. But even then, it’s not correct. While school-entry stats may show a small increase in some places in the use of PBE’s, the population-wide rate of vaccination is stable. And before anyone blames any increase in PBEs on misinformation about vaccines, read on.
3. “The Science is Settled – Vaccines are safe, and vaccines are effective.”
There are charts circulating that portend to show that measles deaths were reduced by vaccines. The problem is the chart is left-truncated. As this Harvard study shows, measles as a condition was nearly gone from the US before the measles virus was isolated. So much for the vaccine savings millions of lives.
Also, people pushing to strip rights away ignore the reality that two high doses of Vitamin A significantly ameliorate the symptoms of measles. Merck is also in court over allegedly committing fraud by spiking human samples with rabbit antibodies to make their MMR appear to have high efficacy. The MMR is the very vaccines we are told must be mandated without exemption (See HuffPost – Merck Has Some Explaining to Do…). How can anyone support a mandate of a product that is under scrutiny of being fraudulent?
On the safety issue, well, we have never seen anyone do a test to find the genes or biomarkers that will allow us to predict who in the population is likely to develop seizures, or die, or suffer from encephalitis, encephalopathy or other conditions known to occur following measles vaccination. We have never seen long-term vaccinated vs. unvaccinated randomized prospective clinical trials with total health outcome awareness – instead, post-market surveillances studies are supposed to be sufficient.
While MDs are required to report all vaccine adverse events to VAERS, less than 1% do – and many send parents home with vaccine injured children telling them it wasn’t the vaccine. They do not see that the act of vaccine injury denialism short-circuits the post-market human subject experimentation on vaccines, and they did not consent the patient to such a study anyway. I have a manuscript on the rates of vaccine injuries corrected for underreporting.
3. Stories About Fraud in Vaccine Safety Studies by the CDC Are “Misleading Information” and “Conspiracy Theories.”
This speaks to the current censorship going on in popular media forums like Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest etc. It’s too late. We have The Simpsonwood transcripts. Dr. William Thompson. Dr. Frank Destefano. Dr. Coleen Boyle. Dr. Walter Orenstein. Dr. Julie Gerberding. her subsequent job at Merck. If you listen to the online CDC Fake Study apologists, there is nothing to Thompson’s revelations, just honest disagreement between scientists on interpretation. But that’s not true. After the VSD study was cooked for four years, CDC scientists and those in Denmark working for CDC finally found a way to make the association go away – that’s right, they re-analyzed the data over and over – the relationship between total vaccine exposure and autism was linear. Since they analzyed it over and over until they got the result they wanted, they are guilty of p-hacking – the same way a Cornell University Professor who studied nutrition was guilty of p-hacking, except that while that professor wanted significant results, the CDC wanted no significant association. Where’s NPR’s story on this?
As a scientist, I had a choice to make while writing the chapter on Vaccines in my second book “Cures vs. Profits”. I could either (a) not include the chapter on vaccines, (b) turn a blind eye to the revelations of Dr. Thompson to Dr. Hooker, or (c) I could remain an objective scientist. Obviously, I chose the latter.
So I want to share with you the passage that Dr Thompson said to Dr Hooker that got me. The data fudgery on the Destefano study alone was not enough. Perhaps they stumbled on a false positive. While I would never have handled it by changing the study groups, or dropping out children due to a lack of GA birth certificate (which has no scientific rationale), I could still see that maybe public health could be put at risk, the CDC thought it was in the best interest to mislead the public… but no, I could not accept it in the end because Dr. Thompson told Dr. Hooker that the practice of screening studies for positive results prior to submission for publication was routine:
So there it is. Systematic watering down of interpretation any time there is a positive result (association between vaccines and adverse events). This is the revelation that stuck with me. But even this could be just one errant scientist’s ego bruised… who knows the politics…
Were it not for the Simpsonwood transcripts, this might not have bothered me enough to go and read every study published by CDC or its contractees, and therein, with my objective scrutiny, I found science-like activities. Negative Results from Low Power studies being interpreted as robust by the authors, and by the IOM. A study that reported “No Association” between vaccines and autism without ever measuring a single case of autism – in spite of a sample size large enough to have found some cases of autism. Very odd exclusions of clinical groups with conditions that could also be caused by vaccines (seizure disorders). The list goes on and on. So I read 2,000 studies on autism to see if plausibility existed (it does), and that’s when I found enough evidence to call the vaccine injury denialism “fraud”. I’ve reviewed all of the studies sent from AAP to POTUS after scoring them using an objective evaluation scoring system. That can be found on the IPAK website along with other preprints. It’s not pretty.
The only vaccine misinformation I see is coming from the CDC, parroted by pediatricians, defended by a hoard of netizens who do not use rational discourse but instead use ridicule, shame, derision – thugs, really, who do the dirty work. They overstate confidence in association studies as if they could test causality, which they cannot, and deny, deny, deny any wrongdoing on the part of the CDC or its minions. This leads to incredible realities such a key CDC autism/vaccine researcher who is also one of OIG’s “Most-Wanted” fugitives, charged with embezzling over $US1 million that was supposed to be used for autism/vaccine studies publishing new studies in 2018/2019 – as if he is not on that most wanted list.
The other thugs are HHS expert witnesses that work in the NVICP to specifically deny any and all vaccine injury claims. No matter how much science supports a biologically plausible theory of mechanisms of injury, they won’t have it. They are professional vaccine injury denialists who cite mysterious “other causes” without any evidence. In spite of their best efforts the program has paid out over $4Billion in injuries or settlements. I’ve been compensated by petitioners’ lawyers for some of the cases I’ve been on (full disclosure) but in a recent case I pulled my invoices – but not my expert opinion – because the Special Master threatened to not pay for further expert statements unless he “liked them”. To me, that’s evidence of fraud because he’s trying to buy obedient witnesses on the petitioner’s side.
I would like to point out that there is a breakdown in the separation of powers because the NVICP is administered by HHS, who also happens to be the defendant in vaccine injury cases that come into the NVICP.
For those wanting to mandate MMR or all vaccines without exemption, please consider that 100% vaccine coverage = maximum possible vaccine injury rate. Please allow that due to genetics alone, under such an oppressive program, some families will lose children, some children will lose their lives, some kids will be injured, maimed, impaired – all because HHS has failed to fulfill – after 33 years – the 1986 mandate to (a) make vaccines safer, and (b) identify those at highest risk of vaccine injury.
Sounds like personalized medicine to me.
Remember, the 33 years of vaccine injury denialism has come at the cost of taboo-driven priorities in funding of research at the NIH. So while moms have figured out mild therapies that can help get metals out of their kids’ brains and bodies, the NIH has sat, mute, while an epidemic of autism has come to roost in our peoples. The UK is now creating separate schools for kids with autism. The educators say they are “delighted”.
In the US, “separate but equal” is unconstitutional.