IPAK Letter to Surgeon General Adams



Support jameslyonsweiler.com

This effort is not funded by any means, except some meager ad revenue. Your support will help me offset costs. Won’t you pitch in?



IPAK Letter to Mark Zuckerberg

IPAK has sent Mark Zuckerberg a letter on the importance of respecting individuals’ rights to freedoms guaranteed by the US Constitution and by the Code of Federal Regulations.


JLW_ZUCKERBERG LETTER 2 2019_withPT letter

To co-sign the letter, visit this Petition site: https://www.thepetitionsite.com/882/680/583/ipak-letter-to-mark-zuckerberg/

Support jameslyonsweiler.com

This effort is not funded by any means, except some meager ad revenue. Your support will help me offset costs. Won’t you pitch in?


A Line Too Far: How Pharma Could Lose BIG in the Bid for Stripping Away Vaccine Exemption Rights

The California experiment of removing religious and philosphical exemptions, and then bullying tactics to deny medical exemptions to mandatory vaccination laws is being replicated in States across the country. These exemptions exist as rights that the people of individual states gave themselves. Here are some reasons why stripping exemptions and leaving mandates without exemptions is a line too far.

#1. Many families need personal/philosophical exemptions to protect their families from vaccine injury.

Medical professionals are willfully mislead by CDC, AAP and other organizations on the reality of vaccine injury. As a scientist who has participated in over 100 research studies of myriad types, including neurodevelopment and immunology, I can say that the denial that vaccine cause both neurodevelopmental disorders and autoimmunity is paper thin. Let me give you an example. Researchers routinely induce human autoimmunity disorder in mice using aluminum hydroxide. Very low doses are needed if a genetic risk to an autoimmune condition already exists. Aluminum hydroxide is present in over 1/2 of the vaccines children receive due to CDC ‘s recommended pediatric schedule.

#2. The expansion of the vaccine schedule and vaccination during pregnancy has already, and will again cause a ten-fold increase in vaccine risk awareness in the voting public.

Vaccine risk awareness was very limited 15 years ago. Now it’s on fire. If exemptions are removed, Pharma (via ACIP and CDC) will expand the vaccine schedule and add more vaccines. This will of course lead to increased numbers of families who need exemptions due to direct, first-hand experience with vaccine injury. When they turn to the State for exemptions, they will learn that they were removed, and that their child must either be home-schooled or vaccine injured. The expansion of the use of vaccines in untested populations, including pregnant women (influenza, TdaP) will compound vaccine injury in children due to cumulative exposure to injected mercury, aluminum, and unsafe epitopes. I estimate at least a ten-fold increase in injury, which will lead to maybe a 50-fold increase in vaccine risk awareness. RIght quick we get to 100% vaccine risk awareness, and there is no return.

#3. Politicians usually do not fare well when they strip rights that people have given themselves.

Families who can no longer enjoy the merits of public education without injuring their child have, and will home school. Schools are struggling to handle the massive numbers of children with neurodevelopmental disorders. The juggernaut of vaccine enforcement is pushing for mandatory vaccination even in children who are home-schooled.

The actual bill removing someone’s existing rights requires a sponsor willing to risk the wrath of the people who need exemptions. Everyone knows you should not come between a mama bear and her cubs.

In short, political support for stripping exemptions will prove to be political death. Pharma donations to both sides of the aisle to buy these bills cannot change the fact of a mathematical rule: 100% vaccination means maximum possible vaccine injury. The public will not tolerate the insanity of mandatory vaccination without personal, philosophical and religious exemptions.

The net result of all of these factors is that Pharma will lose political support for any law enforcing vaccines. In fact, laws mandating vaccine could be repealed if the extent of vaccine injury and concomitant vaccine risk awareness becomes too broad.

So, Pharma, ask yourself: where is a line too far? Where do you stand to lose it all? California was a fluke. Pan had to lie to his colleagues in the California Senate about the use of aborted fetal cells in vaccines to trick them into stripping their constituents’ rights to refuse or to vaccinate selectively. I’m surprised Pan wasn’t sanctioned for that outright lie. But now that Stanley Plotkin has told the world in videotaped testimony that aborted fetal cells are indeed in vaccines, and that he knows that the studies conducted to date cannot be used to rule out that vaccines might cause autism, and the entire vaccine risk aware community has the evidence that aborted fetal cells are used in vaccines, that aluminum is used to induce autoimmunity in animals, that mercury and aluminum synergistic toxicity is real… there will not be another California, and if there is, the people of the next state will remember who stripped them of their rights to choose.

I’m in this area of research to help make artificial approaches to immunity safer with biomarkers and changes to vaccine formulas. I do what I do because I’d like to see medical practices based on valid, not fake, science. I provide evidence in support of vaccine injury backed by science because I’m an ethical scientist. I won’t participate in scientific fraud that leads innocent moms and dads to unwittingly help doctors injure their children.

In my opinion, Pharma has already crossed a line too far. I’m against corporations running America. In my view, to engender any type of legitimacy in the public’s eye, the following reforms must take place:

  • Corporation donations to the CDC Foundation and the NIH Foundations must end. These are government agencies who should answer only to Congress.
  • No one with industry ties should be allowed to serve on ACIP. Every member has conflicts of interest except one (an officer in the US military)
  • Donations to political candidates by Pharma must be banned. We need campaign finance reform. People should not vote for any candidate who accepts money from Pharma.
  • Thimerosal and aluminum must be abandoned. Metal-free vaccines should be given priority for contracts.
  • Unsafe epitopes must be banned. No one should inject proteins that are similar to human proteins into any human being.
  • Vaccine makers should condemn any bill that seeks to strip American citizens of their rights to choose to vaccinate.
  • Pharma, fix your damned vaccines.

James Lyons-Weiler

Allison Park, PA


Support jameslyonsweiler.com

This effort is not funded by any means, except some meager ad revenue. Your support will help me offset costs. Won’t you pitch in?


The Psychosis of Vaccine Injury Denial and Hysterisis of Measles Mortality

The Psychosis of Vaccine Injury Denial and Hysterisis of Measles Mortality

To the uninitiated, it must be nice to listen to so-called experts like CHOP’s Paul Offit discuss the science that supports the idea that vaccines are mostly safe – and by mostly they mean by far safe for everyone or nearly everyone. To hear such platitudes being described as “the strongest science shows the vaccines are perfectly safe” must be very reassuring indeed.

Unfortunately, the people who speak these phrases are fully aware that the epidemiological studies that are conducted to determine whether a vaccine has adverse events in the population are just about the weakest type of studies that can be conducted to detect adverse events that happen in a minority of patients.  Ecological correlations (association tests) fall short of testing causality, so positive results can be rejected as “just correlations”.  If that’s the case, negative results do not amount to a critical test of causality – not even close, especially when they are severely underpowered.

In reality, when adverse events happen in the population and weak and malleable and underpowered epidemiologic studies fail to detect an association the status of the inference is “No evidence”. The “no evidence” handle, however, has been conscripted at times: it has used to make the claim of no causality, when in fact, not even a single study to test even for a particular association has been conducted.

It is rather psychotic to see particular types of adverse events happening after vaccination and to deny absolutely that the vaccination was (even in part) responsible simply because no association can be detected in larger association studies is a bit psychotic. Here’s why:

First of all, the studies that have been conducted have never accounted for genetic differences that exist among the population that might put different individuals at risk of serious or moderate adverse events for vaccines. Not everyone can tolerate certain kinds of chemotherapy agents and therefore it would be a bit psychotic to say that a chemotherapy agent is perfectly safe even though we see people get sick and die rapidly on the chemo from the effects of chemo even though the know association has been found of those effects in an epidemiologic study because we know that we have not yet tested those individuals for their tolerance of, let’s say, metals in the chemotherapy agent.

More importantly, though is the question of how senseless and utterly self-defeating vaccine injury and vaccine death denial is.  Imagine a farmer who, once a year, goes to his fields and purposively sows seeds – not of his crops, but of wildflowers.  The next season, when he sees what to him appear to be weeds growing in number, he (1) denies they are caused by him sowing the seeds, and then (2) blames the wildflowers themselves for being there.  His solution?  To sow more wildflower seeds, and wait until “one day” when his genius solution will convince everyone, including the wildflowers, that they are, in fact, not growing.


The Hysterisis of Measles Mortality

In the pre-vaccine era, the population of the US was about 180 million.  According to the best available data, the number of deaths due to measles infection was between 450-500 deaths per year.  Simple math tells us that’s a whole-population mortality rate of 0.00000278 – hardly a cause for alarm.  In fact, the rate is so low that a whole-population cohort study would have a difficult time detecting a significant association between measles infection (which was common) and mortality, especially if, as CDC insists for studying autism, other risk factors for death due to measles infection like poor nutrition or body weight had to be adjusted for as ‘confounders’.

This report from Harvard University in 2001 shows just how little impact the measles vaccination program had on mortality due to measles infection.  In their graph, shown below, the relative contribution of measles – prior to any vaccination program – was negligible.  The measles vaccine is seen here clearly to be a Johnny-come-lately factor in reducing mortality from measles infection.  To act otherwise is a bit psychotic and irrational.


From: Cutler and Meara report, Harvard University 2001.

Cochrane and WHO recognize Vitamin A deficiency as a risk factor for measles infection; plenty of evidence exists to support that Vitamin A supplementation can alleviate the seriousness of measles infections.

Hysterisis is the permanent change in a system due to a shift in another part of the system.  When corporate liability was removed for injuries and death in 1986, corporate influence on decision-making by the US CDC, HHS and ACIP become so strong and pervasive that today (1/20/2019), we saw the US Surgeon General getting defensive on whether he was “pro-vaccine” enough.  This shift need not be permanent; indeed, regulatory recapture is very much on the mind for environmentalists (EPA), patients with loved ones killed by fast-tracked medicine (FDA), and, of course, the ever-increasing army of Vaccine Risk Aware Americans (CDC, FDA, NIAID).


Today, the New York Times ran and OpEd piece filled with the same, tired denialist tropes – deny, deny, deny (“full stop”) that vaccines are toxic or might contribute to autism.  At this point in time, as far as trying to convince the public that vaccines do not cause autism, the New York Times might as well try to convince the citizens of the US that the moon is made of cheese.  Their terminology is outdated – so-called antivaxxers recognize within their own ranks a diversity of phenotypes from absolute refuseniks (who most often have witnessed or experienced serious adverse events first-hand) to sometimes-vaxxers.  Generally speaking, many (but not most) are ex-vaxxers, and all are vaccine risk aware.  None are vaccine injury and death denialists.  Americans find that type of treatment – especially of genetic minorities at highest risk – extremely offensive.  Given the thousands and thousands of recorded eyewitness testimonies given to Polly Tommey and the rest of the Vaxxed crew, one might as well be a holocaust denier.


The reason, vaccine proponents say, that we need to deny that vaccines cause autism (per NY Times, CDC, and other sources) is that people might stop vaccinating, leading to a surge in outbreaks due to vaccine hestitancy.  They never factor in the loss of immunogenicity of the vaccines due to mutations that occur, year after year (now over 30 years) in both the wild-type pathogens and the vaccine-type.  Like the farmer, the solution is more vaccination – spreading more vaccine injury as they go. They do not factor in the reality that live attenuated vaccines lead to subclinical asymptomatic infections – that is, children sitting in the classroom, with no symptoms, spreading mumps, pertussis and yes, measles – and the only thing that unvaccinated kids do is reveal a circulating infection.  These realities are well known, but denied by public health policy experts, who act as though every person carrying measles is the disease – when in reality, measles was universally recognized as a mild infection before the corporate liability was removed.

Clearly, there is an end point to the measles mortality hysteresis, and clearly, these actualizations thus far are insufficient to reconcile public health public policies with reality. However, it seems the financial cost of denialism will be its own undoing.

Minnesota, USA: Vaccine Risk Denial Comes Home to Roost

The type of denial that has taken place is now coming back to bite states in their pocketbook.  Anne Dachel, of Age of Autism, has been chronicling the soaring costs of special education programs in the website Loss of Brain Trust (https://www.lossofbraintrust.com) which now has thousands of media stories showing that society cannot keep up with the burgeoning cost of caring for kids with developmental disorders – and that States are turning their back on the families who need the assistance, after telling them that vaccines do not cause autism, ADHD, dyslexia, language delay and other forms of developmental disorders.

Anne Dachel’s Message

Anne sent a message focused on Minnesota.  She recalled that ten years ago, the statistic of 1 in 32 Somali children with autism in Minnesota shocked the world.  The state had assured the public that vaccines were not a cause of autism.

Now, in January 2019, Minneapolis Star Tribune reports that Minnesota schools are facing ‘crisis level’ in special education funding.  From the Star Tribune article:

“School administrators say the mandate’s growing financial burden is threatening their ability to provide the same for all students.

Soaring special education costs are squeezing the budgets of Minnesota schools — and quickly becoming school districts’ top priority for the new legislative session.

While public schools are required to provide special education services, federal and state governments cover only a portion of the cost. That means Minnesota districts must dig in their budgets, pull out money they would otherwise spend paying teachers or remodeling aging buildings, and collectively fill in a gap that this year is expected to balloon to $724 million.

For many districts, that exercise has become increasingly painful, resulting in teacher layoffs, program cuts and swelling class sizes. School administrators are quick to note that they cannot — and would not — deny special education students their right to an education that meets their needs, no matter the cost. But they say the mandate’s growing financial burden is threatening their ability to provide the same for all students.

“Districts are taking ever-increasing amounts of money out of their general education funds to pay for special education costs,” said Brad Lundell, executive director of Schools for Equity in Education, a group that represents nearly 60 districts across the state. “And that, I think, is reaching a crisis level in the state.”

Many school administrators and advocates say the problem begins with the federal government, which has never followed through on its decades-old pledge to cover 40 percent of special education costs. Currently, the federal government pays for about 8 percent of Minnesota’s $2.2 billion annual special education expenses.

The share of the cost picked up by the state has ticked up in the last decade, rising to about 63 percent this year. But it’s not enough: more Minnesota students are requiring special education services, including a growing number with particularly complex medical, mental health or behavioral needs. The cost to serve them is rising at a faster rate than the overall costs of education, and the federal government isn’t responding in kind. …

“I would say this is probably the No. 1 issue for us from a budgetary standpoint,” said superintendent Wayne Kazmierczak. “From a standpoint of what financially keeps us awake at night, it certainly keeps us awake.” …

All told, Minneapolis has the state’s largest special education funding gap: $55.3 million, or about $1,400 for every student in the district.

Anne’s past articles on Age of Autism from 2008 (here and here) and 2013 are now  prescient warning unheeded. She is justifiably incensed in her message:

“I was in Minneapolis when Somali leaders met with health/school officials for a public forum in 2008. Parents wanted answers. Education officials assured them that vaccines weren’t at fault AND THAT THE SCHOOLS WOULD PROVIDE FOR THEIR KIDS’ NEEDS.

NOW ….SPED costs are just too much to handle. Notice the photo on the story…….lovely little (I’m assuming Somali) girl, BUT NOT ONE WORD OF EXPLANATION AS TO WHY THERE IS THIS ‘GROWING NUMBER’ of disabled students more complex needs. 

STILL…….they have to pretend the only problem is covering the cost–not why it’s happening. It’s something that just can’t continue.”

The acts of pumping pregnant women and infants with neurotoxic metals, and citing studies not designed to test causality as proof of a lack of causality in the face of clear evidence of inappropriate scientific conduct at the highest levels in CDC is best described as perseveration– and the act of doing this same thing over and over and expecting a different result it would seem, is not healthy for children and other things.
In search of confirmation of their bias, denialists also seize on the slightest evidence to further dismiss the notion that vaccines do not cause autism.  For example, they cite MRI studies that have reported that children with autism have significant early structural differences in their brains compared to children without autism – and inappropriately claim that such studies show that vaccines cannot cause autism – in spite of the fact that such studies never considered the effects of vaccines.
However, they must forget that CDC shifted their position on vaccination during pregnancy at the same time they ended that the use of thimerosal-containing vaccines (other than flu vaccines), and that the infants being studied would have received aluminum from their day-of-birth vaccination against Hepatitis B.
To me, the days of vaccine injury and denialism seem numbered.  The ploys advocated by the New York Times Opinion section carry a certain desparation – as do the efforts across the country to strip Americans of their rights to religious, philosophical, and by social pressures such as sanctions, medical exemptions.
Medical doctors in the US who choose to actually practice medicine should not be penalized nor sanctioned for acting in good conscience on these realities.  It is utterly inconceivable that parents who choose to exercise their legal rights to choose to skip some, or all, vaccines for their children would be chastised.  Remember, these events are taking place in 2019 – an era in which HHS conceded in court to Robert F Kennedy, Jr. and to Del Bigtree that they failed to comply with the 1986 law that required them to report, every two years, progress on their attempts to make vaccines safer and to identify those at highest risk of vaccine injury.  (See ICAN’s new epic response calling HHS out for offering palliative responses to urgent and pressing questions).
If society really wants to eradicate measles, the actual efficacy of the measles portion of the MMR must be determined via studies conducted by entities with zero financial interest in the outcome of the study.  Why?  Because Merck’s FDA-submitted efficacy data on mumps is under intense scrutiny due to two whistleblowers who allege they were forced to add rabbit antibodies [See Lawrence Solomon’s HuffPo article].
How can schools enforce mumps vaccination requirements when the vaccine is being litigated as a potential mega-fraud? Why then should we also trust Merck’s data on measles efficacy?  If it as low as it might be suspected, then the number of vaccinated children in school with subclinical infections may in fact vastly outnumber the vaccinated who are infected – making the contributed risk of new transmission chains from the unvaccinated miniscule.  Since measles asymptomatic infection is real, the path to measles eradication would involve in-home testing requirements – and quarantine of individuals who have subclinical infections.  Ironically, the only way a school can learn of the circulating subclinical infection may be to have a few unvaccinated children who can show symptoms.  Otherwise, immunocompromised children could walk into a school teeming with silent, wild-type measles viruses transmission chains among the vaccinated.
James Lyons-Weiler, PhD
Allison Park, PA

Support jameslyonsweiler.com

This effort is not funded by any means, except some meager ad revenue. Your support will help me offset costs. Won’t you pitch in?



To sign this declaration, put your name or organization’s name as a comment.

We, humanity, recognizing our entitlements to life and procreation provided by our natural origins on this planet, HEREBY ASSERT AND DECLARE OUR RIGHTS TO HEALTH, of which we will tolerate no infringement upon, and will defend by all necessary means:

Our access to unpoisoned air and water;

Our access via trade and commerce to unpoisoned soil;

Our access via trade and commerce to unadulterated food;

Our access to options to maintain and increase our own health by means that we decide, individually or in unions, are best suited for ourselves, and for our progeny;

Our rights to refuse to participate in medical research of any nature with prior, free and informed consent, and to be treated with dignity befitting human beings without exception, and

Our rights to choose, or refuse any “medicine”, including drugs, presumed prophylactics, and psychological exposures, delivered by any means into our bodies and our minds at any phase or stage of life based on our OWN free will.

James Lyons-Weiler, PhD

Allison Park, PA December 15, 2018

Support jameslyonsweiler.com

This effort is not funded by any means, except some meager ad revenue. Your support will help me offset costs. Won’t you pitch in?


For Health Officials and School Boards: Asymptomatic Measles Infection is Real

For Health Officials and School Boards: Asymptomatic Measles Infection is Real

There was a time when it was openly recognized that vaccinated individuals could become infected with wild-type measles.  These infections are called subclinical infections (aka asymptomatic infections). We don’t talk about that very much anymore. In fact, two days ago I had a conference call with a high-ranking health official at the NYC Health Commission who claimed that it does not happen – specifically, that official stated that subclinical infections do not occur.

Given that this person is so obviously misinformed, I thought I would provide a literature resource for those who might not realize this reality: vaccinated individuals can, and have always, been known to be able to be infected with wild-type measles virus.  Since this is true, the rare non-vaccinated child is not, in a highly vaccinated population, to be the primary source of new transmissions of measles.  Instead, the vaccinated individuals with subclinical infections may be driving new infections in schools. It is therefore illogical, and quite unfair, to blame unvaccinated individuals when infected asymptomatic individuals can go to school unabated.

If we are to have public health policies based on science, this science must be given due consideration; otherwise, we would have public health policies based on something other than science.  In reality, in highly vaccinated populations, measles can spread from a majority of vaccinated, to a minority of unvaccinated people, causing overt disease.  In other words, the unvaccinated merely expose the circulating measles virus, and any child with a compromised immune system may be exposed even in a fully vaccinated population.

Not all full texts are freely available online, but some are. Here are some relevant examples from the primary scientific literature.

#1. Nonclassic measles infections in an immune population exposed to measles during a college bus trip. Helfand RF https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=9829639

“Mild or asymptomatic measles infections are probably very common among measles-immune persons exposed to measles cases and may be the most common manifestation of measles during outbreaks in highly immune populations.”

#2. Current status of measles in Japan. Nakayama T, Zhou J, Fujino M. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12673398

“Measles infection is considered to provide lifelong immunity after an infection and, thus, live measles vaccines also induce longterm immunity. But long-term immunity is now considered to be an effect of natural boosts via subclinical reinfection. Subclinical infection has been demonstrated by sero-conversion, but the isolation or detection of the measles virus genome was rarely demonstrated”… 

“Potential impediments to eradication include: (1) a lack of political will in some industrialized countries, (2) transmission among adults, (3) increasing urbanization and population density, (4) HIV epidemics, (5) waning immunity and the possibility of  transmission from subclinical cases, and (6) risk of unsafe injection.”

#3. Protective titres of measles neutralising antibody. Lee MS et al. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11074481

“…only 1 vaccinee with HI titre #31 mIU/ml experienced typical measles symptoms and 13 vaccinees with HI titres #31 mIU/ml experienced subclinical infection.”

#4. Effect of subclinical infection on maintaining immunity against measles in vaccinated children in West Africa. Whittle HC et al. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=10023894

“Subclinical measles occurred in 39 (45%) of 86 vaccinated children who were exposed to measles and in four (25%) of 16 unvaccinated children…”

#5. Detection of measles virus genome in lymphocytes from asymptomatic healthy children. Sonoda S, Nakayama T. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11536248

“Serological confirmation of subclinical re-infection was obtained by pre-exposure in household-exposed parents who developed asymptomatic secondary immune responseswith a concomitant increase in specific IgG neutralizing test antibodies and haemagglutination inhibition titres…Subclinical infection was confirmed in adulthood.”

“In Japan, measles virus has been circulating and asymptomatic infection has occurred frequently…”

#6. The Clinical Significance of Measles: A Review Walter A. Orenstein Robert T. Perry Neal A. Halsey https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/189/Supplement_1/S4/823958

“People with inapparent subclinical measles virus infections are not known to transmit measles virus to household contacts.”

#7. Detection of measles virus genome in bone-marrow aspirates from adults. Sonoda S, Kitahara M, Nakayama T. http://www.microbiologyresearch.org/docserver/fulltext/jgv/83/10/0832485a.pdf

#8. Waning immunity and subclinical measles infections in England. Glass K, Grenfell BT. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15364464

“A comparison of these cases … shows us that adding subclinical infections to the model also increases the number of clinical cases, as the subclinical infections increase the levels of circulating virus. This feature is more pronounced … because {when) vaccination
levels are higher … subclinical cases make up a greater proportion of the total cases.”

#9. Subclinical measles infection in vaccinated seropositive individuals in arctic Greenland. Pedersen IR https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2815970

“measles can spread from a majority of vaccinated, to a minority of unvaccinated people, causing overt disease.”

#10. Isolation of measles virus from a naturally-immune, asymptomatically re-infected individual. Vardas E, Kreis S https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10443793

#11. Risk analysis for measles reintroduction post global certification of eradication. Dr Ray Sanders. https://www.who.int/immunization/sage/7._Measles_post_eradication_risk_analysis.pdf

#12. Effect of subclinical infection on maintaining immunity against measles in vaccinated children in West Africa.


#13. Measles eradication: is it in our future? Orenstein WA, Strebel PM, Papania M, Sutter RW, Bellini WJ, Cochi SL. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1446359/

#14. The Re-Emergence of Measles in Developed Countries: Time to Develop the Next-Generation Measles Vaccines?https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3905323/

#15. Modeling the Impact of Subclinical Measles Transmission in Vaccinated Populations with Waning Immunity Mossong, J et al.  https://watermark.silverchair.com/150-11-1238.pdf

“In view of eradication, it is therefore important to investigate whether current vaccines perform well enough to prevent persistence of wild virus in highly or even fully vaccinated populations.”

#16. “Mild or asymptomatic measles infections are probably very common among measles‐immune persons exposed to measles cases, but transmission from asymptomatic cases is likely to be very rare. … However, the potential role of asymptomatic infections in maintaining transmission requires further investigation.”



CDC Concedes … Quietly. Has The American Academy of Pediatrics Been Told?

CDC Concedes … Quietly.  Has The American Academy of Pediatrics Been Told?

As of 2/2018 … quietly, CDC has conceded important facts about the MMR and MMRV Vaccines.

Please forward this article to all MDs who need to know that, according to the CDC.  The information below is directly from the CDC:


Some people should not get this vaccine
Tell your vaccine provider if the person getting the vaccine:
  • Has a history of seizures, or has a parent, brother, or sister with a history of seizures.
  • Has a parent, brother, or sister with a history of immune system problems. 
Some people should not get this vaccine
Tell your vaccine provider if the person getting the vaccine:  
  • Has a parent, brother, or sister with a history of immune system problems.
  • Has gotten any other vaccines in the past 4 weeks. Live vaccines given too close together might not work as well

Severe events have very rarely been reported following MMR vaccination, and might also happen after MMRV. These include:

  • Deafness
  • Long-term seizures, coma, lowered consciousness
  • Brain damage


That’s the CDC, folks.  Not so-called “anti-vaccine” nut jobs.

Of course, it takes independent research to push forward objectivity.  The writing is on the wall; epidemiology has failed us as a viable option for vaccine safety science.

Help us with your monthly donation to IPAK.



The US press has been pushing a view of acute flaccid paralysis as a mysterious condition of unknown etiology (unknown cause).  Checking the scientific literature, however, tells us that AFP is most often Guillain Barre Syndrome, a condition that appears on the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program as a “Table Condition” – i.e., one that the US HHS has no defense against when parents file in the NVICP for compensation for GBS as a vaccine injury in their children.

Here are some quotes from the abstracts of a collection of studies on AFP:

“Within the last few years, an enterovirus D68 outbreak has been associated with cases of acute flaccid paralysis in children, and emerging Zika virus infection has been concurrent with cases of acute flaccid paralysis due to Guillain-Barré syndrome, although cases of myelitis have also been reported.”

“Cases (of AFP) exhibited heterogeneous paralysis patterns from 1- to 4-limb involvement, but all definite cases had longitudinal spinal gray matter lesions on magnetic resonance imaging (median, 20 spinal segments). Cerebrospinal fluid pleocytosis was observed in 50 of 59 cases (85%), and 8 of 29 (28%) were positive for antiganglioside antibodies, as frequently observed in Guillain-Barré syndrome.”

“The syndrome of acute flaccid paralysis (AFP) is a common medical emergency in children. In the era of poliomyelitis eradication, the common causes of AFP include Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS), transverse myelitis and traumatic neuritis.”

“One-hundred thirty-nine children aged <15 years were reported to the Center for Diseases Control with AFP. In 138 (99%) stool samples no poliovirus was isolated. None of the patients was diagnosed as having acute poliomyelitis or polio-compatible paralysis. Guillain-Barré syndrome was the most frequent final diagnosis (79 cases) followed by Transverse Myelitis (7 cases) and Encephalitis (6 cases).”

The major clinical diagnoses associated with AFP were Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS, 40%) and encephalomyelitis/myelitis (13%).”

Guillain-Barré syndrome represented more than half of the reported cases (of AFP) (N = 2611, 52.5%), followed by traumatic neuritis (N = 715, 14.4%), and other CNS infections (N = 292, 5.9%).”

Guillain-Barré syndrome represented more than half of the reported cases (of  AFP) (N = 2611, 52.5%), followed by traumatic neuritis (N = 715, 14.4%), and other CNS infections (N = 292, 5.9%).

“Of these (cases of AFP), nineteen (45%) cases were classified as Guillain-Barré syndrome on both registries.”

“In 44.5% of cases (of AFP) the definite diagnosis was Guillain Barrè syndrome.”

Guillain-Barre syndrome dominated among non-polio AFP (39.3% of cases); more rare were traumatic neuritis (27.9% of cases), transient monoparalysis (12.1%), myelitis (7.6%).”

“A neurological cause was identified in 67.5% of cases (of AFP), of which the most common was Guillain-Barre syndromee (42%), followed by transverse myelitis (15%)”

The major clinical diagnosis associated with AFP were Guillain-Barre syndrome (30.2%), central nervous system infection (16.2%), transverse myelitis (10.6%) non-polio enterovirus infection (6.2%), and hypokalaemic paralysis (5.2%).”

“Among (AFP cases), Guillain-Barré syndrome (118 cases, 41.5% of all non-polio AFP cases), traumatic neuritis (63 cases, 22.2%), transient monoparesis of limb (35 cases, 12.3%), myelitis (26 cases, 9.2%) were registered most frequently.

“To describe the epidemiology and causes of acute flaccid paralysis (AFP) in Australian children, and the clinical features of the two most common causes of AFP, Guillain-Barré syndrome and transverse myelitis.”

The most common causes of AFP were Guillain-Barré syndrome in 67 (47%) and transverse myelitis in 27 (19%)”

Guillain-Barré syndrome was the commonest single cause of AFP.”

“…acute flaccid paralysis (AFP) attributed to a peripheral demyelinating process (Guillain-Barré Syndrome [GBS]), or to an anterior myelitis.”

Additional Information:

How to file your vaccine injury in VAERS

How to file a case in the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program

AFP IS GBS ABSTRACTS <<< download the abstracts


What the Allegheny County Board of Health Did Was Offensive – and Perhaps Illegal

What the Allegheny County Board of Health Did Was Offensive – and Perhaps Illegal

YOU MAY RECALL last month when Allegheny County Board of Health members acted on a motion to vote to approve a recommendation for the HPV vaccine for “all children”.  (You can read about the fiasco here).  After some research, it appeared to Allegheny County Council Member Sue Means, who was present at the meeting, that the Board of Health did not act in good faith.  Instead, it appear they may have had at least one private meeting to discuss how to slip this recommendation past the public – including the County Council – without allowing sufficient public comment and avoiding a County Council vote.  The recommendation will be perceived by school nurses and then the parents as a mandate – which it is not, as it was a Non-Binding Resolution. In fact, there is reason to believe they had private discussions with certain members of the public on how to get this vote past the public out of the purview of the Allegheny County Council’s oversight.

The Allegheny County Board of Health failed to include “HPV Vaccine” on the agenda for the meeting, instead, they slipped the HPV action into the topic “Vaccine Update”.  According to the people who did comment “Vaccine Update”, in the limited three minutes, to a person who attended, had we known there was going to be vote on a recommendation, we would have updated, edited and perhaps extended our comments.  The three-minute limit for comments is to be used judiciously, and The Public had in the past requested extended time to discuss these important matters.  In fact, in my written comments handed to the Allegheny County Board of Health, I had requested unlimited comment time if they held a vote on HPV vaccine.  I would have made that request orally if they had HPV Vaccine Recommendation on the Agenda.  Other Agenda items with a “VOTE” were clearly marked as such on the Agenda.  There was no such mark on the Agenda on November 7, 2018.

To make matters worse, in a request for clarification on procedure, in the meeting of Novemeber 7th, I was shouted down – and then threatened with forcible removal –  by the Chairman of the Allegheny County Board of Health and the Vice Chair who both motioned for a guard to remove me from the courtroom.  All over my request for clarification on their procedures (I requested a point of order clarification).

On November 20, members of the public then stood before the Allegheny County Council Meeting at which Council member Sue Means berated the Alleghency County Board of Health for subterfuge – and the County Council was visibly upset.

Here is the video of Sue Means informing the County Council of the offensive – and potentially illegal – actions taken by the Allegheny County Board of Health.



At this time, The Public is keeping all of our options open.


Allison Park, PA 15101

Update: We are creating Citizens for Health Policy Transparency – please sign up w/a donation:



Medical Freedom Tags for Vaccine Risk: Normalizing Mercury and Aluminum Sensitivity Awareness

Medical Freedom Tags for Vaccine Risk: Normalizing Mercury and Aluminum Sensitivity Awareness

IN PERHAPS THE LEAST CONTROVERSIAL MOVE YET TO EXPRESS THEIR MEDICAL INFORMED CHOICES, people around the country have added medical alert tags and bracelets to their bling to make anyone attending to their medical needs aware that they are, say, allergic to pencillin.

Examples include:






So, how about





To me, this seems like a logical and perhaps necessary step for anyone who is concerned that they might be vaccinated while unconcious, or that their child may be vaccinated.

Why?  Well, the first reason is freedom of choice, which is the law.  The second reason is that some people are, in fact, hypersensitive to mercury, and some are allergic to aluminum.  Why pediatricians do not perform an aluminum patch test for allergy prior to injecting aluminum into their patients is a baffling mystery.

Medical ID bracelets are obvious, but tags can be worn around the neck – and EMTs, ER personnel and others are trained to check for tags to help assess a person’s possible medical condition.  A person laying unconcious may be a diabetic coma, for example.

I don’t have any endorsements to make for providers, but here are some that I found that offer various options:




If you have a favorite source or type of bling, or if you think this is a good, or bad idea, feel free to post in the comments.


Allison Park, PA

After Threatening Forcible Removal of the Public from the Allegheny County Courthouse, a Deaf, Blind, and Dumb Allegheny County Board of Health Votes for a Non-Binding HPV Vaccine Recommendation

After Threatening Forcible Removal of the Public from the Allegheny County Courthouse, a Deaf, Blind, and Dumb Allegheny County Board of Health Votes for a Non-Binding HPV Vaccine Recommendation

TODAY was another kangaroo session in the Allegheny County Board of Health in a meeting in which parents informed the Board of Health on the realities of the risk of widespread HPV vaccination. On … but not on… the agenda today was and “Vaccines”. I had tried to register for public comment on both “Vaccines” and “HPV Vaccine”, but was misinformed by Dr. Karen Hacker’s office that “HPV Vaccine” and “Vaccines” were the same agenda item.

During the public comment period, numerous parents stepped up to the microphone for their three minute opporunity to inform the Allegheny County Board of Health of both the realties of risk associated with HPV vaccination in terms of human morbidity and mortality, such as the death of Chris Tarsell, teens who had been paralyzed and who are now dead.

Many parents correctly schooled the Allegheny County Board of Health that no HPV vaccine safety study used a saline placebo; that the vaccine was rushed to market under FDA’s fast-track mechanism; that the number of HPV-related deaths in the US continues to rise as government pushes the vaccine on more people. There was at least one parent there who was afraid to speak for fear of employment consequences. I provided public comments that informed Allegheny County Board of Health of the sorry state of HPV vaccine safety science (my bullet point comments provided in italics below). The public schooled the Allegheny County Board of Health on the realities that Japan refused to recommend the HPV vaccine for their citizens.

About an hour earlier, I had pulled into a parking lot across the street from the Allegheny County Court House, a box of 20 books under my arm. I spotted the local CBS news station KDKA van and a KDKA car. The occupants of both cars were given copies of “HPV Vaccine On Trial” before I entered the courthouse. I had even sent every member of the Allegheny County Board of Health their own copies of “HPV Vaccine on Trial” with assurance from the USPS that they would arrive by noon – today.


What transpired in the Courthouse was an outrageous abuse of power. The Allegheny County Board of Health had previously considered mandating the HPV Vaccine for school attendence in Allegheny County – but due to a large showing of parents who were much, much more informed that the medical doctors who had offered public comment, and due to my questioning on whether their pending vote required open public comment period – they had tabled the issue to committee. They even tried to sneak in a vote on a recommendation – without open public comments – and were called out on that, too.

But things were different this time.

Not a single member of the public stood up and spoke in favor of the HPV vaccine.

The Board heard an inaccurate report from Dr. Kristen Mertz, who claimed, among other things, that while moral and philosophical exemptions rates are showing a slight increase in Allegheny County, it is not as bad in Allegheny County as it is in California (there are no moral and philosophical exemptions allowed in California). Mertz reported that HPV vaccine is not required for school attendence, and on HPV vaccine reporting rates by nurses in schools… yes, you read that correctly, the Allegheny County Board of Health has been collecting vaccination statistics on students for a non-mandated vaccine – from school employees (nurses) – using our taxpayer dollars and time to track the uptake of a 100% optional vaccine. Why is anyone tracking that particular medical option? What about rates of autism, ADHD, allergey, rheumatoid arthritis, anxiety, depression, teen suicides, demyelinating disorders, POTS, PANS,, MMF, ASIA and a slew of other conditions that might be caused by aluminum-containing vaccines?

Suddenly, off Agenda, the Board then began discussions about a motion to make a recommendation for HPV vaccination.

The chair, Lee Harrison, handed out a packet and called for a motion

Harrison: “You also have in your packet a resolution on HPV Vaccine, I’m not going to read the entire thing, I’m just going to read the bottom line, which says “Now, therefore be it resolved hereby recommends that any child, in any county, unless otherwise counseled by their physician, receive the HPV vaccine according to the following ACIP recommendation (motioning for a guard to come into the court room)

So when folks are ready, um…

Caroline, did you join in (to the telephone…)

So, Board member Caroline Mitchell has also joined me, thanks for calling in…”

(One Board member speaking, away from the microphone, about having time to read the motion)…

Harrison: “So when folks are ready…”

Harrison: “If I could hear a motion, that would be great…”

(Karen Hacker inaudibly mouthing words to another Board member to the left of Harrison, away from the mic…)

Harrison: “Yeah, right, so we talked about this before, this is not a binding resolution, this is a (waving his hand) recommendation of the board, this is non-binding, this is not a regulation… this is just a resolution from the board… we talked about a recommendation…”

Other board member: (inaudible)

Harrison:“Well, I, I…” (interrupted by The Public)

The Public: “Could you turn your mic up please, I can’t hear you”.

Other board member: “Sorry” (moves microphone into place)

Harrison:The idea is to, is to vote on it as a resolution of the Board of Health.”

Other board member: “Oh, that’s easy.”

Other board member “I’d like to proposal a resolution… to… accept… this (inaudible).”

Harrison: “Second?”

Someone: “Yes, I second.”

The Public: “Point of order question?”

Harrison: “I’m sorry, this is not an interactive session”

Hacker (speaking at the the same time, to The Public: (inaudible)

Harrison (turning to the other board member): “Any… other…”

The Public: “I’m sorry, a point of order question?”

Hacker (motioning to the guard, inaudible)

Allegheny County Board of Health Member Karen Hacker motions to the guard to come into the courtroom at the moment The Public requested information on a point of order on the process.

Harrison: (speaking, inaudible)

The Public: “I have a question on a point of order, please.”

Hacker: “This is not an open session, please sit down (motioning toward the guard) or we will have you removed.”

The Public: “You are pre-judging the question that I have on a point of order”.

Hacker: “This is not a question and answer period.”

The Public: “Is the public not entitled to…”

Hacker: “This is not a question and answer period.”

The Public: “Is the public not entitled to unlim…”

Hacker: “This is not a question and answer period.”

The Public: “Is the public allowed to comment, with unlimited time, on motions put to vote by the Board?”

Hacker: This is not a question and answer period.”

Harrison: “Please sit down…”

Hacker: “Please sit down, or we will have to ask you to leave.”

Harrison: (Addressing the other board member): “Any other comments? Additional
comments before we vote?”

Harrison: Ok…” (Proceeds with the vote) (see video below my comments).

Ignoring all of the information provided by the parents, and provided by a scientist (read below), the motion passed, and the Allegheny County Board of Health refused to hear public comment about a vote on a non-agenda item that had obviously been prepared beforehand, presumable by Dr. Harrison, who provided the rest of the board with “the packet”.

Yes, you have it right. The Allegheny County Board of Health had to threaten The Public with physical removal from the Allegheny Courthouse for its desire to discuss HPV Vaccine benefits and risks before they passed a non-binding resolution that the Allegheny County Board of Health recommends the HPV vaccine.

My arrest would have been binding. Over discussion of a resolutions for a recommendation that is non-binding. Watch for the next chapter in the continuing saga of how The Allegheny County Board of Health is building public trust in the HPV vaccine.


  • When the original Gardasil vaccine (Gardisil-4) was being tested, there was no existing HPV vaccine.
  • Therefore, there should have been saline placebo studIES for safety.
  • Instead, the prospective safety trial used Amorphous Aluminum HYDROXYPHOSPHATE SULFATE as a placebo.
  • It has recently come to light that the one true safety study [WHICH ALSO DID NOT HAVE SALINE PLACEBO AND WAS WAS WOEFULLY UNDERPOWERED] INCLUDING THE 11-12 YEAR OLD TARGET AGE GROUP used ½ of the Aluminum-CONTAINING ADJUVANT in the vaccine formulation compared to the product THEN brought to market for teen girls.
  • In the Gardasil-9 trials, the placebo used was Gardasil-4, meaning the current HPV vaccine has MORE THAN 4 times the aluminum-CONTAINING ADJUVANT used in the only PURPORTED CONTROLLED TRIAL FOR THE TARGET 11-12YO AGE GROUP trial, and no HPV vaccine on the market in the US has been tested against a valid placebo.
  • In filings to the FDA (VRBPAC Background Document, Tables 17 and 18), Merck reported studies that found NEGATIVE EFFICACY of HPV vaccination for women over 26 – RELATED TO HPV INFECTION. This means INCREASED risk of CIN 2+ if they had an existing HPV infection.
  • Gardasil-9 targets the 9 most prevalent types of HPV that cause neoplasms in humans.
  • There are >100 other HPVs that the vaccine does not clear; at least 12-18 TYPES ARE CURRENTLY THOUGHT TO BE ONCOGENIC.
  • Many studies, including the CDC’s own data, show increases in non-vaccine targeted types following HPV vaccination.
  • Rarer viruses are rare because they are more virulent (higher morbidity and mortality)
  • This means that rarer, potentially more lethal HPV types can be expected to increase and spread throughout the population, possibility leading to INCREASED rates of HPV-related cancers.
  • Studies that fail to detect type replacement do so as a result of their study design or design of analysis, not because type replacement does not occur.
  • We are experiencing a CRISIS in vaccine safety science in general.
  • We have an epidemic of HPV-vaccine related serious adverse events reporting, so much so that annual HPV vaccine-related serious adverse events outnumber the total number of all serious adverse events reported for all other vaccines combined.
  • Some countries, like Japan, look at the entire picture and have refused to recommend HPV vaccine for their population.
  • Before any vote on any mandate of HPV or any other vaccine, I would like to reserve an unlimited amount of time AS ALLOWED UNDER THE LAW to discuss the actual state of knowledge of the safety and efficacy of this vaccine.
  • Allegheny County Board of Health and MEDICAL DOCTORS EVERYWHERE should be telling people that safe sex practices can protect against HPV infection, and they should be pushing Pap smear screening, which is a curative diagnostic.

Is NYU’s Art Caplan Lying? Childen Have the Right to Be Free From Vaccine Injury

Not every child who receives a vaccine experiences vaccine injury.

But some do.

Kids have a right to be healthy.

Vaccine can harm some kids.

Because not all children are protected from harm, they are entitled to equal protection under the law.

Vaccine mandates without exemptions will find and injure every child who will be injured.

Vaccine mandates with expemptions allow those who want to vaccinate their child and accept the risk to do so, while respecting the right to informed consent – also provided for
by law.

A few vocal but woefully incorrect voices have started calling for  revocation of the rights to exemptions. These include, notably, Art Caplan, a medical ethicist at NYU.


He wants the government to intercede in a family matter on the decision of choice for a medical procedure – even when there is no immediate risk – no imminenent threat.

And he is morally and ethically wrong.

In fact, there is reason to believe he is lying about this entire matter.

In 2017, he stated that because “we” (I presume he meant the small cadre of highly vocal anti-choice vaccine risk denialists presenting at the meeting) … because “we” are at “war” with anti-vaxxers (correction: the vaccine risk aware), it’s ok to mislead them.

So, what part of Caplan’s video argument here is misleading?

The public trust is based on respect. Anyone who argues for 100% vaccination coverage shows no respect for the mathematical fact that some will be injured-and killed.

Caplan mentions what he calls a “Canard” – the link between vaccines and autism.

Art thinks that the absence of a link between vaccines and and autism is the same as an absence of a link between Coca-Cola and autism:

“You can’t prove that Coca-Cola doesn’t cause autism, either… You’re in a debate [chuckle] and, you know, you gotta fight unfair.”

Art, there are not thousands and thousands of parents saying that their child regressed after drinking Coca-Cola.  And you likely know why the correlation studies cited by CDC and AAP do not show a causal connection between vaccines and autism, or, at least you should.

Here, in case you don’t, I did a systematic review:

Lyons-Weiler, J. [pre-print]. Systematic Review of Historical Epidemiologic Studies Influencing Public Health Policies on Vaccination [pdf, 2018] [supplementary material] (Review)

Art now claims that we know that vaccines do not cause autism because we are now getting to the point where we can diagnose autism before infants get vaccines.


When would that be, Art?

Infants receive vaccines on Day 1 of Life – with 250 mcg of aluminum in the Hepatitis B.
Fetuses receive unknown amounts of aluminum and unknown amount of mercury when mother accept the TDaP vaccine during pregancy – every pregnancy, every time against all medical sense – and when pregnant mothers accept influenza vaccines that contain thimerosal – which is 50% ethyl mercury by weight.  And CDC stupidly advised that flu shots should be preferentially given to pregnant women.  Why?  Was that to make autism appear “genetic”?

So, Art, exactly when is “before they are vaccinated”? And no, Art, the DSM-V manual clearly requires that children be beyond the age of 2 for a diagnosis of autism. I suppose you think it’s ok just to make stuff up to try to win your “war”?

For what, 100% vaccine coverage?

100% vaccine coverage = 100% vaccine injury. Think about that.  You’ve declared war on the families who have take the hit for “the common good”.

I’ve made it clear that above 85% vaccination coverage, the vaccinated asymptomatic infected outnumber the symptomatic unvaccinated infected, who stay home.

The vaccine zealots can’t see that writing on the wall. 100% vaccine coverage = 100% vaccine injury because such a program will find, and maim or injure, every susceptible child.  It’s just math.

I agree with Caplan that kids have a right to be healthy.

But I also say that the law of the land right now in 49 out of 50 states is the way that it is because our predecessors saw vaccine injury, and they know that parents won’t vaccinate again after encephalopathy, seizures or death of a child in their family following vaccination.

Kids DO have a right to be healthy, and that includes those who would be injured by vaccines.

Art, get a clue: Childen Have the Right to Be Free From Vaccine Injury.

Where are the memorials to those individuals who are vaccine injured or killed?  No where, thanks to vaccine risk denialism and vaccine injury denialism.

Was Caplan also misleading the public when he recently compared the vaccine risk aware to pipe bombers?  In an email, when called out on it, Caplan told me he meant what he said.

Here’s what some of the parents of children with vaccine injury have said about Art Caplan:

“Art Caplan is a disgrace.”

I think a true medical ethicist would insist that Dr. William Thompson be allowed to tell what he knows to Congress and that the CDC permit his testimony in civil proceedings.
I think that a true medical ethicist would insist that the department of justice bring Poul Thorsen back to the US to face justice.
I think that a true medical ethicist would demand that the complete Zimmerman testimony be turned over to the petitioner attorney’s in the Omnibus Autism Proceedings.
A true medical ethicist would oppose obstruction of justice and would speak out against it. Not sit on his hands and endlessly repeat pharmaceutical industry propaganda about how dangerous people who want vaccine safety are.
A true medical ethicist would insist that those petitioning for compensation and justice be afforded due process, fundamental fairness and not have their civil rights violated.
A true medical ethicist would call for the end of discrimination against the vaccine injured, even the vaccine injured with an autism diagnosis.
A true medical ethicist would raise alarms over the autism epidemic, acknowledge that environmental factors must be driving it and vociferously advocate for independent research and support for affected children and families.
A true medical ethicist would denounce Pharma for its’ role in killing more Americans with opioids in each of the past two years than were lost in the entire Vietnam War.
Where is Arthur Kaplan on that issue?
A true medical ethicist wouldn’t cavort with Paul Offit, a man who’s vote on the ACIP established a market for a vaccine he invented and who was cited by Congress for conflicts of interest in doing so. A man who shouted obscenities at the parents of children with autism.
A true medical ethicist would applaud the courage and integrity of researchers engaged in authentic scientific inquiry.
However, an industry spokesman would not.
Kaplan has dishonored his profession, his university and himself. He should act in the manner that his job title suggests.

We need to move beyond these lying, misleading zealots. We need to reveal their financial conflicts of interest.

In fact, I am of the opinion that NYU needs new leadership in medical ethics.

To send a complaint to NYU, send an email “To Whom It May Concern” requesting Art Caplan’s financial disclosures with respect to vaccines, vaccine manufacturers, and Not-For-Profits funded by vaccine manufacturers to


Tell the Provost YOUR family’s vaccine injury truth, and request the info on Caplan.

Let’s see what NYU thinks about Caplan declaring war on families whose kids took one for the team and his push to injure more kids needlessly.  I will publish an apology from Caplan to the families of the children and young adults injured and killed by vaccines.  He has my email address.

James Lyons-Weiler, PhD

November 1, 2018

Allison Park, PA 15101


When Vaccine Refusal is Not Unethical

When Vaccine Refusal is Not Unethical

THERE IS AN ENTRENCHED HERD MENTALITY AND GROUPTHINK phenomenon on the issue of the morality of vaccination refusal by those who scratch the surface of the issue that requires a specific constellation of embedded arbitrary values that both are not founded on basic logic and that also run counter to the norms and mores of relative value systems as they apply to individual vs. societal rights. In all of my writings to date, I have explored many issues, from natural vs. artificial herd immunity to miscalculations on the dose toxicity of aluminum by the US FDA. I now will tackle the unscrutinized presumption made by the herd that vaccinating one’s child is necessary and therefore should be a mandated moral duty of every parent.

The Medically Ineligible

First, let’s recall that “every parent” is an induction, which we disallow as an unwarranted generalization. That is to say, there must be some children in the population who cannot accept vaccines for medical reasons; the CDC’s Vaccine Information Statements and the vaccine product inserts and FDA labeling are filled with contraindications – which do parents little good if they are given after the administration of vaccines, counter to law.

Vaccine Risk Denialism

The portion of the population is likely much larger than is generally admitted, in large part due to the entrenchment of the idea that full and complete vaccination is always the goal for every vaccine, regardless of its true risk profile, not due to an objective assessment of the full profile of risks, or in the view of accurate knowledge of the percentage of individuals who are at risk of serious adverse events. Instead the view that complete vaccination coverage is the universal goal for every vaccine is compelled by the combined effects of a fear that vaccine risk awareness might lead to a dangerous drop in vaccination coverage, and a strategic overemphasis of the value of vaccination to society both in terms of the role of vaccines in decreasing the rates of morbidity and mortality from the spread of infection disease.

The specific strategic techniques employed include (a) exaggeration of the risks of active transmission of agents of infectious disease (measles deaths almost never occur in western countries, so cite death rates from measles outbreaks in Africa); (b) exaggeration of benefit of vaccination coverage to individuals in the population for which coverage adds no individual benefit (e.g., pertussis has virtually no individual risk to individuals outside of infancy).

The VRA Blow Back Effect

In reality, understatement of the risks of vaccination and the inducement of vaccination based on false premises of individual benefit is mathematically expected to lead to increased vaccine uptake; this will then lead inevitably to realization of the actual levels of morbidity and mortality due to vaccination, leading to justified activism by families who have family members who are injured or killed. These families are socially connected to families whose members may not be at the same risk level when the basis of that risk is due to genetics, but the vaccine injured families often feel they have a duty to warn others about the potential risks because they feel, rightly so, misled by elements of society, including the CDC, ACIP, the FDA, the AAP, the AMA, and their former medical doctors for failing to provide them with any means of detecting their familial or specific risk (e.g., “If I had only known“; “No one told me of the risk“).

This duty to warn of course is not sufficiently informed by the potential tools of science that could provide indicators (biomarkers such as pre-existing Th2/Th1 skew, family history or autoimmunity) and the medical community has blithely turned their backs on such potential indicators as not real without doing sufficient studies of how to use combined indicators of risk to predict, prior to vaccination, who might be at risk of serious adverse events.

Deconstructing “Vaccines Are (Always) a Public Good”

There is a widespread belief that the benefits of vaccination – any vaccination – is of such high benefit to society in terms of reduction of risk of morbidity and mortality that any individual who refuses vaccination for themselves or others are violating a moral code of the public good. In most cases, where a universal public good actually exists, society passes laws, with penalties for violating those laws. We all drive on the same side of the road, for example, and we all agree to interpret red lights as a command to not drive through an intersection.

For the last 100 years, in spite of rulings that have been interpreted as giving the rights of governments to mandate vaccination upon the population (of individuals), nearly all of society also saw the wisdom of providing exemption to those mandates. Those exemptions not only allow the vaccination program to remain Constitutional, by allowing people whose personal religious or moral codes compel them to refuse vaccination against other reasons to do so; they also provide a safety valve within which families who are a genetic risk of vaccine injury can escape the system and reduce the individual risk of vaccine injury. Vaccine mandate proponents and those who would take away the rights to exemptions fail on moral grounds because (a) they must deny that vaccine injury and deaths occur to minimize the immorality of compulsory vaccine injury for some, (b) in doing so, they stymie the ability of society to celebrate those whose children were injured as a result of the parents’ attempts to “do the right thing” and vaccinate their children in the first place, (c) they have prevented research on curative treatments of common childhood infections, (d) they have thwarted the correct perception that vaccines must be made safer, and the means of identifying those most susceptible to injury as mandated in the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, (e) they have prevented the development of means of detecting ongoing vaccine injury, and (f) they have prevented the development of emergency medical care to minimize the neurological and immunological effects of vaccine injury, which can be debilitating.

In 2016, the hashtag #wedid swept through the vaccine risk aware community, driving home the simple message: “you should celebrate our sacrifice, instead, you castigate and hate and marginalize the very heroes you are calling upon in your quest for 100% vaccination coverage”. Social media now allows the rapid dissemination of knowledge of deaths due to vaccination, a practice I have participated in because absent the knowledge of mortality due to vaccination, the amplified perception of high risk of mortality due to mild childhood diseases unfairly pits families at risk of vaccine injury against an non-existent risk.

The assumption that herd immunity is a justification for placing vaccination in the same category as “public good” is questionable under circumstances in which the cost of vaccination to society are not fully measured. In fact, Harvard-Pilgrim released the statistics on the rate at which an automated vaccine injury detection system reported vaccine adverse events compared to the passive VAERS reporting system and found that 99% of vaccine adverse events were not detected and reported by medical practitioners. Doctors are required by law to report all vaccine adverse events, but there are no penalties to them for failing to do so.

While the increase burden of infectious disease on low-income families existed in the late 19th and early 20th Century, universal modern healthcare means that less disparity in access to medical care and knowledge of sanitation and hydration practice that prevent deaths of measles and other infections are widespread.

Some have characterized the choice to not vaccinate as the actions of a parent selfishly only considers the interest of their child at the increased risk to others in the population. In my experience of speaking with hundreds of such so-called “self-interested” agents, I have seen them acting in the same way a parent might act if the saw a car coming at them in their lane; they might break the law in the interest of saving their own child by driving in the wrong lane themselves in hopes of avoiding a head-on collision, placing other travelers and themselves at increased risk. Or they might break the norm of driving on the curb, taking the risk of running into debris, or perhaps a stalled car. Rather than characterize them as agents who arbitrarily decide to drive in the wrong lane, vaccine risk aware parents who choose to not vaccinate should be seen as curbing to reduce the specific risk.

In so doing, such families are also reducing the burden of the cost of vaccine injury to society in terms that cannot be adequately measured because of the entrenched vaccine risk denialism that prevent the accounting of costs for arthritis, seizures, deaths, ADHD, autism, allergies and the many autoimmune disorders that are routinely induced using animal models.

By contrast, vaccine risk and injury denialism drive up the rate of chronic illness, neurodevelopmental disorders, psychiatric conditions, autoimmune disorders, neurodegenerative disorders, and, quite possibly, the cost of criminal activities. Readers entrenched in the vaccine risk denialism will read that last sentence as “vaccines are responsible for all cases of neurodevelopmental disorders, psychiatric conditions, autoimmune disorders, neurodegenerative disorders, and all criminal activities”, which, of course, is a mis-read of the sentence. In reality, the actual total cost of mass vaccination programs to society is unknown due to the entrenched vaccine risk denialism, which leads to, among other things, a refusal of the NIH to prioritize extra-mural funding for the study of safe ways for the removal of thimerosal-derived organic mercury and vaccine-derived aluminum from the brains of individuals who happen to tend to accumulate these and other toxins (aka, the Canaries).

No “Free Ride”

In reality, none of the hundreds of VRA Americans that I know count the value of the herd immunity via the absence of circulating measles, etc. among their reasons to avoid vaccines. They are aware of the arguments for herd immunity but being skeptical they see holes in the argument. They realize that in order to achieve real herd immunity, lasting immunity is necessary. Most adults over the age of 26 who received mumps vaccination do not realize that they likely are not immune to mumps infection due to combination of the limitations of the immunity conferred by the MMR, and the fact that the wild-type mumps has now evolved away from the vaccine-type mumps virus.

The argument that non-vaccinating families are somehow “free-riding” on herd immunity emphasizes their role as a potential reservoir or source of transmission of mild childhood infections. However, children of families who do not vaccinate also tend to home-school, and those who do not also keep their kids from school if they show signs of fever. The impact of the rule of keeping your sick child home on the rates of transmission of childhood diseases must be very large.

“The Vaccinated Vulnerable” aka “The Asymptomatic Carriers Reservoir”

In these infections, another group is hardly ever considered, and they appear to now vastly outnumber the unvaccinated. Unlike the unvaccinated, these individuals can acquire an infection but remain largely asymptomatic, or present only non-specific symptoms insufficient to keep them from school. These individuals are the asymptomatic individuals who, because they vastly outnumber the unvaccinated, represent the largest “threat” and the most likely reservoir of mumps virus and the pertussis bacterium. They have been called “The Vaccinated Vulnerable” by some who perceive them to have paid an individual price of taking the risk of vaccination but who do not enjoy immunity from vaccination and are therefore somehow placed at risk by those who do not vaccinate.

In reality, the “Vaccinated Vulnerable” are not necessarily vulnerable because their infections tend to be asymptomatic. In fact, because of this fact, they carry the pathogen without symptoms, placing those who choose to not vaccinate due to real or perceived increase of individual risk of harm from vaccines at increased risk of infection. It is truly a good thing, therefore, that mumps and measles etc. are almost always clinically mild.

At the Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge, we are currently calculating the effects of the efficacy of a vaccine on the relative sizes of the populations of the unvaccinated and vaccinated infected. Our preliminary results are very interesting: for every value of efficacy, along the dimension of vaccine coverage, there exists an expected switch point at which the VIs outnumber the UVIs. After the level of vaccination coverage leads to a switch point where VI > UVI, those who opt out of vaccines become scapegoats. In fact, they eventually become such insignificant contributors of risk compared to asymptomatic carriers – the ethics switch and compulsory vaccination become abusive, increasing risk to those who opt out due to empirical evidence of risk in their families.

Importantly, increased efforts to vaccinate do not change the fact that VIs outnumber UVIs until 100% vaccination is achieved, at which point the total vaccine coverage also causes 100% of those who will be injured, or die, to be found.

Here are the prediction curves for 88% efficacy:


Blue dots represent the % of infected who are vaccinated; orange represents the % infected who are not vaccinated.

This means there is circulating undetected asymptomatic mumps infection – that is, 100% vaccination does not eradicate the mumps virus. The presence of the unvaccinated in school only reveals the already circulating mumps virus.

At a lower level of efficacy, the switchpoint is much lower:


Blue dots represent the % of infected who are vaccinated; orange represents the % infected who are not vaccinated.

These preliminary predictions will be evaluated using public health data.

These models allow us to study and compare the predicted effects of various policies and practices, such as at-home testing for mumps infection (exclusion based on clinical detection of mumps virus) and the exclusion of the unvaccinated on the rates of total infection and on the rates of symptomatic infection.

The results are compelling – but they represent predictions. The expected values and relative sizes of VIs and UVIs across all levels of vaccine efficacy – and they provide a novel road to insight on the effects of vaccination on public health. The classic literature indicated 10-20% of mumps infections were asymptomatic; a recent study found that 4 of 5 – or 80% – of active mumps infections were sub-clinical – consistent with the predictions of our analyses.


Moreover, research at IPAK in this area may allow us to estimate the actual effectiveness of a vaccine based on the numbers of VIs and UVIs by inverting the analyses. This could be key to answer the question relevant to the Merck MMR whistleblower case in which the whistleblowers reported 18% efficacy initial test results, whereas the FDA submission cited close to 90% efficacy achieved – but after Merck allegedly spiked human samples in the lab with MMR antibodies from rabbits.

Our results to date have been shared with other scientists and a group of MDs.

Your support in continuing this effort, started in late October 2018, is desperately needed. Our aim is to complete the analyses, compare our predictions to empirical data from public health sources and the published literature, and publish the results in a mainstream vaccine journal.

The public has supported IPAK since 2016 to conduct science in the public interest. We bring objectivity to all we do. But refusing to partake in programs designed to mislead the public on risks associated with vaccines, this makes IPAK an outlier organization that openly defends the public’s right to objective, science-based public health policies.

For this effort, we are asking for monthly donations. To help IPAK complete this project, please visit this link

To make a more sizable one-time donation to drive this forward, please visit



OCTOBER 27, 2018


On Simplicity

On Simplicity

OCCAM’S RAZOR is a rule that says that the simplest explanation is usually the right explanation.  Interestingly, careful analysis tells us that the probability that most explanations will be correct because they are simple is lower than the probability that explanations that are almost, but not quite the simplest will have a higher probability of being correct.

The quest for parsimonious explanations can lead to a preference for elegant “beautiful” equations in physics.  But when applied to the natural world simplicity is only a factor to the extent that the conservation of energy and mass will tend to restrict complexity from occurring.

The sociology of science is an amorphous beast – actually, it is more like a menagerie of beasts – because different disciplines and domains have different rules of engagement, different norms and acceptable behaviors.

Draconian Simpletons

Let’s start with a theoretical domain of inquiry that insists that Occam’s Razor is a rule – that the simplest explanation must ALWAYS be preferred.  Their expected probability distribution of accuracy of models would look something like this:

Draconian Simpletons

Given that most natural systems are product of the interplay between that which persists, that which exists, and that which is emerging, the actual degree of complexity will likely involve, from the perspective of the Draconian Simpletons, at least one “extra” parameter, both in reality, and allowing for resources to adequately detect the usefulness of the “extra” parameter, some proportion of those will be likely to be detected.

Too Many Parameters

Of one thing we can be certain: the Draconian Simpletons’ expectation that the simplest explanation will always be correct – is incorrect.  Given the subjectivity of the actors (scientists) in the process, there can never be a proof that the simplest explanation will always be correct.  This proves (to my satisfaction anyway) that the set of correct solutions for all problems includes solutions that are not simplest.

At the other end, models with many extra parameters are not likely to correct, either, and the ability of scientists in that domain to have sufficient acumen to detect the extraneous parameters will not be perfect, either.  So there is noise even about  our ability to assess accuracy of models, and I suspect if we mapped that noise (uncertainty) over time as a domain of science progresses, there will be a “buzz” of uncertainty before many major breakthroughs.  We all use the term “breakthrough” and we think we know what it means, but right now it seems to mean breaking through the staid muck and mire and conservative nay-saying traditions and traditionalists within a domain.

The Goldilocks Zone

In practice, empirical research will sometimes overestimate, and sometime underestimate the number of parameters needed to explain a natural phenomenon (due to limitations of Science).  Following the reality of the truth that the simplest explanation will not always be correct, expected (real, blue) and realized (estimated, orange) distributions might look something like this:


If the blue distribution is shifted to the left, the field of study might do well to apply Occam’s Razor more frequently.  If the positions are reversed – as is nearly always the case in the early ontological stages of any scientific discipline, not only is it true that “more data are needed” but also that “new questions must be asked”.

Now, depending on that disciplines’ ability to test hypotheses of merit, which is limited by available background knowledge, by technology, and by intellectual capitol – among other factors – the actual distribution may still differ from reality.  The “among other factors” include whether a study is sufficiently powered to detect the significance of just one more parameter.  Small sample sizes are notoriously likely to lead to model overfit – a better score of an incorrect model fitting the model very well to the data, but not very well to reality.    There are many objective criteria for choosing among multiple parameter models (a process called ‘model selection’); these include Mallow’s CP, and comparison of the performance evaluation measures of the model on the training set(s) to the performance on independent test sets (accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, Area Under the ROC Curve).  We should favor models that tend to generalize for the same reason we tend to prefer results of null hypothesis significance testing that tend to be reproducible.

Which is Worse: Too Few (Underspecification) or Too Many (Overspecification)?

The further away from fit of the scale of the instruments of measurement are from the actual size – and duration – of the things and events being studied, the worse the model fit will be.  Avoiding sources of bias – including human biases such as favored hypotheses – is essential.  In quantum physics, the speed of particles and the sensitivity of instruments to be able detect accurate variation may be conflate with the duality of particles existing both as a wave and as a solid.  In chemistry, too many parameters can lead to incorrect formulations, contamination.  In biology, the noise of small samples and the sheer complexity of biological systems compete and conflate ease of understanding and hypothesis testing.  In medicine, the answer appears to be known beforehand, and thus specification often tends to fit a pre-determined agenda.  In such science-like activities, objective considerations such as these need not apply.

But when the aim of Science is understanding, it is the impact of model over- and under-specification on our ability to predict the future that will ultimately determine the utility of the models.  In some settings, for some models, and infinite number of equally good models can be specified that trade-off the costs of errors in prediction among categories of entities or events being predicted; and the purist statistically minded type that insists that models should be demonstrated to be consistent – that is, converge to one, true model in the limit (with an infinite amount of data), or parameter coefficients that converge to the same precise values when the available data are analyzed again with the same model-fitting procedures are a little ODD for the realities that given that we work with finite data (a) we are likely not getting the “true model” no matter how well we fit a curve to the data, (b) we know that some machine-learning algorithms such as neural networks and genetic algorithms can evolve solutions that we cannot interpret exclusively for the lack of our ability to interpret them, not due to a limitation of the learning algorithms. 

I realize that sounds to some like a declaration of war between machine intellect and human intellect, but it is not.  It is a failing of our academic endeavors that we cannot use vestigial exercises such as Cartesian dissection of some beautifully accurate solutions rendered by artificial intelligences in this world, and the Jeff Bezoses who use them to multiple profit do not care about understanding how they work; they care about that they work.

I have just such an algorithm that dispenses with the need for parameter estimates per se and uses instead whether the model parameter values fall within a specified range sufficiently enough to matter.  Re-run the algorithm, and different inputs become important while others fall out as unimportant.  It works beautifully for heterogeneous situations such as cancer, but even though I invented the approach (GA-optimized k-of-m), I cannot look at the decision rules that are output and say that any one of them is comprehensible beyond the paradigm of “tell me which features when used together this way are most important” plus “the prediction algorithm works or it does not work”.  And that’s ok, because the accuracy – and more importantly, the generalizability of the accuracy of my framework is far more important than the intellectual satisfaction of having conversed with an algorithm.  NB:ML processes like bagging and boosting are conceptually understandable as algorithms, but combining them with decision trees leading to Random Forests led to a process that was similarly unintelligible to Leo Breiman, the co-inventor (with Adele Cutler). As a black box solution, it’s beautiful, and it’s a mistake for people who want to escape their own sense of depressed ego to label such approaches as “not in touch” with science.

Not content to wait another 10,000,000 years for organic evolution to catch up, Breiman and other machine learnists have embraced the totality of Science as a Way of Knowing by embracing its limits, and transcending them.  In my Five Ontological Stages of Science, I conclude that the best and truest test of knowledge about nature, the world and the Universe around us is to demonstrate our ability to predict what will happen when we perturb it, and this  is necessarily a pragmatic position, because society, our species, we as individuals tend to value things we can use.  My k of m GA is not simple, as it employs adaptive Darwinian evolution working on genetics modeled after evolving chromosomes, with mutations and crossing-over to boot. But it is beautiful to me nevertheless, and far superior to fixed-parameter models. It is its transcendence of fixed parameter values that is so beautiful to me, perhaps vaingloriously so, but only to the extent that I think “not bad for a biologist”: the fixed parameter values are sources of noise in predictions, whereas counting marks beyond thresholds appears to clean up the noise.

I’ll end this with a funny and true story.  I was walking along a street in downtown Boulder, CO after an Evolution conference sometime in the 1990’s when I happened upon a bar within which a troup of maximum likelihoodists had aggregated.  Among them was Nick Goldman, whom has scooped me out of a paper by publishing first[1] that the DNA Chaos Game fractal patterns were merely a numerically necessary result of unevenness in the use of nucleotide bases in the genomes being studied.  His solution was to show that nucleotide, dinucleotide and trinucleotide frequencies could explain the odd patterns, which were fractal.  Others had postulated layering, or nesting of information, or weird long-range correlations.  In my paper, which I submitted for publication ignorant of Nick’s, showed that nucleotide and dinucleotide frequencies alone were sufficient.  Both Nick’s findings and my findings show that mathematical frequencies alone were sufficient to explain the patterns, and that the CGR algorithm necessarily created recognizably fractal patterns When I saw his publication, I had sent him my manuscript with a note of congratulations.

Entering the bar, Nick was finishing up a game of billiards.  “Hey James” he said.  “You up for a round?”  I said “Sure.”  “You break” he said – my break didn’t sink any balls.  Nick was up, and he tried, but failed.

I proceeded then to clean the table.  Finishing my beer, I thanked him for the round.  “You know what your problem was there Nick?” I asked.

“No, what?” he said.

“You used too many parameters” I joked, and off I went, headed to my hotel room.

The second best part of the story is that I had never won a round of billiards before in my life.

The very best part of the story is that Nick Goldman did not know that fact.

“The aim of science is to seek the simplest explanation of complex facts. We are apt to fall into the error of thinking that the facts are simple because simplicity is the goal of our quest. The guiding motto in the life of every natural philosopher should be ‘Seek simplicity and distrust it.'”– Alfred North Whitehead

Featured image source: CS Department, Gettysburg College Student Project by Kathryn Kinzler and Jessica Wagner


[1]Nick Goldman, 1993. Nucleotide, dinucleotide and trinucleotide frequencies explain patterns observed in chaos game representations of DNA sequences. Nucleic Acids Research 21:2487-2491.

Why Did the FDA Just Ignore Safety Signals on HPV Vaccine in Women Aged 26 to 45?


Last Friday, the FDA approved of HPV vaccination of older women – at the end of a week in which a blockbuster book came out that highlights serious issues with the HPV vaccine – including troubling safety signals that the FDA knows about.

Previously, the vaccine had been approved for use ages 9-26, although scant data exists on the efficacy and safety in 9-year olds.  The FDA extended the approved use into an age group (27 to 45 years old women), some of whom will now almost certainly feel the effects of FDA’s latest flawed approval by experiencing autoimmunity, paralysis and death.

What the FDA Knows We Now Know, Too

From the information submitted from Merck to the US FDA, it is apparent that the vaccine used in Protocol 018, the only study of the safety of the vaccine market group  (9-15 year-olds) used only one-half the standard AAHS dose in the formulation of the vaccine. Most of the protocols of 16-26 year-olds appear to have used the full dose of AAHS in the vaccine formulation and the 9-15 year-olds in the prior immunobridging study, which compared used 9-15 year olds and 16-26 year-olds, with no controls (merely to study antibody response), which used a full dose of AAHS. In addition, the 9-15 year old cohorts were boys and girls, so, small as they were, only about half the children were female.

They also know that for the new age group there is a likely increase in the incidence of cervical cancer following vaccination.  Through two years of sleuthing, the authors of the book “HPV Vaccines of Trial” found that Merck informed FDA of a group that experienced “negative efficacy” – that is, an increase in the rate of pre-cancerous lesions that could lead to cervical cancer, and that the data show that if a woman is already infected or has evidence of prior infection at vaccination, combined with real world co-factors like smoking, they risk a 44% greater chance of developing CIN 2/3 lesions or worse. (Examiner Article, webarchive)

Which age group is most likely to already have had infection?  Women over 26.

So, combined with the bombshell reveal that the product on the market is not the product that was tested, we now have the sad problem that women over the age of 26 will join the ranks of those already at risk of autoimmune disease, paralysis and death due to the HPV vaccine.

Misinformation Campaign Gets Worse

The press does not have the scientific acumen to know that their latest coverage claiming that Australia may “eliminate HPV” (New York Times, BBC) is based on a flawed modeling effort that assumes HPV vaccination confers lifelong immunity to HPV infection.  First, it does not confer lifelong immunity to the HPV types in the vaccine; second, many other types of HPV virus exist that are not targeted by the vaccine at all – including no cross-protection – that are also high-risk (see High-Risk Type Replacement)

I have just completed recording a lecture on HPV Virus, HPV Infection and the HPV vaccines, which will be available at cancercourse.com   Persistent infection appears to be a risk – and I have a hypothesis that vaccination of the most prevalent types allows the non-vaccine targeted types present in co-infection to flourish. You can preview the lecture slides at the IPAK website.

You can hear from all three authors of this extremely important book from Thursday’s Highwire Episode:


You can read the evidence yourself, see the submitted data, see the pseudo-science used by Merck to convince the FDA that the HPV vaccine is safe.  What is most unbelievable is that there are people who want to mandate this vaccine.  This vaccine’s time is up.

I would like to thank Kim Mack Rosenberg for checking the accuracy of the text in first paragraph.  For the full story, #readthebook.

HPV vaccine on trial

Is Pubmed Burning Books?

Is Pubmed Burning Books?

IN 2017, I published an indictment of PLOS One for their tortured logic over the question of a link between vaccines and autism, citing an article by Dr. Peter Hotez who had cited a handful of studies as “proof” that vaccines do not cause autism.  In that article, I highlighted the fact that the Pubmed page of one of the studies cited by Hotez (Uno et al.) had a troubling comment by Dr. Janet Kern in the comment section in the Pubmed Entry.  That comment read:

“Janet Kern 2015 Mar 24 9:28 p.m.edited 0 of 1 people found this helpful
There is a statistical error in this research study. This error can be seen in Table 2 at 24 months of age. By utilizing the numbers provided in Table 2 (see below) it is evident that the difference between cases and controls at 24 months is highly statistically significant. The journal, Vaccine, was notified of the error. However, since, to date, no clarification has been issued, it is important to note that the conclusions seen in the abstract above are misleading and are the opposite of the conclusion supported by the data. The corrected results indicate that there is a statistically significant relationship between Thimerosal exposure and autism spectrum disorder.

***** At 24 months from the data provided using a t-test reveals the following:
Unpaired t test Mean of * sample 1 from summary = 804.2 (n = 189) Mean of * sample 2 from summary = 632.1 (n = 224)

Assuming equal variances Combined standard error = 71.838701 df = 411 t = 2.395645 One sided P = 0.0085 Two sided P = 0.017 95% confidence interval for difference between means = 30.882882 to 313.317118 Power (for 5% significance) = 90.07%
Assuming unequal variances Combined standard error = 72.061016 df = 394.166765 t(d) = 2.388254 One sided P = 0.0087 Two sided P = 0.0174 95% confidence interval for difference between means = 30.445864 to 313.754136 Power (for 5% significance) = 66.35%

Update 5/24/2015: When the journal Vaccine was notified of the error, it notified the authors. In response to the notification of the error, the authors changed the numbers in Table 2 of their study. The authors changed the mean and standard deviation for the controls at 24 months from 632.1 (715.1) to 676.8 (719.5). No explanation for the error or justification for the change was given.

To date, the journal Vaccine and the study authors have refused to release the study dataset for further evaluation.”

I also published a screen capture that shows the presence of a comment:


The current Pubmed page for the Uno et al. study shows no comments.

One has to wonder: Is Pubmed burning books?

Pubmed is a public resource, paid for by American taxpayers.  Extreme diligence is necessary to insure that Pubmed is not a tool that becomes abused by monied interests.

Please share with academics, legislators, and medical professionals everywhere.


Special Article: What Factors Limit the Rate of Scientific Discovery?

Special Article: What Factors Limit the Rate of Scientific Discovery?

Other than fraud and deception, what other factors limit the rate of accumulation of scientific knowledge? To learn more, read this Special Article, in which I introduce the idea of a human society knowledge singularity, and the concept of “-k” (‘negative k’). I think you will find it answers some questions and raises others. Post your own opinion/questions.

I have always been fascinated by the Limits of Knowledge.

Let’s say a civilization has F funds to start the process of scientific discovery toward the end of understanding the world and the Universe around it.

They can show their value of basic research (vB), applied research (vA), and technology development (vT) by the relative investment into each of those three areas. (vB, vA and vT are arbitrary units of importance reflecting how we spend our time, not dollars spent. They thus determine the disbursement into basic, applied and technology).

This society’s scientists have a fix rate translating new findings into something of value for society at a rate of TS (translational success; range 0-1).

The society can re-invest funds from the value of the last years’ k into basic research, applied research and technology development at whatever rate (0%-100%) or beyond 100% if they are seriously into research.

Assume that advances in technology have a multiplicative effect on both basic and applied research, and that the effect is equal on both types of research.

With the simple model

k(i) = k(i-1)+TS*RI*(vT*(vBS+vAS)+(vBA x vBS))

we can learn some surprising things about the parameters that influence the rate of accumulation of knowledge by exploring some scenarios.

With more classical notation, the equation reads:


The Dark Ages

Let’s say anti-science sentiment grows to the point where no matter what scientists learn, and manage to translate into something useful to society, society just won’t or can’t invest. Knowledge tends to increase at a slow rate, and then hold at a steady state.

Let’s say for this example, society is really stingy, and re-invests only 25% of the gains from science into more research. In the first decade, there is a jump in k, but it levels out, and for the next century, that society effectively learns nothing new.


Note the scale of the Y-axis as we change conditions. This analysis assumes a fairly high translational success rate of 30%. So the deserving, beleaguered, underpaid and underappreciated scientists are somehow nevertheless contributing value. Society is eating is seed corn.

Now assume a society in which investment is increased – generously so – such that 80% of new revenues that result from advances in science are re-invested. Assuming the same translational success rate of 33%, what do we see?


Even at 80% re-investment, we see only a modest increase in overall knowledge, and it remains fixed. One would think that such a high re-investment rate would cause at least a linear increase, but it doesn’t. Now, under these two scenarios, society values applied and basic research the same amount as technology (arbitrary value units of 10 each).

Given that technology has a multiplicative effect, what happens if we double the value of technology relative to applied and basic research (vA 10, vB 10, vT 20)? Let’s keep society investing at 80%:


Ah, that’s a bit more impressive – but we’re still not doing something right. Knowledge is flat – that is, in spite of 100 years of effort, we stay at a stable rate. The investment goes in, but nothing new comes out.

The Renaissance

Let’s say the society has fallen on good times, either by luck or by conquest, and has an excess of wealth. Under the conditions above, if it starts actively investing, say, 120% (RI = 1.2), what happens?


Bummer. We see only a modest increase again. We still learn more, but we hit a k-ceiling. We want growth, not stagnation. So simply throwing even money at the problem at a rate of 120% is no guarantee of perpetual growth in knowledge.

But let’s say the society continues it economic growth, and ups the RI to 3 (yes, 300 x the revenue realized from scientific discoveries):


Well then. Not that it is theoretically possible with fixed infrastructure, but in the first two years of very, very generous investment we have surpassed the growth of k under previous conditions. But note the model still goes (eventually) to a fixed amount of k. It’s not even (overall) a linear increase. We may be delighted in the first couple of decades on what we’ve learned, but eventually, that stodgy feeling of stagnation will overcome us, and we’ll have a huge, expensive infrastructure that eventually cannot justify its own existence in terms of k.

Going Linear

There exists a set of conditions under which a linear positive growth in knowledge occurs. It turns out that there is an interplay between the rate of return on investment, RI, and the translational success rate, TS, such that whenever RI = 1/TS, we can see a continuous growth in knowledge. So for TS = 0.1, you need an RI of 10.0; for TS = 0.2, you need an RI of 5.0; for TS of 0.3, you need an RI of 3.33 and so on for fixed linear increase. That looks like this (I won’t plot them all, but two major observation is that if you match RI to TS, (1) you break the ceiling, and (2) you end up at the same place in terms of k after 100 years regardless of TS. (It is obvious that inept scientists cost more in the long run).

Becoming Hypersapient – A Knowledge Explosion

So the next logical question would be: which combinations of TS and RI would lead to exponential growth of knowledge – our own singularity – in which science and technology work together to blow the lid off the limits – cultural ethical limits be damned, let society keep up, we just want to know things?

Once you have matched RI to 1/TS, you can do one of three things to go exponential:
(a) Increase RI such that > 1/TS (invest more money)

(b) Increase TS such that RI > 1/TS (train scientists how to translate their discoveries better)

(c) Increase RI and TS such that RI > 1/TS.

Let’s take the pair RI = 2, and TS = 0.5. Increase RI to 2.1:


Ah, that’s cool. We can know far more now. Yes, society is investing heavily, and our scientists are really good. Translational success of 0.5 is pretty high. What if we kept RI at 2, and increased TS to 0.6?


Incredibly, the TS increase of from 0.5 to 0.6 blows the RI contribution increase from 2.0 to 2.1 out of the water. It takes two decades to learn what it would have taken 100 years. What would that be like? Who could keep up? And how could we convince others that what we now know supplants what they thought they knew? Ah, culture drag, a missing parameter from our model.

Let’s ignore that for a moment, and assume that has a technology fix.

What if we take the third option, and increase RI to 2.1 and increase TS to 0.6?

Well, it still takes two decades to reach k = 500,000, but in the long run, things are really off the hook:RS2p1TS0p6

Ok, so our children’s grandchildren’s children will know 121 million times more than our children. You know what’s really cool? We can’t fathom what that means. That’s not even scary, scary does not qualify. For me, contemplating that is like standing on the edge of an engraved monolith on a moon circling Saturn, feeling the planetary gravity pulling me ever so softly off the surface, just the last moment before I can no longer feel anything under my feet…

They will have to invent a word for how we should feel about that.

Safe Hacks on Knowledge

The next logical question is: what is the lowest RI we can make and achieve exponential knowledge growth? How good can our scientists get at translation?

Well, for any RI < 1, scientists would have to become multipliers and exponentiators themselves in terms of TS because every discovery would have to have > 1 translational success. That’s not possible. And accountants don’t actually track say, market profits from each scientific discovery in all of its applications – they can’t, because of the diffuse nature of translational applications.

There are draws on RI as well; you have to pay your administrators, and if you’re corporate, you have to pay dividends to investors in an increasingly large-numbers markets. (Did you know I feel your pain? Only a little though, you’re well-off enough).

But for a modest RI, like 1.1, TS of 0.95 goes non-linear, but with the massive payoff in k in 100 years.


And our scientists just aren’t that talented. No way.

What about investing in technology to feed a multiplier? To get to k=40, we need to invest 200 into technology, valuing basic and applied at 10 (graph not shown). Now remember “invest” here means “value”, which means what we spend our time doing, not how much we spend.

Let’s say our scientists can at best do TS = 0.3. RI then has to be 350% (3.5). Places like Dubai can do this. Google can do this. Amazon can do this. It’s only a question of money, and training scientists on how to translate their knowledge into something useful to society. Truly useful. Not made to appear to be useful. Useful in the sense that it can position people to be better able to learn the explosion of knowledge that could result. That’s the funny thing about future knowledge. Every western civilization thinks they are the zenith of human development – that no more knowledge can be had. That’s like saying no more songs can ever be written; that all musical instruments that could be conceived of and played have been already. Nonsense. Hubris. Baseless induction.

For those who want to tweak the parameters or vary the model, here is an Excel file:


Please credit “kmax model, James Lyons-Weiler, personal communication”, link to this Special Article, and contact me and let me know about your modeling and analyses!

If you love vaccines and like me up to this point, stop reading now. Just kidding. You can do both. I know you can.

Evaluating a Current Science – Vaccines

The technology being used in vaccines has stagnated. Globally it’s a $25 billion dollar a year market. Where would we be if a tiny amount of those billions went into finding ways to make them safer? Perhaps the part of society that fears mild childhood conditions like measles, mumps, and chickenpox so much that they have accepted the thoughts of hatred for people who choose to not engage in the program, and to hate those who want newer, safer technologies, perhaps those people who hate their otherwise virtually identical compatriots could see that the real culprits are those obsconding with the funds necessary for more research, as mandated under the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act to make vaccines safer and to identify those who are most risk of vaccine injury.

There are people who believe (or claim to believe) that no vaccine injuries ever occur. That’s -k. The massive amount of evidence that points to vaccines contributing to neuro- and immunological conditions is overwhelming. I refuse to participate in -k. Vaccine risk and injury denialism is anti-science, and I won’t have any part of it. Billions have been paid out via the National Vaccine Compensation Program – and taxes on the vaccines pay for it. FDA is now dose-escalation testing new adjuvants- but not existing adjuvants like aluminum hydroxide, and AAHS. The HPV trials used AAHS as the placebo – an invalid placebo and thus they have not been sufficiently tested for safety. If you doubt this, wait until next week.

Fraud and deception obviously reduce TS and k. We can, in the name of knowledge, do better. In case this starts a movement in Science to “refuse to participate in -k”, and to abandon Science-Like Activities, in this age of icons, here you go. -k is anti-fraud, anti-deception, pro-science, pro +k! Royalties for non-licensed uses (t-shirts, coffee mugs) are welcome as donations either to IPAK or to help with Unbreaking Science. I can’t translate this into funds myself, I don’t have time. I’d get a kick out of it becoming a thing. I’m off to +k!


An Open Greeting of Well Wishes to Marty Griffin: Remember The Lost Ones

If you live in Pittsburgh, I’m sure you’ve heard the terrible news that Marty Griffin has developed throat cancer and is undergoing seven weeks of grueling chemotherapy treatment. Marty is a well-known media (radio) personality. Many of you may also have heard Marty on the air recently imploring parents to have their 14-year old daughters and sons vaccinated with Gardasil-9, Merck’s HPV vaccine (see CBS News). I am writing this open greetings and well-wishes to Marty because I am deeply concerned he has been misled into a campaign that I am fairly sure he would not want to be part of if he knew the reality of the state of HPV vaccine science, and that his medical condition is being used by vested parties as fodder for a campaign to renew a push for mandatory HPV vaccination.

Dear Marty,

I am so terribly sorry to learn about your cancer, and it must be frightening especially after the recent loss of your co-worker. Cancer’s a bitch. Lost my mom to breast cancer when I was 5 years old; lost two cousins to breast cancer when they were each 25. Many people don’t know this, but I’ve acted as patient advocate over the years for a dozen or so cancer patients of many different types, interpreting the sci-lingo for them. I was reluctant to write this to you as you endure with your chemo treatments, but I feel compelled to reach out in good faith because I suspect you would want to know.

I’ve been told that you are working overtime to get a message out that you feel is very important – specifically that parents should opt for their teens to accept Gardisil-9, the HPV vaccine. I’ve also been told that bad news about the vaccine is not something you particularly want to hear about or discuss, but there are a few major points worth looking into.

Safety of the HPV Vaccine is “Unknown”, not “Known”

First, there is no such thing as a drug, or medical procedure, or medical device that is 100% safe. That means that some people will have serious adverse events to vaccines. We are told the rate of serious adverse events from vaccines in general is rare, and we are told the same about the HPV vaccine. I’m sorry to inform you, Marty, that we do not have any realistic or reliable estimate of the number of serious adverse events from vaccines, for the following reasons:

(1) Medical doctors are supposed to report serious adverse events to a database called VAERS – by law – but there is no penalty for them for failing to report a vaccine serious adverse event.

(2) VAERS is unreliable in part due to underreporting. A Harvard-Pilgrim report of an automated VAERS system reported that only 1% of vaccine adverse events are captured because their system caught 100-fold more. When CDC was informed of this fact, they stopped returning the developers’ phone calls – after paying them over $1.2 million to develop the automated system.

(3) Information in VAERS can be reported by anyone, and thus causality cannot be established. In fact, all VAERS users must acknowledge that causality of these events (attribution to the vaccine) cannot be known or assumed. If VAERS is supposed to track serious adverse events, but we cannot infer causality of the reported events to vaccines, then how are vaccine adverse events reported?

The VAERS system and others like it (e.g., the VSD, or the international VIGIBASE) are supposed to serve as part of post-market surveillance of vaccine safety specifically because vaccine safety clinical studies do not last long enough to provide information on long-term safety. Supporter of this process will point to one vaccine that showed increased serious problems – a Rotavirus vaccine – that was detected as evidence that post-market studies work. Ok, great. So why when kids develop intussusception now from another Rotavirus vaccines the parents are told “it wasn’t the vaccine”?

Also, when independent researchers access VAERS, and report upticks in vaccine injury associated with the addition of new vaccines to the schedule, their results are pooh-poohed or ignored. I’ve personally analyzed ALL of the data in VAERS and found massive signatures of increased morbidity and mortality in this unpublished manuscript – which no public health journal will publish – and yet CDC has had apparently no reaction to these obvious signatures:

Analysis of Morbidity and Mortality from Vaccine Safety Databases Rev

How good can VAERS be if the huge signals I detected are sitting there, undetected?

The HPV Vaccine Safety Science is Junk Science

The concern of HPV vaccine science is real. In the initial study of HPV-4, in which 4 vaccine types were studied, the two comparison groups were the HPV-4 vaccinated group, and a control group that did not receive the vaccine, but rather that received a placebo. In most such studies, a valid placebo would be an inert substance, like saline. However, in the Merck-funded studies, the control group received amorphous aluminum hydroxysulfate, which is the adjuvant used in vaccine. In technical terms, AAHS is not a valid placebo, because (1) the design only tests the safety of the HPV antigens, and (2) no patient is offered “HPV vaccine or AAHS today?”. The outcome? Equal amounts of morbidity (illness) and mortality (death) due to the vaccine and its adjuvant.

When Merck added five more HPV types to create Gardasil-9, they had the chance to use saline placebos vs. the vaccine. Instead, they chose to compare the safety of Gardasil-9 to Gardasil-4, which had shown equal rates of morbidity to AAHS. In the submission to the FDA, Merck did a few unusual things. There was not just one study, there were many. Merck also conducted some studies of saline placebo, some with AAHS, and instead of presenting the data of Saline vs. Gardasil-9, they combine the Saline and AAHS “placebo” groups into one group.

The second odd thing that Merck did was to label new complaints about medical conditions from the vaccine (or the other comparator groups) to New Medical Conditions, determined (no one knows how) that they were not due to the vaccine, and submitted the data to the FDA without a full analysis of the New Medical Conditions (you can read about this in Slate Magazine).

Now we have girls and boys who have been reported to have died from the HPV vaccine – their numbers are mounting – and yet Merck, FDA, and CDC are silent. One such young lady was Christina Tarsell, whose estate had to fight for years against an onslaught of robust and institutionalized vaccine injury denialism in the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program fighting against the defendant – the US Department of Health and Human Services – to finally win a ruling that yes, the HPV vaccine killed her. I could list more names than I care to; I know their cases, I listen to the parents, and siblings of these Lost Ones.

Remember that VAERS only capture maybe 1% of serious adverse events. Other sources say perhaps only 10% are captured. Death is one of the adverse events from the HPV vaccine, Marty, and in fact over 430 deaths have been reported to VAERS following administration of the HPV vaccine. If you ask CDC how many of these are due to the vaccine, they will say zero.  But if you ask Emily Tarsell, she will tell you that her daughter’s death was initially dismissed even though she proved to the letter of the law, by preponderance of the evidence, her daughter’s death was caused by Gardasil – – which was conceded on appeal. Yet given that only 1% of vaccine injuries are reported to VAERS, it is reasonable therefore to estimate that maybe as many as 4,300-43,000 deaths have occurred that have not been reported.

The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program has paid out over $3.8 billion to individuals who have been seriously injured by vaccines, and to families of lost ones – and in every single case, the NVICP insists that the families and their lawyers start from scratch and prove that the vaccine could have reasonably caused the injury. There is no precedent-setting other than the HRSA table of vaccine injuries that are acknowledged by the NVICP – and that Table is very hard to add new injuries to – no matter how many new rulings are made about a particular type of adverse event. (Yes, the HRSA is part of the HHS, so technically, the defendant tells the public which vaccine injuries are real. The other injuries plaintiffs have to fight for justice, no matter how many previous cases have been awarded for the same injury. It’s sick.)

Guillain Barre Syndrome, a debilitating condition that leads to paralysis and sometimes to death, has just been added to the Table. The first reports of GBS after vaccination were in 1976, after the first national swine flu vaccination campaign. You should know that taxes on the vaccines pay for the damages; no one can sue vaccine makers for flaws in their vaccines since Congress gave away our rights to do so in 1986.

HPV Vaccine Could Lead to MORE HPV Infections – with More Aggressive HPV Types

Marty, HPV vaccine is not an anti-cancer vaccine. It’s an anti-STD vaccine. And there are now many studies that show that the vaccine, which targets the most common types of HPV, has led to the undesirable situation in which rarer, potentially more aggressive types of HPV to increase in the population. MD’s tell teens they are “protected from HPV infection” – and yet that is just not true. If they have unprotected sex with someone who has one of these rarer, potentially more lethal types of HPV, odds are they will be infected. But they are vaccinated against HPV, so they might skip their Pap smears. Yep. Even after HPV vaccination girls still need Pap smears. Some of these HPV types are known to cause cancer. So what are we doing with this particular vaccine? Are we increasing the risk of the spread of rarer, potentially more lethal HPVs? There are over 200 other types.

I can provide references to every claim I’ve made in this letter. I communicated my concerns to CDC that their own study did, after all, show type replacement – they stopped writing back. A recent Cochrane review on HPV vaccine safety was skewered by Cochrane members for leaving out many studies. Cochrane’ reaction was to oust one of them – a founding member – Dr. Peter Gøtzsche – who had established the principles of objectivity upon which Cochrane reviews are based. In response, various other members resigned in protest.

That review, by the way, was led by Dr. Lauri Markowitz of the CDC, the person at the CDC whom I had alerted about the evidence of type replacement in the data in her study (with colleagues). Studies from all over the globe have reported type replacement. Dr. Markowitz took her name off the author list, meaning she helped ghost-write the article – a very unethical practice of the type that just led a jury to award Dewayne Johnson $128 million dollars for his cancer case due to exposure to glyphosate in Monsanto’s RoundUp herbicide.

Marty, the long-term health consequences of removing the most prevalent types of HPV via vaccination are not known. I’m an evolutionary biologist, and used to hold a Faculty position in the Dept. of Pathology and Dept. of Biomedical Informatics at the University of Pittsburgh. I worked in the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute under Dr. Ronald Herberman, whose research agenda was focused on cancer immunology – including true cancer vaccines. A cancer vaccine involves harvesting proteins from a tumor and developing immune system responses to the tumor itself (see, for example, Melanoma Vaccine Clinical Trials at the Hillman Cancer Center)

HPV is an STD. HPV vaccine is NOT a cancer vaccine. In the short run, it reduces the incidence of CIN+1 and CIN+2 lesions associated with the vaccine-targeted HPV types, but given the fact that it also changes peoples’ perceptions of risk, and type replacement, it could ironically lead to a net increase in the types of cancer associated with HPV.

Until FDA insists on new randomized clinical trials with saline, and until we can be assured that participation in such a vaccination program will not have the undesired opposite effect on HPV infection rates, we should not promote the vaccine, nor its mandate. By the way, none of the patients given the HPV vaccine in the post-marketing safety studies have been consented to know that they were even part of a clinical study.

Of course we want an HPV vaccine that actually does reduce the rates of cancer. But in their zeal, doctors are sending the wrong messages to vaccinees. The risk factors of HPV-related cancers include

(1) Initiation of sexual intercourse at an early age

(2) Having multiple sexual partners

(3) Teen pregnancy

(4) Having other STDs

(5) Smoking

(6) Drug use

Of course, I want to thank you for your past efforts to help people quit smoking, like you did in your past efforts to help society. The good news is that ACS says throat cancers are down in frequency due to smoking cessation programs.

Doctors need to tell teens and their parents that the vaccine does not protect against “HPV”, and that they are still at risk. The rates of STDs have exploded in the US; we are now leaders among Western nations in STD rates.

I’m going to send a couple of books to be sent to you. The first is “HPV Vaccine On Trial ” (Skyhorse) by Mary Holland, Kim Mack Rosenberg, and Eileen Iorio. The second is the book “Vaccine Court” by Wayne Rhode.

Marty, in closing, I know this crap is the last thing you want to hear. Especially not right now. Guess what: I didn’t want to know this either. Because I was once just like you – wanting everyone to get their vaccines. It took other truth-tellers to open my eyes. Anyone who tries to tell you what you want to hear and that the things I’ve pointed out to you are not true is lying. And I know that’s going to hurt.

So, please put the issue to rest, Marty, for now, and focus on getting well. As try as you might, pushing the HPV vaccine under these circumstances is a dubious waste of your precious efforts. Stay strong, we’re ALL pulling for you.


James Lyons-Weiler, PhD

Allison Park, PA

PS: For more info and references, please see


Limits of Knowledge on Measles Death Rates vs. Death Rates from Measles Vaccines

Europe is experiencing a measles outbreak.  So far, there have been 41,000 cases, with 37 deaths attributed to measles infection. That gives a risk of mortality rate in the measles-infected of (37/41000)=0.00090243902.

That’s pretty small, about 9 per 1,000 infections but it is also 90/100,000.

VAERS is a vaccine adverse events database that captures as low as 1% of all adverse events due to* vaccines.  Over ten years, VAERS captured 108 deaths due to* the measles vaccine; over the same time period, CDC reported zero deaths from measles infection (in the highly vaccinated population).

There were 19,000,000 children in the US in 2017  between the ages and 0 and 4.  MMR (or MMRV) is given at 12 to 15 months of age, and the second dose at 4 through 6 years.  So multiply 19,000,000 by 2 to get the number of doses of MMR/MMRV: 38,000,000.  Assume 95% vaccination uptake, as we’re told, it can be estimated that 36,100,000 doses were given ages 0 to 6.  Multiply 36,100,000 by 10 (ten years) and we have 361,000,000 doses.  Multiple 108 by 100 (recall VAERS captures as low as 1%) and we have 10,800 (!) deaths per ten years from the measles vaccine.


That leads to 0.0000299168 death rate (per dose) from MMR/MMRV vaccines is 2.99168/100K.

From this it can be estimated that there is a 301% increased risk of mortality from measles infection compared to measles vaccine – assuming VAERS only capture 1% of serious adverse events ((0.00090243902/0.00000299168 (infection/vaccine)  = 301.64). That is, of course, assuming that all 37 deaths were due to measles infection, and not something else.

Historical Measles Death Rates

There are also also historical statistics; for example, here’s a report for the State of Massachusetts from 1856-1956:


These historical data lead to an average 100-year risk of death from measles infection at 0.000137765 for the entire population (infected or not; 13.77 per 100K).  This leads to a 46-fold increased risk of death from measles infection compared to measles vaccination considering just the measles vaccinated population.

However, considering population-wide rates of vaccine-related deaths, vaccinated or not, the rate of measles vaccine-related death is only 0.0000028421 (0.28421 per 100,000), leading to a 48.47-fold increase of death due to measles infection compared to measles vaccine injection.

Easing the Symptoms of Measles

It should be noted that currently vitamin supplementation provides amelioration of symptoms of measles infection, especially Vitamin A, and modern medicine has advantages, including intravenous hydration for diarrhea and antibiotics for treating some types of secondary pneumonia.

Unmeasured Cost of Vaccination: Loss of Maternal Antibodies

Measles vaccines do not confer lifelong protection; this means that infants today do not receive passive immunization from antibodies provided to them in their mothers’ breast milk. Historically, the infant rate of measles infection was likely much less.

A CDC resource provides an estimate of 450-500 deaths from measles per year, prior to 1963 per yr estimate (here), 450-500 deaths/yr given 500,000 infections, or a guestimated rate of 0.001.  This gives an 354-fold increased risk of death from measles infection compared to measles vaccines (all caveats apply).

Unreliability of VAERS Data

VAERS is a passive collection system into which doctors or the public can report vaccine adverse events.  While VAERS reporting by doctors is mandatory for all vaccine injuries and deaths, there are no penalties for failing to report.

The data in VAERS are basically considered useless.  Consider this passage from Miller et al. (2015):

“However, making general assumptions and drawing conclusions about vaccinations causing deaths based on spontaneous reports to VAERS – some of which might be anecdotal or second-hand – or case reports in the media, is not a scientifically valid practice.”

All studies based on VAERS, supportive of general vaccine safety or pointing to risk are likely unreliable.


According to CDC, the risk of seizure following MMR or MMRV is

1375 seizures/712497 doses = 0.0019298 per dose, or about 1.9 per thousand exposures.

The risk of seizure following measles infection is quoted as “less than 1 per 1,000“.


Without mandatory, active tracking of vaccine injuries and fatalities with significant penalties for non-reporting, the currently available data are insufficient to know the relative risks of death due to measles vaccination and due to measles infection.

A third option, development of effective treatments for measles, should be funded to avoid both types of risks.

*”Due to” is in quotes because VAERS is not a reliable source of information on causality, per CDC.  The best we can do is say the events (vaccines, deaths) share an appropriate temporal relationship.  Because VAERS is biased, and entries are unreliable, all studies of patterns in VAERS that exonerate vaccines, or find fault with vaccines, are suspect.


Miller, ER, 2015. Deaths following vaccination: What does the evidence show? Vaccine. 2015 Jun 26; 33(29): 3288–3292. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4599698/

(!) Thank you for catching the typo, dlfeist, 108 x 10 is, indeed, still 10,800.