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.

A Message to Ethical MDs: The Problem with the 2017-8 Flu Vaccine is the 2016-7 Flu Vaccine

A Message to Ethical MDs: The Problem with the 2017-8 Flu Vaccine is the 2016-7 Flu Vaccine

AMERICANS are highly distracted.  They won’t recall the efficacy of the flu vaccine from year to year.  That’s why Sanjay Gupta can go on the news and remind us that his 30% estimate (likely an overestimate) of how well the flu vaccine works is not like past years, the good old days in which the vaccine was 60-70% effective, and not bat an eye.

But when was the last time the flu vaccine was 60-70% effective?  Eight years ago:


This is the CDC’s data (link).  Clearly, Gupta’s “Years” is, in immunological memory, a singular “Year”. Only once out of the last 14 years was the flu vaccine above 59% – that the value was not 60-70%, it was 60%.

This type of misrepresentation is a consistent penchant within the media and of course from the CDC to exaggerate and highly emphasize only positive views and diminish, dismiss, or ignore any negative views on the safety and efficacy of vaccines.

The reality is the flu vaccination program has an average adjusted efficacy of 40%. In 10/14 years, the efficacy was <50% effective.  That’s deplorable. And the problem is not ‘herd immunity’.  The problem is the vaccine is self-defeating.

The Jury is In: The Flu Vaccine Reduces its Own Efficacy

Too many studies now exist that have independently come to the same conclusion: increases in the uptake of flu vaccine reduces that vaccine’s effectiveness in the following year – and some studies show the negative effects of mass influenza vaccination last two years.

The studies reporting those results are reviewed in my article, “Diseases with Unknown Etiology Trace Back to Mass Vaccination Against Influenza in 1976“, and they are extensive and damning.

That post also includes the results of an analysis that I performed on CDC’s own data, showing that increases in the uptake of flu vaccine in a given year reduces efficacy of the vaccine for the following two years by a factor of -1.167.   Assuming a linear relationship, the model predicts the absurd prediction that at 93% uptake, the flu vaccine will have zero efficacy in the following two years.  That means “negative global efficacy” at or above 94% uptake.

It’s not absurd because the model is wrong; it is absurd because the vaccine reduces net immunity. Enough science exists that shows reduced efficacy due to past uptake (again, all reviewed here). It’s absurd because mass vaccination has unforeseen effects that make it self-defeating.  A better word than absurd would be “disastrous”.  More people would be diagnosed with “flu” that exist in the population at 100% coverage.  What does that tell you?

Well, being the eternal objectivist (not the Ayn Rand type, the other, warmer type), the fact is that extrapolations are not trustworthy.  And that’s true, but not in the universal sense.  If extrapolation could not be made to work, we could not have landed on the moon, on Mars, on Jupiter’s moon Titan, or driven our cars out of our driveways, for that matter.  Sometimes extrapolations do work. The model could also tell be telling us that the extent of immune impairment could be so high that the rate of infections from non-influenza viruses could surpass 100%, meaning many people could have 2, or 3 types of non-influenza respiratory viruses and multiple reasons for diagnosis with “the flu”.

I’m content not to need the extrapolation. The direct evidence that exists that Thimerosal is not safe for the human immune system is overwhelming: it shuts down the protein ERAP1,  We need ERAP1 to shorten proteins bounds for the Class 1 MHC cell surface.   Like pertussis, influenza is also sustained to a degree by silent carriers created by vaccination with non-specific effects.  Certainly live shedding is high among the vaccinated (study cited here).  Why don’t we see CDC informing every doctor to swab for influenza types A and B (including 2009-H1N1), RSV types A and B, parainfluenza types 1–4, metapneumovirus, rhinovirus, coxsackievirus/echovirus, adenovirus types B and E, bocavirus, and coronavirus types NL63, HKU1, 229E, and OC43, all types tested for by the ResPlex II multiplex assay – and each pathogen a type of viral respiratory infection that can mimic the flu?  I don’t have that answer.  But it seems since such a small proportion of cases are H. influenza infection, the default treatment of patients for “flu” without a real diagnosis would be unethical, but that’s precisely what happens.  According to Dr. Hawk, about 2/3 of the cases of “flu” seen are influenza – the rest, he says, would be false positives diagnoses (if made without swabbing).

Patients have a right to know the specific nature of their infections, and survivors in families of those who die from respiratory infections deserve an accurate cause of death. Coroners should certainly be required to provide an accurate cause of death in so-called “flu” mortalities.  Health departments should be required to count only deaths due to confirmed influenza infection as “flu” – otherwise their numbers perpetuate misperception on the risk of influenza infection, and cause fear leading to increased vaccination.  How is this seen as a good thing?  The population deserves good and honest doctors and stewards of public health.

HHS could demand swab results for all suspected cases of “flu deaths” with a press release and enforce them with random audits.  This annual ritual of fear-mongering over “flu-deaths” hides the fact that as long as thimerosal is injected into patients, they are at increased risk of other infections.  And due to heterologous immunity, even without thimerosal, flu vaccines can confuse the immune system and muddle up ineffective immune response by trying to re-purpose B-cells trained on the wrong virus, hobbling the immune system making it unresponsive to similar viruses.  Such as next year’s flu strain.

We do need objectivity to arise immediately throughout the public health system in the US, starting with HHS, then to CDC and to all Health Departments around the country.  Many studies have also found problems with Tamiflu.  But no emergency epidemiological study is addressing the question – why are so many young people dying from “flu”?   Many of the reports I’ve seen include mention that they person had not only been vaccinated, they also had taken Tamiflu. And many had taken Tylenol.   It’s time to ask the tough questions. The science is there on problems with Tylenol for vaccine-induced fever, and it must be taken into consideration.  Fever due to respiratory infections after flu vaccination is still vaccine-induced.

A look at the issues with Tamiflu (see primary scientific literature reviewed here) shows that we cannot ignore the possibility that the human immune system is not infinitely resilient, and that medicine’s approaches to tackling “the flu” is imprecise, not evidence-based, and self-defeating.  I’m not talking about the number of antigens the human body can take; I’m talking about the amount of tweaking it can tolerate, especially given the aluminum-dense childhood vaccination schedule. The allopathic medical community would do very well to heed the studies that show that Vitamin D helps alleviate both vaccine injury and severity of viral infections.  It helps resolve the unfolded protein response without killing the cells. And the science of ER stress (endoplasmic reticulum stress) shows that Thimerosal is, after all, not safe for human use.  Same for aluminum.

Management of Risk vs. Management of Risk Perception

So let’s consider (again) the differences between an organization that has, historically anyway, been provided with our Nation’s trust of the control of risk (reality), and upon failing to do so, works overtime to the control of perception of risk (non-reality).  Public health depends on trust.  The public trust for CDC is not just waning – it’s gone.  They rely on top-down funded advocacy organizations to truss up their tarnished public image – and the individuals invariable end up attacking the character of anyone who dares ask important and relevant questions. Increasing number of academics are calling for an end to CDC policies, such as the blithe use of aluminum, a neurotoxin, in vaccines, and the continued use of Thimerosal in vaccines.

Real Reform is Coming – It’s a Mathematical Certainty

Vaccines injure people every day, and kill people every week.  Each injury and death informs family members, co-workers, and schoolmates.  The flaws in vaccines, combined with misinformation campaigns on safety, fuel the fire and build the vaccine risk aware army.  It’s a peaceful army, filled with individuals who are hurt so badly, they do not want others to suffer the same fate.  They are altruistic.  And under informed, ethical and distributed leadership, they are finding their momentum.

Vaccine safety science reform means removing those in the CDC and HHS that perpetuated the debacle as it grew to proportions that even they could no longer easily deny it.  And that’s fine.  Let them go.  There are many excellent professionals capable of replacing them – people who have not been involved in cooking studies to alter the public’s perception of vaccine risk. People who have withstood unwarranted and unfair criticism by those who live in cowardice of reality.  People who now no longer afraid to publish their views.   An important question is who among my colleagues in Academic Public Health, and which doctors in Pediatric medicine are willing to #bebrave and take on a debacle as huge as a failed national immunization program?  Who will stand up to the AAP and tell them they are wrong?

If you are that type of doctor, it will be easier if you trust those who have worked at this for years. Read Dr. Paul Thomas’ book, The Vaccine Friendly Plan.  After the resignations, have him come and teach the entire CDC and HHS what he knows.  Consider Dr. Alvin Moss’s wisdom – ask him to create a Conflicts of Interest Policy for CDC and HHS, as he has done for the rest of academic medicine. Bring in Dr. Bob Sears from California, who was willing to stare down threats of the loss of his license to practice medicine because he dared to continue to practice medicine in the face of wanton misinformation and pressure from the AAP. Consider Dr. Richard Frye, and Dr. Chris Exley from the UK, who care first and foremost about the truths that impact total health.  Dr. Frye would be great as the new NIH Director, in my opinion. Let these people form a new national public health direction that overrides existing contracts.  There are others.  Like Dr. Judy Mikovits whose character stands much taller than those who tried – and failed – to silence her – on the issue of adventitious agents in viral vaccines (specifically and quite problematic: retroviruses).  Ask Dr. Ted Fogarty about Ethical Vaccinomics, and testing for vaccine injuries. Bring in Dr. John Piesse from Australia and end his persecution there, and put his good will toward safety to work here.  We would be lucky to have him.

Create a Manhattan Project focused on reducing vaccine injuries, not on making currently licensed vaccines safer.  They are old, and stale, and tired, and they, too, need to go.  Bring in exciting new developments in artificial immunization like microneedle patches.  Bring in Dr. Kanduc to screen epitopes that are unsafe.  Drop aluminum, as many have now called for, and bring in calcium carbonate – if needed at all.  Let those pharmaceutical companies who created the disaster make good on their promises to stop making their vaccines.  Then we will see new approaches to artificial immunization that compete on the platform of safety.

Don’t just end COIs at ACIP: End ACIP. Create a Vaccine Safety Commission that enforces Science Integrity. Open up the markets.  Let ideas thrive.  Let consumers choose. Let the FDA do its job.  Let the people’s experiences be heard.  Establish a paradigm in which the end consumer has a say in the quality of the product.  Strip the CDC of the ability to hold patents.  End the CDC Foundation. End the differences between drugs and biologics and require randomized clinical trials – with proper placebos, not aluminum hydroxide – for vaccines.  Repeal the 1986 Act that protects drug companies from liability for faulty vaccines. Perform random spot checks of vaccines in practices for contamination. The total sum of policies in the National Immunization Program, and the burden of morbidity on the population is a serious threat to our National Security.

Let some new faces and voices drive this reform. Bring in Dr. Dan Neides who had to escape the Cleveland Clinic after speaking his conscience.  Let him oversee the transition.  Bring in Dr. Brian Hooker to personally issue the pink slips to those who must now go from the CDC.  Let all of those named here share his or her experience with Congress.  Have Dr. Thompson testify.  We need truth and reconciliation.  And we need it 42 years ago.

There are MDs who sit in the shadows, silent, and afraid of job loss, sanction, ridicule.  Step up.  Let your views be known to the current Administration.  Join Physicians for Informed Consent.  You are not alone.  You can help be part of the solution.  Attend Health Department meetings and speak up for Informed Consent.  Speak up for vaccine exclusions for kids in homes with high lead levels.  Speak up for spacing out vaccines and skipping them.  Speak up for tolerance and understanding of the pain and anguish parents of kids with autism experience when they are told it’s genetic, they know it’s environmental, and they are told they have to vaccinate their other babies.  Speak up against calling CPS for parents who want to take the time they have under the law to consider vaccinations. And, of course, do right by your patients.  Listen to their concerns.  Inform them of both risks and benefits, as required by Federal Regulations.  Let them know they are enrolling themselves or their children (and unborn baby) in post-licensure vaccine safety clinical trials (as required by Federal Regulations). Provide medical and philosophical exemptions for school waivers as required by the laws of your state and the rule of your own conscience.  The AAP does not represent the rights and will of the people of the United States of America.  Our legislation does.

Let’s aim to not make 2020 vaccination look anything like 2019.  We have solutions.  We’re now aiming for Healthy People 2050, and the current vaccines have very little to do with our vision.  By the way, these ideas don’t come (exclusively) from me. They are shared by hundreds of thousands of American citizens, many of whom have been made sick or lost loved ones to vaccines. #werenotgoingaway #releasetheothermemos #hearthiswell #notmine #Vaxxed #cdctruth #saveourbabies #bebrave #ipak #cdcwhistleblower #rfkcommission #educatebeforeyouvaccinate #vaxxed #learntherisk #wedid #cdclied #stopmandatoryvaccination #learntherisk





Social Contracts, Body Autonomy and the Vaccine Issue


We are a society at odds with itself. We Americans, conditioned by cold war rhetoric to huddle under the protectorate government in our fear of annihilation, can barely think for ourselves. We are conditioned to respond to threats of each and every type of childhood illness as if it were the next Ebola.  We are strangely at once completely against generalizations about race, creed, religion, and gender, while at the same time not willing to hear the manifold pleas of those fall under the rubric of “antivaxxers”.  We want our guns, yes, but with restrictions to access for those who we personally feel are at highest risk of abusing the right to bear arms, because they might do something.

It wasn’t that long ago that that type of thinking – restricting someone’s liberties, or rights on the pre-supposition that they might do something, was anathema to being American.  Ok, felons might not be the best party to which might warrant unrestricted access to guns.  But restricting the rights of someone who has never hurt another human being simply based on a presupposition of what might happen, well, that was the topic of The Minority Report.

When the majority in this country thinks and speaks of vaccine risk, they mostly repeat, verbatim, the misinformation that CDC and Pharma has worked diligently and tirelessly to embed in their minds. Forget that we are imbued with inalienable rights wherein no one – not even especially the government – has the right to violate the sanctity of our bodies.  We have sovereign rights that literally begin where our skin starts – and anyone – ANYONE who trespasses that inviolable boundaries of our very selves – has not only violated our person.  They have violated the law.

A man cannot rape a woman, it’s her body. No one can tell a woman she can’t have an abortion, it’s her body.  No one can take any part of your body and use it for medical experimentation without your consent. It’s your body.

Patient – Society Contact

If our children have a fever, they are expected to stay home from school, to reduce the chance they might spread a cold virus.  This seems like a good intention, but the school usually cannot enforce this. But there seems to be form of a social contract that some people abide by – they won’t go to work if they believe they have a serious cold, or they may forestall or skip a visit to family or friends for fear of making them ill.  But there is no law that compels them to stay put.  It’s a form of social contract.  And the individuals who abide by that contract sacrifice a little for others.

When it comes to vaccines, the sacrifice being asked of many is not little. In some cases, it’s everything. Their very life, or the life of their child.  Their lifelong health.  Their child’s neurodevelopment. The risk, we are told, is small.  We’ve been told that vaccines are “unavoidably unsafe” by the US Supreme Court.  At the same time, we’re told that “Vaccines are Safe” by the media.

Never before has so obvious a misinformation campaign been delivered so blatantly with complete disregard for reality.

But what if only people with blue eyes suffered the risk of vaccine injury? Or only people with red hair?  Would we still be so blithe as to say “It’s for the greater good?”

Our willingness to impart risk seems to be a function of whether SPECIFIC RISK applies to a given group of identifiable individuals.  Imparting risk on others for our own benefit is anathema to the American ideal of self-sufficiency. It would be nearly universally seen as wrong if only an identifiable minority were asked to suffer all of the vaccine injuries, for the greater good.

A minority of people suffer serious adverse events.  They are not considered identifiable, in part because there has not been sufficient effort on research to find risk factors and markers of susceptibility to vaccine injury.  Instead, we have fallen into a pattern consistent with groupthink, a form of mob rule, fostered by billions spent on advertising campaigns to market vaccines as perfectly safe.  A taboo exists among professionals in the medical community and at Universities who must persist in their careers as if vaccine injury risk is small; as if vaccines do not cause autism.  This taboo is unwise, and unnecessary.  It has stifled research in the area of neurodevelopment for at least fifteen years.  It has thwarted research on ways of revering the brain burden of toxins from industry, agriculture and medicine, for the same period of time.

Medical Community – Public Contract

It is difficult to consider the contract between the medical community and the public in this age, in part because it has substantially changed over the last fifteen years. These changes include how health care is organized and funded, with increasing direct influence over medical options determined by “partners” (insurers) and also, in a less overt manner, by options provided by pharmaceutical companies.  The medical community has changed how professionalism is expressed, with increasing intolerance of an increasingly informed public.  Medical privacy has restricted family members’ input, with an increasing emphasis on medicine as transaction, reduction in time to service (to increase throughput) under watchful influence of administrators.

In their hearts, medical professionals by and large seek the identity of the healer.  The increasing disconnect between the pursued role and identity of the medical professional as healer, and that which can be achieved, can render an identity crisis, and it seems to be a factor in the high rates of practitioner burn-out.

The written portions of the social contract of medical professionals and their employees, associations, and the government define both the specific obligations of these professionals, and the limits of how they can ethically conduct themselves.  Adherence to these codes of conduct are legally enforceable; however, as a profession, there appears to be an additional layer of austerity imbued in staying within the confine the accepted medical practice owing to the ancient trust in the healer, with “caring” being a core principle, combined with compassion, sincere interest in the well-being of others (something like altruism), yielding a professional identity that reflects more than their job or career.  Doctors carry an identifiable position within a community held in high regard; this regard is afforded them as a form a quid pro quo in return for time and expertise focused on others’ well-being.

The unwritten portion of the social contract for the medical professional resides mostly in the expectation of derived benefit from a visit, especially for routine medical care. Both the written and unwritten social contracts have been – and are being – redefined, with corporate influences increasing every year.  Since pharma has acquired increasing undue influence  over regulatory agencies, it is clear that these allowances and restrictions have become increasingly influenced by profit incentive. The types of medicine practiced increasingly reflect a type of conformity that is partially imparted upon the community by agency regulation, such as FDA approval of new drugs, devices and biologics.

For any medical specialty, by some means this convoluted process results in some form of consensus.  While individual practicioners may vary in their adherence to medical norms, the details of the exact process by which new guidelines for accepted practices are adopted in not always, and is sometimes far from, transparent.  Medical authorities often rely on their status as authorities for the determination of proper medical procedures, and I offer that minor differences of opinion aside, the profit motive has one singular and over-arching effect on medicine: homogenization of options, and corporate monopoly.  Institutional inertia is a extraordinarily large in medicine, and thus medicine, for all of the billions pumped into research for innovation, is staunchly conservative.  The emergent consensus cannot be said to be independent of market influences, and the larger the effect of the profit motive, the more the social contract imbuing altruism is violated by the medical establishment.

THE AMERICAN PUBLIC is demanding a re-negotiation of its social contract with the medical community on the issue of vaccines, and the medical community believes their practices and norms will protect them from this sea change.  Even though the law protects vaccine manufacturers and medical doctors from serious adverse events that fall into the run-of-the-mill risk categories,  and in spite of billions spent by Pharma and regulatory agencies to mislead the public, the biological truth is larger than the manufactured non-reality.  Millions of people have been seriously harmed by vaccines, and the law, the governmental agencies, the media and the medical profession have all contributed to a strategy in which vaccine risk denialism feeds more and more people into the vaccine risk awareness army.  What the vaccine risk denialists fail to see that is people don’t choose to become vaccine risk aware; they are conscripted by the very injuries being denied by pundits, by doctors who misinform patients, and by others who have a clear professional obligation to act in the better interest of the public.


In spite of those with their heads in the sand, that stubborn epithelial layer of body autonomy persists.  We have a right to say “No”.  An infuriated medical community exists that would love to strip of us that right.  Indeed, because long-term vaccine safety science relies on post-market surveillance as a primary source of evidence of the ill effects of vaccines, if you are vaccinated in America, you have been denied your right to informed consent for participation in clinical studies.  Take a moment to consider: did your doctor give you Vaccine Information Sheets from the CDC with each and every vaccine administered to you, or your child?  If the answer is no, you have been denied the informed consent required by law.

We don’t just need reform.  We need revolution.  When they try to mandate adult vaccines, and come for adults with threats of no jab, no pay, or deny your driver’s license, or deny your health coverage (which you have paid for), you will know.

And you will seek change.

But for now, you won’t do anything.  Because it’s not you.

You don’t have a social contract with those people who have specific mutations that confer increased risk of vaccine injury.

Because they are not you.


Because they have not yet mandated a vaccine from which you, or your children, or your grandchildren are genetically predisposed to have a serious, life-altering adverse reaction.


Since they are planning 290 additional vaccines, I’d say it’s only a matter of time before most Americans are at very high risk of suffering a debilitating illness due to vaccines.

New communications from schools about health education programs in Washington mean intensive indoctrination of your children on vaccines.  New laws in NY allowing minors, motivated by headphones, to make medical decisions, should make all ethical medical professionals cringe.

But, more than cringe, it’s time for them to speak out.  If you’re a medical professional, it’s your time. You are the ones who can make change faster than the public.  We won’t figure out that we control state laws on vaccines, not pharma, until it’s too late.  We won’t figure out that we can pass legislation re-affirming and re-asserting our bodily autonomy and protect ourselves from unwanted medical experimentation, until it’s too late.  We won’t figure out that regulations already exist that Federal level that provide special protections pregnant women, and children from experimentation, until it’s too late.Image result for medical paintings

So, medical doctors, pediatricians, our civilization awaits your answer to your professional calling.  Heal our society.

First, do no further harm.

Second, rise up and overthrow those who have.  That means outlawing kickbacks to practices.  That means not counting the medically exempt as candidates for vaccines.  That means using what we know about family risk autoimmune diseases and vaccines.  That means starting a private practice if need be.  That means refusing to bend to corporate pressures.  That means working to unshackle Congress from the yokes of corporate donations.

Third, demand innovation on new technologies for artificial immunization.  You are the learned intermediaries.  Play your part. Do your job.

Watch VaXxed.  See part of the truth. Read “Causes“.  And above all,  #bebrave.  You’re not alone.  Join Physicians for Informed Consent.

When is “Genetic Autism” Not Genetic?

THE FOCUS ON THE CONTRIBUTION OF GENES to the risk of diagnosis of autism seems warranted, if you look at the press.  Each week, sometimes each day. a new study comes out about a gene that is an important contributor, the stories go, to our understanding of autism.  Here’s one that touts the gene SCN2a as a “Rosetta Stone” for understanding risk of autism.  It’s poorly written because it misrepresents the full knowledge base. The media’s coverage is, to some extent, dependent on their ability to comprehend genetics, and what they are told by investigators.  I get hype for research; it’s a form of marketing that is essential to communicating our the value of our activities to the public.  But the story conveys a sense that autism “is genetic”. It also makes no reference to other studies of a similar gene, SCN1a, related to Dravet’s syndrome and seizures. Here’s one I cite in “Causes”. We’ll come back to that later.

Considering autism genetics can be complex. When there are genes that are found to contribute to the risk of autism, and individual genes are headlines, and yet there are hundreds of genes that contribute, none of which are known to contribute to more than 1-2% of the cases of autism, what is really going on?

Much of the landscape of autism genetics, the roles of environmental factors, and, importantly, the role of the interactions between genes and environment is mapped out in “Causes”.  I reviewed over 2,000 studies on autism to come to grips with a number of important unanswered questions, not the least of which is “which is more important in autism: genes, or environment?” It may appear to be a simple question, for given the dramatic rise in autism diagnosis, we cannot expect that such an increase in less than a generation to be attributed to genetics.  And that view is nearly 100% correct.  But at the risk of incurring the wrath of individuals who may fear that today’s post, and my book, is another attempt to make people think “autism is genetic”, let’s proceed.


First, we need to contrast some definitions.  Here is a list of similar terms that, importantly, the autism community must keep clear in their minds if they are to communicate meaningfully, say, with genetics researchers, or even with genetic counselors:

  1. risk vs. liability
  2. genetic risk vs. familial risk
  3. mutation vs. variation
  4. heritability vs. concordance


To say “autism is genetic” is to make very specific claim about where the risk of autism came from. In the vast majority of people’s minds, it means that the risk of autism in children comes from their parents. And to the extent that our genetic information comes from our parents in the form of our DNA, usually packaged into 23 pairs of chromosomes in our genome, some of the risk of autism is surely “genetic”. However, much of that risk was not present in past generations, because a high proportion of the genetic information that appears to contribute to autism has been found to be in form of de novo mutations.  They are new mutations that occur in the formation of the sperm and the egg, in the parent’s body during cellular division leading to gamete formation (meiosis).

This is where the distinction between risk and liability is important. (First, be clear, we are on journey toward understanding: “Liability” is a not synonymous with “Blame”. We’ll see why later). Truly genetic risk exists because the parents not only shared the genetic variation that contributed risk, but they also shared, to a lesser or greater degree, the risk of autism due to that genetic variation.  The “lesser or greater” degree here is meted by two important factors:

(A) Dominance, and Heterozyosity/Homozygosity. Some truly genetic traits are expressed regardless of whether we have one or two copies of the specific variation leading to the trait; these traits are considered dominant, and the risk of seeing the trait is 100% if one carries the variation from either mother, or father, or both.  Other traits require the specific variant (or similar enough variant) from both parents to be observed in the offspring; these are called recessive traits.

(B) Single vs. Multi-locus Traits. Some traits seem more blended than other.  When multiple genes contribute to these traits, the inheritance of risk still exists, but the resulting pattern of the appearance of traits in offspring may be considerably more variable than for simple genetic traits. These are called ‘multi-locus’ traits because genetic information located at multiple positions on chromosome are observed to contribute to the trait of interest.

I already hinted at the fact that hundreds of genes have been found that “contribute to autism”, and therefore you likely have figured out that much of the behavioral traits seen in autism are not simple traits encoded by individual genes.  In fact, in “Causes”, citing the results of numerous genetic studies, I conclude because any individual genetic variant that is truly genetic (with both variant and risk of trait seen in the parental generation) is so low in frequency in the population, purely “genetic” autism is perhaps never seen in our species. Each variant is so low in the population, usually much less than 1%, that the odds of 2, 3, or 4 of these variants being inherited in any individual in our species is vanishingly small.  So while the beautifully conducted Pinto et al. (2014) study show that the odds of autism increases with the number of these inherited variants, the actual and the expected rates of seeing individuals who inherit 2-3 variations from their parents leading to autism approaches zero.  Although there are a very large number genes that encode proteins involved in synaptic transmission (as this image adapted from Pinto et al. shows:


And there are myriad other pathways involved in autism, the risk of “genetic” autism due to “multiple hits” is very, very low:


So the risk of purely genetic autism is very low, and yet the two largest genetic studies conducted to date conclude that overall genetic liability of autism is around 50%.  They attribute the remainder of the risk to environmental causes.  So what’s the difference between RISK and LIABILITY?

Risk is an inherent characteristic of an individual; each of us have an individual risk of developing cancer. Liability is the degree to which genetics, or environmental factors, can be said to ‘explain’ the incidence of a trait (usually a disease trait) in a population.  So with hundreds of genes each contributing “to autism” in small percentages, the total population-wide occurrence of increases in traits can be explained, in part, by “genetics”.  I use “genetics” in quotes here because I mean the combined total population risk due to both inherited genetic variations, and de novo mutations.  Up to 20% of autistics show increases in new genetic variations, not found in either of their parents.  And thus while the information is carried in the gametes in the genome sequence, the trait “risk of diagnosis of autism” is not inherited, because it is not shared by the parents.

Many of the other conceptual contrasts can now also be made clear. GENETIC VS. FAMILIAL RISK, for example, is seen as the risk of a trait appearing in offspring due to inherited risk of the disease trait due to genetic information seen in either or both the parents and in the children, whereas FAMILIAL RISK is seen as the overall risk found in children born to the same parents whether the source of that risk is genetic, or due to a common environment. It should be noted that it is possible that some families are at overall higher GENETIC RISK of having de novo mutations (such as mutations in post-replication mismatch repair genes active in meiosis), and therefore the GENETIC RISK of de novo mutations may be shared among siblings.  This characteristic would tend to be shared among siblings both with, and without autism, but may be expected to be higher (more concordant) in twins and in siblings with autism.

The distinction between CONCORDANCE vs. HERITABILITY is an important one to make.  CONCORDANCE is the rate of shared occurrence of traits among siblings in the same family, and is a mix of genetic contributed liability and liability due to shared environment, whereas HERITABILITY is the rate of share occurrence of traits between parents and offspring.  Obviously, since parents of most autistics born since 2005 do not have autism themselves, the pattern of traits across millions of pedigrees indicates that the evidence of autism risk cannot come from HERITABILITY of risk, again, implying a large role for shared environments explaining any studies with high rates of CONCORDANCE of autism or traits associated with autism.

Autism Risk is No More than 50% Genetic, and AT LEAST 50% Environmental

I outline very strongly in “Causes” that genetic studies, as conducted thus far, cannot truly estimate that relative contribution of genes and environmental factors as long as they only study genes.  “Geneticists are doomed to find genes” is the phrase I drop. However, it can be seen in the largest studies, because they have not studied environmental exposures, that if the apparent contribution of genes is estimated at 50%, leaving around 50% liability for environmental factors, but the studies could not estimate the GENETIC X ENVIRONMENT interactions, that the real contribution of environmental factors is likely GREATER than 50%, because if the genetic liability (inherited variants attached to inherited risk) is G, and the environmental liability is E, then

TOTAL LIABILITY = G + E + (G x E)                                                      (1)

Where G X E is the interaction between environmental and genetic factors.

Clearly (G x E) is not zero in autism, given that purely genetic autism is perhaps no more than 1-2% of cases of autism. So if E+(G x E) = >98% of autism, either E is huge, or (G x E) is huge, or both are huge.

But we cannot forget the “genetic” contribution of de novo variations.  Let’s distinguish between inherited risk tied to inherited genetic information (G1) from risk newly derived from new variation (G2):

TOTAL LIABILITY  = G1 + G2 + (G1,G2 x E)                                           (2)

Now we can see that if G2 is being increased, the importance of the apparent “genetic” contribution of de novo variations cannot be known until they are studied in the context of environmental factors.  We should expect that environmental factors, and both G1 and G2 type genetic factors are causal; and none are mere ‘triggers’.

What is Causing Increased Rates of G2 de Novo Variation in Autistics?

So where is the genetic contribution to the “genetic” liability coming from?  This is an important question, because if 20% or more of autistics have increased numbers of de novo copy number variations, effecting apparently hundreds of genes, whatever is causing those increases of copy number variations must be identified.  Some hypotheses are being looked into, from, as I indicated, the DNA repair genes involved in meiosis. Scant evidence exists one way or the other (many readers will appreciate that careful distinction, can I get an “Amen!” for Science?), but it is interesting that there appears to be decreased risk of cancer in autistics.  To me, this implies the loss of individuals with cancer risk from the population of autistics, perhaps in the womb, due to excessive genetic load.  Variations (inherited and de novo) that contribute “to autism” may (I speculate) already pose such difficulties for developing embryos that variation in the critical DNA repair genes may simply be screened out by lethality of genetic (G1 + G2) burden.  It would be interesting to see if siblings of children with autism have a higher overall incidence of cancer risk or increased variations known to contribute to cancer risk because they represent individuals who survived embryonic development with mutations.

Another hypothesis that could explain the increased rates of de novo variations, posed by radiologist Dr. Edward Fogarty, is the increase in the use of pelvic CT scans.  No evidence exists yet (again, a call FOR SCIENCE, not a call for No More Science), but straightforward looks at the rates of pelvic CT and other radiologic exposures in parents with of autistics compared to parents of neurotypicals could be critically important.  Two lines of evidence make this compelling. The first is the association detected between access to health care and rates of autism.  There could be other obvious contributors to the association of access to healthcare and rates of autism, including exposures to neurotoxins in vaccines (mercury, aluminum) and more likely diagnosis.  But neither of those factors can be expected to lead necessarily to increases in de novo variations.  The other line of evidence is the association of the age of parent with autism; older parents are more likely to have had multiple exposures to medical diagnostic radiation.  Dr. Fogarty and I will be looking into these environmental factors in 2017.

The final thought on when “genetic” autism is actually not genetic derives from my knowledge of biological pathways.  In canvassing the 2,000 studies on autism, including hundreds of genetic studies and way fewer environmental studies, it became apparent to me that understanding the role of genetics and environment (and their interaction) requires putting “autism genes” into three categories

(1) Autism Risk Genes – Genes that contribute directly to G1 (inherited trait risk)

(2) Environmental Susceptibility Genes – Genes that contribute to increased susceptibility of neurological disorders due to environmental toxin (developmental and otherwise)

(3) Autism Phenotype Modifier Genes – Genes that contribute to traits often associated with autism in the population, but that also show heritability in the entire population, not just the autistic population (language skills, some social skills, intellectual ability).

I offer examples of each of these three categories in “Causes” as hypotheses. Recognizing these three categories of genes will be essential for a fully understanding not only of autism, but of the many conditions that are thought to be co-morbid with autism, especially seizures, intellectual ability, and propensity for anger. Because many of these traits or tendencies involve pathways that clearly overlap with pathways that influence the core characteristics of language and communication, social abilities, and repetitive motions used to diagnose autism, it is very clear (to me at least) that every child with autism, or on the spectrum, and every child with a familial risk should have their genome sequenced and studied and their particular constellation of variants determined to be inherited (G1) or de novo (G2) studied to see if they are at risk of these other traits, and to see if they are at risk of suffering due to specific environmental exposures.

We have a long way to go before we can tell families which environmental exposures individual families or individual family members should avoid.  See this remarkably clear study by Scott Faber and colleagues at the Children’s Institute in Pittsburgh, PA that shows that the severity of behavioral traits associated with autism increases in autistics with cumulative exposures to environmental toxins:


And some of the suspects they found:


They did not study vaccines. Autism is, for the most part, environmental. Our species did not evolve in a world with highly irradiated pelvises, and a toxic soup that challenges a growing identifiable minority of individuals who will get sick, or die, or whose normative neurologic development program will be altered.  And as we (all) become increasingly sick, what is the logical outcome of increasing the baseline of toxic exposures by packing the untested CDC schedule with increasing numbers of vaccines?

The logic around vaccine safety science has been replaced by a shell game, mixed with false dichotomies. Remember SCN1a, which I promised we would come back to?  It turns about that because a few studies found that Dravet syndrome patients with encephalopathy were conducted, and they found and reported small numbers of patients w/mutations in SCN1a. Because they existed in these patients, the studies concluded that the encephalopathy could (potentially) be due to the mutations. Prior to these studies, vaccines had been (and still is) attributed as the cause of encephalopathy in these patients.  Do those mutation case series exonerate vaccines?


It requires science to rule out vaccines. Mutations do not exonerate vaccines as a cause of encephalopathy simply because the mutations were found second.  The studies had no control groups (patients with Dravet’s with no history of vaccination), so it is certainly plausible that, as in many complex disorders, the risk is additive, or these mutations (or others) interact with toxins from vaccines in identifiable way.  We need multifactorial thinking in vaccine safety science, not merely “either/or” contrasts.


Due in part to this errant “either/or” thinking about autism risk factors,  we can’t yet specifically predict which families should avoid which toxins.  Therefore, in the meantime, let us all adopt an attitude of tolerance and respect for individuals who wish to reduce their risk by reducing their own, or their child’s exposures to environmental toxins, including the neurotoxins in vaccines.  Let us stand firm on informed consent and require a full accounting of risks (as required by law) in each and every encounter in the clinic on vaccines.  Let us stop the draconian practice of destroying careers of medical professionals and journalists who become aware that with vaccines, we are taking some of the most toxic parts of our environment, and injecting them into babies. Let us use Science to formalize our approaches to using known risk factors of adverse events.  Let us use Science to develop biomarkers for serious adverse events.  Let us stop public shaming, and name-calling, and let’s get down to the business of public health considering all dimensions of risk of illness and disease.   If we are all protected from infectious diseases from vaccines, we owe everything to those who have taken the hit in the form of vaccine injuries. Let us not deny vaccine-injured children and their families justice, and due compensation. They are STILL trying to protect us, every day, by increasing  Vaccine Risk Awareness. Let us stop minimizing the perception of risk, while doing nothing to minimize the actual risk. That is a recipe for disaster. Vaccine court Special Masters, stop obfuscating with broken logic and give awards to kids whose toxin tolerance was pushed over the edge by vaccines (“via”, as you say, encephalopathy):


And please stop using non-sequitur molecular excuses like “channelopathy” to hide “autism”. The damage done to sodium channel functioning via mutation, or via environmental exposures, is identical.  It’s called “phenomimicry”.

Journal editors, stop retracting papers because a vocal minority of individuals say they cannot live with those published results.  Journalists, #bebrave and report on the environmental factors, including vaccines. Let us have #the conversation, so we can enact a sea change.  If you all start reporting at once, Pharma will not pull their funding from everyone.  Mass resistance WILL WORK.  Parents, continue to tell your stories, to Polly at #vaxxed and any outlet you can find.

For heaven’s sake, let’s stop using Thimerosal in flu shots for pregnant women (and for everyone, while we’re at it) and stop vaccinating pre-term babies altogether.  This study shows that Thimerosal specifically inhibits a protein called ERAP1, which is responsible for proper shortening of ALL proteins during translational expression.  Who in their right mind would want to alter protein editing processes in anyone, not to mention developing fetuses?  And why in the world is 850 micrograms of aluminum the safe dose limit for a 150 pound adult, and the same dose limit for a 7.5 pound baby?  Why is 5 micrograms the limit of aluminum in biologics other than vaccines, and yet pre-term infants receive 250 micrograms after a few days?  Where is pediatric dosing in vaccines?  Where is the vaccine safety science? More importantly, where is the integrity in vaccine safety science?

If we return to Science, we can make vaccines safer.  Totally safe? Maybe not. Much safer? Certainly. Spacing out vaccines is not a crime. It’s informed caution. We can screen for epitopes that make vaccines unsafe for some because they match human proteins. We can develop and use means of artificial immunization that elicit dendritic cell responses – without aluminum. Vaccine safety science must look at tallied cumulative exposures, not vaccinated vs. vaccinated. Clinicians, petition Medicare to count medical exemptions TOWARD, not AGAINST, the 60% rate you need to enjoy your bonuses.  Were it not for their medical conditions, after all, they would be on schedule! Researchers, stop burying associations and model overfit.  CDC, publish all of the comments on the proposed weakening of the risk of MMR, and uncensor my comment. Oh, and fix your website, it looks like there are zero comments.  Congress, one last time, PLEASE  subpoena William Thompson. We all know what happened. It’s getting embarrassing.  We’re moving on. Either way, you’ll be hearing from us.

All of this can be done. All of it MUST be done.


I dedicate this blog article to The World Mercury Project, and I wholeheartedly endorse Mr. Kennedy as Chairperson for the Vaccine Safety Science Commission.  Their logo here is used without permission, and WMP has nothing to do with my blog, or any of its articles.



I am grateful for everyone who has helped me to this point. There are so many.  You know who you are.


The Slaughtering of our Constitutional Rights

JOHN STUART MILL is sometimes attributed with the quote “Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins”.  In reality, the quote seems to have arisen during prohibition protests.

Everyone understands that there are times when individuals must be called upon to secure our liberties and rights as a nation, at the risk of cost to individuals. The military draft, for example, is seen by many as a necessary evil from time to time, but even the de facto suspension of individual liberties during the draft is seen as extraordinary – no draft would be acceptable during a non-emergency period. The draft, for example, would never have been acceptable during Bush’s elective war in Iraq.

Lately there have been moves on the part of governments and other organizations to reduce, limit, or remove individual liberties and rights, and a full accounting of which rights are impinged in the name of saving humanity from infectious diseases seems worth considering.

1st Amendment Right to Free Speech

I was stunned to read a legal “scholars”‘s treatment of the question of whether we should tolerate free and open discussion of questions of vaccine safety. Claiming that discussing vaccine safety was akin to “shouting gunfire in a crowded theater”, the authors of the article in the Jurist concluded that perhaps American citizens’ rights to discuss their knowledge of the risks of vaccination should be rescinded.

Luckily, the issue was aptly taken up by Mary Holland, a legal scholar at New York University, who wisely stated (in brief) that the right to yell “gunfire” becomes a moral imperative when gunfire has, indeed, erupted in a theater.

Rights to Informed Consent

Vaccine defenders trample all over individuals’ rights to informed consent for medical procedures, both inside and outside the doctor’s office. Inside the office, they routinely deny informed consent by minimizing what is known about risks of vaccine injury, both in terms of the diversity of injuries that may occur, and their frequency. Patients who ask too many questions about vaccine injury are seen as problematic, rather than being seen as exercising their right (in all states) to know specific risks.  Information on the known HPV vaccine adverse events provided by your doctor are incomplete, and if you ask for the vaccine insert, you will find that it, too states that it is incomplete in its listing of the known adverse events, and it refers you back to your doctor for a full list!

If patients or parents decide to exercise their legally guaranteed right (in 47/50 states) to refuse vaccination, or to modify the schedule, or to skip or delay any specific vaccination due to their individual concern over risk, they are treated as problematic by healthcare workers, including medical doctors and office staff. The disdain and disregard for the law in such a setting by medical professionals is obvious.

California bill SB277 is a highly contested example of a state overreaching the authority intended by previous cases. It specifically strips Californians of the right to non-medical exemptions, and those who persist in exercising their Federal rights to refuse medical treatment once fully informed of the risks are stripped of their rights to access a public education, a right specifically provided by the California state constitution.

AAP Codifies Patient Harassment and Abrogation of the Hippocratic Oath

Doctors and healthcare workers around the country have been reported to use coercion, shame, and threats to deny patients access to medical care if they are vaccine-risk aware, and choose any of the legally provided options other than the CDC schedule. Last week, the AAP codified this disregard for the law by approving pediatricians’ practice of refusing to provide medical treatment to citizens who exercise their legal rights to non-medical exemptions. Citizens in nearly every states with mandatory vaccination for school attendance have the right to exercise religious, philosophical, moral and personal belief exemptions, whether pediatricians like it or not.


Sept 2016: Forty-seven states honor individual and parental rights to refuse vaccination – without their doctor’s permission to do so. AAP, CDC, and Pharma want that number to be ZERO.

In some states, the medical community has tried claim that doctors should ascertain for the state whether a person’s request for a religious exemption is genuine. Such laws and practices  are clearly a violation of the freedom of religion, which is a constitutionally protected right provided in the religion clauses of the First Amendment.  A moment’s review of the contents of some vaccines (aborted fetal cells, pig products) will reveal that recipients who are forced to receive those contents into their bodies are also being forced to deny central tenets of their faith.

Across the US, patients are denied informed consent in myriad other ways as well.  The fact that pharmaceutical companies are exempt from liability prevents news stories of companies held accountable for harm – and also prevents motivating companies from making vaccines safer.  Instead, consumers pay a tax on every vaccine to pay damages via the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program – which sounds good, until one realizes how extremely tortured the logic has been to make vaccine-induced encephalopathy a replacement vaccine injury for autism so the program does not have to pay for vaccine-induced encephalopathy-mediated autism.

Right to Refuse Medical Experimentation

After the Nuremberg trial, it became both common international and national law in the US that no citizen shall be subject to medical experimentation without their express, fully informed consent. The law that protects American citizens’ right fall under the FDA’s domain, which requires that all medical researchers conducting human subjects research acquire specific consent after reviewing the full list of known and potential risks associated with experimental drugs and medical procedures.

Much of what the CDC calls vaccine safety research is conducted using post-market surveillance. US citizens are not informed that their reaction to a given vaccine may be used by the government or government-funded researchers to assess vaccine safety. By definition, then, we are all enrolled in an uncontrolled medical experiment without consent. We are never given the opportunity to refuse to be enrolled in this massive medical experiment. Not that it matters much for the sake of the science; the studies conducted using data from the passive Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) and the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) are nearly universally retrospective descriptive correlational studies, and thus any suggestion or hint of increased rates of serious adverse events can easily either be cooked away by repeated rounds of data analysis (analysis-to-result), as has been the practice at the CDC for studies on the question of vaccine-induced encephalopathy-mediated autism, or the results can be dismissed as merely ‘correlational’.

When a new vaccine is being added to the CDC pediatric schedule, the prospective studies that are conducted do not test the cumulative effect of the vaccine schedule against unvaccinated individuals, but rather existing schedule vs. modified. Those that do use ‘placebo’ tend to use the adjuvant (additive designed to enrage the immune system) vs the vaccine, and thus the rates of mild, moderate and serious adverse events for vaccines are unknown.

13th and 14th Amendment Rights: The only way so far to identify individuals – and families – who are at risk of vaccine injury is to vaccinate them, and thereby injure them. These subgroups of individuals are potentially identifiable – if only research priorities allowed us to focus on the development of biomarkers to predict who might be at risk of specific harm. In America, minority citizens have, under the 13th and 14th Amendments, the rights to equal protection. The first step to predicting who among us are at special risk is to admit that vaccines cause harm. In denying the link between vaccines and autism, not only are the rights to informed consent denied, and rights to compensation for harm being denied, but the right to protection by the state as a genetic minority are also denied because the science to identify specific biomarkers for specific serious adverse events for specific subgroups cannot be conducted when autism denialists write the rules.

CDC Proposes Their Totalitarian Rule

In a stunning move made under the guise of medical emergencies caused by emerging infectious diseases, CDC has proposed new rules for themselves to be able to apprehend and detain American citizens indefinitely, without access to legal counsel; to disallow citizens’ rights to cease communicating with the CDC (First Amendment; Fifth Amendment); to access (without consent) our electronic communications (Fourth Amendment); to forcibly vaccinate American citizens against their will (Rights to Informed Consent); and to deny them any compensation whatsoever for any harm done to them physically  or to their attempts to enjoy their rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  Defenders will say that this is only for instances in which an emergency has been declared, and they list specific diseases for which they imagine they may have to impose totalitarian rule (Ebola, Marburg, and others (see a full accounting by James Grundvig here). They also, of course, give themselves the right to add more diseases, and thus vaccines, to this list. CDC wish to grant itself open-ended police powers in a manner that is not only not consistent with the Constitution: their power grab is not consistent with America.

I am sure that I have not fully counted the number of rights seized by the CDC Totalitarian Rule, but they must be stopped. They should not be granted powers to suspend most of the Constitution.

CDC employees have an odd, paramilitary culture that is not necessary in a free and open society.  Perhaps they are nervous and this bluster is a threat. Perhaps they will apprehend people who write blog articles. Perhaps they will apprehend people who make movies. Perhaps you will be arrested by a Rear Admiral and force-vaccinated against all of these diseases because you told your sister about “The Environmental and Genetic Causes of Autism“.

We must immediately, forcefully and collectively assert and affirm our rights to:

  • Rights to Free Speech
  • Religious Rights
  • Rights to Refuse Medical Treatment
  • Right to Refuse to Participate in Medical Experiments
  • Rights to Equal Protection
  • Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.


The reality is that open-end legislation at Federal, State, and County levels on vaccine mandates are dangerous, because no science is done to tell us about the risks of adding an ever-increasing number of vaccines, and this newly proposed ’emergency’ authority to force vaccination upon American citizens a list of vaccines to which CDC can add at their whim cut deep across the grain of American sensibility and our traditional respect for the rights of individuals.

The attack on Constitutionally guaranteed and protected rights being visited upon the American public is sometimes described using the word “impingement”.  The aggregate effects of these moves is not an impingement – it is a dismantling of our safeguards against a totalitarian state. It’s a wholescale slaughter of the Constitution.

What are your thoughts? What other rights are being threatened by vaccine risk denialists?  Let’s have #thediscussion – while we still can.


The Constitution of the United States of America

Holland, MS. 2011. Legally Censoring Speech on Vaccines and Autism: A Response. The Jurist

Vaccine Safety Datalink

About the Author:

Dr. Lyons-Weiler is the CEO of The Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge, former Senior Research Scientist and Scientific Director of the Bioinformatics Analysis Core at the University of Pittsburgh, and former faculty member in the Department of Pathology and Department of Biomedical Informatics (University of Pittsburgh), and former full faculty member in The University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute. He is the author of three books (Ebola: An Evolving Story; Cures vs. Profits: Successes in Translational Research and The Environmental and Genetic Causes of Autism). To book Dr. Lyons-Weiler for speaking engagements, email

Visit Dr. Lyons-Weiler’s Facebook author page.

How to Nip HPV Vaccine Mandates in the Bud: Lessons from Pennsylvania


MANY OF MY FELLOW sojourners on Facebook have thanked me for fighting back at the – read this slow – proposal to write a proposal for a mandate for HPV vaccination in Allegheny County, PA that the Allegheny County Board of Health (ACBH) was contemplating.  While it’s true I’ve been involved the spotlight really goes to the ladies of the local contingent of the Pennsylvanian Coalition for Informed Consent and the members of the general public who stood up and said #nohpvmandatePA.

I was invited to participate in a meeting w/these truth warriors and defenders of health rights, and I can attest that no board, no committee, no legislative body will ever succeed in mandating HPV in the Pennsylvania as long as they have to deal with this coalition.  They are organized, informed, dedicated, and, most importantly, growing.

My personal experience in this is consistent with my own growing awareness of passive-aggressive, bureaucratic, non-representational means of government that are being experimented with in all levels of regulatory government.  Rather than deal with issues that effect each and every Pennsylvania head-on with legislation that mandates HPV vaccines, the ACBH attempted one of three things (I’m still unsure of which of the three they were contemplating), outside the legislative process:

  • To mandate HPV vaccine in 11- and 12-yr olds prior to entering 7th grade
  • To consider writing a proposal recommending a mandatory HPV vaccination for 11- and 12-yr olds prior to entering 7th grade
  • To gather information on how the public feels about HPV mandates.

A series of public speakers offered their opinion.  NOT A SINGLE MEMBER OF THE LAY PUBLIC STOOD UP FOR MANDATORY VACCINATION.  The only people speaking up for mandatory vaccination were medical doctors.  And Dr. Lee Harrison, chair of the ACBH, who, in comparison to the 3-minutes given each member of the public, had to apologize for how long his presentation was during the Board’s discussion of the issue.

We’ll learn more about Dr. Harrison later, but for now, let me bullet point the issues that the lay public, and the scientist in the room, shared with the Board of Health.

A procedural inquiry was made on the fact that public speakers were only given 3 minutes; it also included an inquiry on whether mandating a vaccine was overreach on the part of the board.  The person providing this procedural inquiry had asked if she could make the inquiry, and then give public comment, and was told yes.  When she began her inquiry, she was interrupted and informed that her procedural inquiry was in fact going to be taken as public comment.  Thus, she forfeited her 3 minutes for her public comment.

The board never answered her questions during the public comment session; however, we learned later (from the Board Member who identified herself as Constitutional Lawyer) that if the ACBH votes on a new policy, that there must be public HEARINGS, at which case any member of the public has as long as they need, and can make presentations, etc…

Other speakers addressed or had previously addressed the following concerns:

  • The Board is an appointed, not an elected body – NO VACCINATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION;
  • 48 states have NO MANDATE for HPV vaccine;
  • Countries like Japan and Denmark have stopped recommending HPV vaccine altogether due to safety concerns;
  • VAERS data shows large numbers of HPV-vaccine induced injuries;
  • Two statements from medical doctors (read by PCIC members) that such a mandate goes against everything that medicine stands for;
  • No science has shown that HPV vaccine prevents cancer;
  •  A mom (wearing a VAXXED shirt) told the story of her vaccine-injured child, and told the Board about the ongoing Congressional inquiry into Dr. William Thompson, who revealed that the CDC altered the results (by omission) of a study to make the public think that vaccines were safer than they are.

My own points were that I’d already provided the Board with studies that show type replacement occurs, and that a Dr. Miriam Cremer claimed in an editorial at the Pittsburgh Post Gazette that my reports of type replacement (whereby rare, potentially more lethal HPV types replace those targeted by the vaccine) were “absolutely false”.  Evidence of Dr. Cremer’s conflicts of interest as receiving funds directly from Merck over the years were handed to the ACBH.  I told that board that since we last met, another study had come out showing type replacement, and informed them that I had emailed them the study for their review earlier in the morning.

I urged them (again) to not dismiss parents’ reports of HPV and vaccine-related injuries; I asked them if they know how it sounds to a parent to hear that their observations are not proof of cause:

“It sounds like this: If a parent says, look, I saw my child get hit by truck, and you say to them ‘We know you saw the truck hit your child, and you have the license plate, and make and model of the truck, but correlation does not imply causation'” (Thanks Ali! for sharing this analogy).

I reminded them that according to the American Cancer Society, throat cancers have been DECLINING at a rate of 2-3% percent per year due to larger numbers of people quitting smoking.

A doctor absent from the proceeding whose name had been called clearly waited to be the last speaker – another trick to try to carry the issue.  It didn’t work.

During the Board’s discussion, Dr. Lee Harrison, the Chair, gave a presentation on “HPV and HPV Vaccines”.  He took this opportunity to try to (emphasis TRY TO) ‘clarify’ some ‘misconceptions’ about HPV vaccines. After revealing that he has no conflict of interest with “HPV Vaccines” specifically, he did NOT reveal whether he had any COIs with companies that manufacture, distribute, or sell vaccines.

He then leisurely told the Board and the room that yes, 95% of the cases of HPV virus cleared within the first two years.  But, he said, those are not the patients we care about.

Really?  You’re trying to mandate a vaccine to 100% of students, 95% of whom do not need it.  And you don’t care about those 95%.  Or their risks of adverse events.   Got it.  You said, it, Dr. Harrison, YOU DON’T CARE about them.

He admitted type replacement is real. He said that type replacement is not a valid scientific reason not to vaccinate because they can always add more types to future vaccines if it happens.  He ignored, of course the fact that their “information campaign” says that HPV vaccination will protect you from “HPV infection” and “cervical cancer”, causing young people to engage in riskier sex behaviors, leading to type replacement and increased risk of cervical cancer once they are infected with the rarer types.  He showed that vaccination of those already infected is not efficacious, but failed to realize or show that therefore partial immunization NOW will make FUTURE vaccines ineffective once type replacement occurs.  He did NOT report that CDC’s own data shows NO NET CHANGE in overall HPV infection rates after the vaccines came on the market. He tried to say that type replacement did not appear to occur in HPV because the study (uncited, no references, I presume he means Markowitz et al. (2016) did not find significant changes in the increase of many individual HPV types.  How ridiculous that he did NOT report the full results of that study which showed NO NET CHANGE in OVERALL infection.

There are two ways to have NO NET CHANGE  in OVERALL infection rates in the Markowitz et al. study: (1) low power in the individual univariate tests for individual types, and (2) type replacement.  They are not mutually exclusive.  But Dr. Harrison did not report that finding from the CDC, thus misleading the Board and the public on type replacement.  He also did not cite ANY of the studies which I had sent to the ACBH that show type replacement and find that yes, rarer, more lethal types increase in the population as a result of HPV vaccination.

His presentation was completely one-sided; while he reviewed the side effects of HPV vaccine, and stressed how syncope can be serious (“they fall like rocks”) he did not mention that some kids die after HPV due to car accidents caused by syncope.

He reviewed the clinical research on HPV-4 vs. ‘alum’, and tried to explain that the adjuvant placebo comparison was sufficient.  It clearly was not: aluminum is a serious neurotoxin, and the HPV-4 study result he focused on (alum vs. HPV-4) could not possibly represent a safety test of HPV-4 because that result did not include the effects of aluminum.

He then presented results of HPV-9 vs. HPV-4… which are irrelevant because the question at hand is not to mandate that HPV-4 vaccinated people be upgraded to HPV-9, but rather should HPV-vaccine naive people be given HPV-9.  So no science was presented on vaccinated vs. unvaccinated for safety and efficacy.

Their was public outcry for the lack of fairness that the CDC (I mean, Dr. Harrison) got as much time as he wanted, and the public only had 3 minutes, on a topic that COULD HAVE gone to a vote.

Dr. Lee Harrison?

So who is Dr. Lee Harrison?  Dr. Harrison is a member of CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).  That’s right.  Our COUNTY board has a member of the CDC’s ACIP driving and pushing for an HPV vaccine mandate.

Dr. Harrison incorrectly claimed and thus misinformed the public that Pharma pays for the cost of findings of harm by the Vaccine Claims/Office of Special Masters  .  Each vaccine has a $0.75 to $1.50 tax levied upon the taxpayers for the $3 billion dollars that have been so far paid out for vaccine injury award by the ‘Vaccine Court’.

Dr. Harrison’s incomplete disclosure of non-HPV vaccine conflicts of interest is a matter of deep concern, and they are being looked into.

After the CDC’s (Dr. Harrison’s) presentation to the Board, a motion was made by a board member to consider a second option for a PR campaign to increase HPV vaccine uptake (the specific wording will be provided here soon).  A board member made the comment that he was very touched by the parents’ stories of vaccine injuries, and that he was amazed that, outside of this room, many parents came to him who were pro-vaccine, but against the mandate. Another board member, Dr. Donald Burke, Dean of the Graduate School of Public Health at the University of Pittsburgh, wondered if the Board could find a way to interface with the concerned public as part of the motion to approve action on a PR campaign.  Dr. Burke’s had to repeat his statement three times for clarification, and I noticed that initially he said “vaccine efficacy and risk” but that changed to “vaccine efficacy and safety“.

The Constitutional Lawyer on the Board inquired of a third option altogether, to hold public hearings to hear the parents out on their concern. That option was not further commented on, as Dr. Harrison pointed to the screen and said (paraphrasing now) that he thought they should focus on the two options on the screen.  He was clearly on  a mission to have one of the two options move forward.

Not that these two ideas were the only floated. Among other comments, the idea came forward that the administrative group that assists the ACBH propose a plan to the Board on how to increase HPV vaccine uptake via an informational program (again, the precise wording here awaits the minutes).

It was clear that the vote for this option was an option to avoid voting on either the other two options.

A board member made another proposal (at the suggestion of a doctor from the audience) that the issuing of a mandate be changed to issuing a recommendation.

At that point, I stood, and offered the following:

“Excuse me board, but you have a procedural inquiry from a lady (turning, motioning to Janet Cook) that was given to you during the public comment session.  She told you it was a procedural inquiry, and you told her it was  public comment.  She forfeited her three minutes of public comment to provide you the procedural inquiry, and I recommend that you see it as such”.

The idea to vote on a recommendation of HPV vaccination did not move further.

The Board did discuss in areas of high HPV vaccine uptake, what seemed to work other than mandate.  The answer was unclear – but we did learn that “high” HPV vaccine uptake was not >60% (females, I presume, males are always lower).

We must be clear on this: the Board did not vote to not mandate  They voted to have their administrative group devise a plan to promote the public’s awareness of the benefits of HPV vaccination – a PR campaign, essentially – which if it comes to a vote can be countered with the fact the Merck does not need help promoting its products.  They already have an ad running under fire for being emotionally manipulative and for making unfounded claims (see the FTC Petition to nail Merck for this infamous ad).

Further discussion of having the administrative group draw up a plan for educating the public included one comment from a board member who stated that plan could also be to mandate.

The Board voted for the plan to have the administrative group propose a plan to the committee, and all but one (the Constitutional Lawyer) voted against.

What’s my take-away?  There are a few:

(A) The ACBH has been coapted by a representative from Pharma – Dr. Lee Harrison – to try to (a) get a mandate through, or (b) use County funds to create and advertise for Pharma products.

(B) By my count, the Board never had the votes for a mandate.

(C) The administrative group’s proposal will be a target of high interest and intense scrutiny.  No County funds should pay for Merck’s advertising campaigns.

(D) We have a lot to do to educate the Board members of what they science REALLY says.  Dr. Lee’s biased and incorrect representation of the science left out key findings from the CDC study that showed no NET CHANGE IN OVERALL INFECTION RATES of HPV infection before and after the product came to market, and he should in my view be reprimanded for cherry-picking not only the studies he brought forward but also in cherry-picking the results to show.  He did not provide references.

(E) This “victory” was a battle victory.  The war is not yet won. Clearly this means that the work of groups like PCIC, those in the VAXXED community, the NVIC, and researchers looking at the totality of the data at IPAK, MUST continue.  The Board COUNTED the emails for, and against, and noted whether the email authors noted their place of residence.  PEOPLE’S VOICES MATTER.  Call, fax, email on your concerns – and find others who will email, too.

(F) In my view, the most effective strategies were massive email campaign to the Board and PEOPLE showing up for the public comment sessions:

#1. Parent’s statements of their child’s vaccine injuries.

#2. Statistics on vaccine injuries.

#3. Moving the discussion toward conflicts of interest.

#4. Statements from doctors on how egregious a mandate for this vaccine would be (see Kristi Weess public comments, below).

#5. The rest of the science (esp. inefficacy due to type replacement and the fact that there is a drug (Ranpirnase) that COMPLETELY clears the virus from infected individuals.  If 95% of people clear it without any treatment, and the rest can be readily treated without surgery, why vaccinate?

Residents of Allegheny County have a lot of people to thank for showing up.  This includes Kristi Wees, Alison Mullins, Alison Fujito, A.R., Janet Cook, Jessica Fitzgerald, Michelle Sprague, and Erin Rogers.  And of course Kelly Sotomayor, who had shared the story of her daughter with A.R. to share w/the Board. There are others whose input has been critical to causes the Board to reconsider mandating this unnecessary vaccine.

Of course I am grateful to the VAXXED team, especially Del Bigtree and Polly Tommey, who interviewed me on this issue during their Pittsburgh stop.  They have a huge ROAD TRIP planned, a BUS TOUR, so watch for that!

Some Public Comments

Here are the  comments by Kristi Wees:

“Hello and thank you to the Board of Health for allowing me to comment today.

My name is Kristi Wees, I am a resident of Allegheny County, and I am here today as an informed citizen and concerned mother. My educational training is in chemistry and I hold a Master’s degree from UCLA and a Bachelor’s degree from Penn State.

Because of our family’s personal experience witnessing our daughter’s health steadily decline after each well baby visit and round of childhood vaccines, we embarked on a journey to find out what was ailing our sweet baby girl. That journey led us to the research that has been conducted by Dr. Derrick Lonsdale, in the specific field of thiamine deficiency.

Derrick Lonsdale M.D., is a Fellow of the American Academy of Pediatrics (FAAP), American College of Nutrition (FACN), the American College for Advancement in Medicine (FACAM). Though he is now retired, Dr. Lonsdale was a practitioner in pediatrics at the Cleveland Clinic for 20 years and was Head of the Section of Biochemical Genetics. Dr. Lonsdale has written over 100 published papers and 3 books.

Dr. Lonsdale has provided me with this letter he wrote for today’s meeting and has given me permission to read it on his behalf.

From Dr. Lonsdale-

“To whom it may concern,

Report by Derrick Lonsdale M.D. FAAP Associate Emeritus, Cleveland clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio.

In 2013 I became aware of five adolescents with Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome (POTS) initiated immediately after the Gardasil vaccine, all of whom had been crippled by the disease for several years. All of them were reported to be superior athletes and students before they received the vaccine. Genomic analysis had shown that all five of these adolescents had minor changes in their DNA that put them at serious risk for thiamine deficiency, precipitated by the stress of the vaccine. The frequency of the genetic risk factors is unknown. By themselves they appear to be relatively harmless. POTS following the HPV vaccination has been reported in the European Journal of Neurology (Blitsheyn S. Postural tachycardia syndrome following human papilloma virus vaccination. Eur J Neurol 2014; 21 (1): 135-9).

Gardasil is a yeast based vaccine using a yeast that contains an enzyme that destroys thiamine. Superior individuals have a superior energy requirement that is governed by the presence of thiamine. If they have a genetic risk, the symptoms of POTS are identical to those of early beriberi, the classic vitamin B1 deficiency disease. The stress of the vaccine, imposed on a genetically determined risk for incurring thiamine deficiency, may be crippling “the brightest and the best”. Considering that there are thousands of adolescents in America, Denmark and Japan with post Gardasil POTS, this incidence needs to be compared with the expected incidence of cancer of the cervix in unvaccinated individuals. Research is urgently needed.”

End of Dr. Lonsdale’s comments

Based on my own experience with my daughter, and with the call for more research into these risk factors by Dr. Lonsdale, I strongly oppose any mandates of the HPV vaccine. There is NO testing being done on the recipients of the vaccine before this vaccine is given. There is no way to know by looking at a person, if they are genetically susceptible to vaccine injury. In my opinion, if you know a vaccine may cause harm to some and you mandate that every person get that vaccine, then you are not upholding a fundamental precept of bioethics taught in medical schools nation-wide, and that is to “first do NO harm”.”

“Hello, my name is Amy Rafferty. I want to mention that I have no vested interest in the HPV vaccine as I do not profit from, nor do I work for someone who profits from, the manufacture, distribution or sale of vaccinations.
I am appalled that the Allegheny County Health Department and Health Board would even consider mandating this controversial vaccine. HPV9 is new to the market and has not established a safety record or success rate in the population yet. I have not heard one doctor quote any research study that proves that this vaccine prevents cancer.
HPV is not a communicable disease and, therefore, will not be spread in a school setting.

So, why make this vaccine mandatory for school attendance? There is obviously not a health emergency in the county either, as throat cancer is on the decline because fewer people are smoking now according to the American Cancer Society. Cervical and uterine cancer combined only make up two tenths of one percent of all deaths in Allegheny County and one percent of all cancer deaths in Allegheny County, according to the Pennsylvania Health Department EDDIE database. This is certainly not an emergency.

Let’s see what other state and federal health Departments think of this vaccine. The country of Japan has stopped recommending the HPV vaccine due to numerous deaths and serious adverse reactions. Japan, Spain, France, Denmark and India join a growing list of countries in which criminal lawsuits have been filed against manufacturers of the HPV vaccine claiming fraudulent and misleading safety information.

Right now, there are 48 states that have chosen NOT to include this vaccine in their state’s list of mandated vaccines.

Allegheny County is the ONLY COUNTY in the USA to ever consider mandating the HPV vaccine. That’s a pretty bold attempt and over-reach for an unelected, unaccountable group of officials, wouldn’t you say? Is the county prepared to deal with the large number of preteen deaths and vaccine injuries that have resulted in each of the other states and countries that have mandated this HPV vaccine?

Who is footing the bill for those who cannot afford this vaccine? This vaccine is the most expensive vaccine of all, costing $450-$500 for a complete set. With approximately 25,500 students in 5th and 6th grade in the county, it will cost $12,748,000. Merck will profit greatly from this mandate.

Since vaccination is a medical procedure carrying risk, Parents need to make the decision, with input from their doctor, on whether or not to have their child receive this controversial HPV vaccination.

I’d appreciate it if any doctors or medical personnel speaking today would use research when saying that the HPV vaccine prevents cancer because I have not found any nor have the people on my team.

I would appreciate it if anyone saying there are no serious adverse event or deaths from this vaccine, to look the parents in this room in the eye, whose daughters have been crippled for years since they got this vaccine.

Thank you for your time.”

You can listen to the HPV vaccine mandate public comments here.


Sign the petition to the FTC to nail Merck for false advertising!



Protect Baby’s Brain from Aluminum Neurotoxicity – It’s Not Just the Vaccines

Anyone who reads my writings will know that I tend to not hold back in the “should” department – because ethics and morals in society depends not only in the proper conduct of science, but also in the proper translation into general knowledge and public health policy.  Those with their hands on the reins of public health policy appear to be more interested in defending flawed policies, and those of us who have come to learn of flaws in the science used to bolster those policies are bound by moral contract with a duty to warn our fellow human beings.

Well, at least some of feel that way.

I would be worthy of being labeled hypocritical, therefore, if I did not shout from my blog the news that there are other sources of aluminum that pregnant and nursing moms may well expose their developing babies to – one that is so commonly available, and the dose of aluminum so high that I shudder to think of any pregnant woman or nursing mom (or individual who likes their brain) taking a single dose.

That product is antacids.

In a chapter reviewing aluminum neurotoxicity (yes, Dr. Offit, aluminum is a long-known neurotoxin), Dr. Robert Yokel in 2012 reviewed estimates of the amount of aluminum absorbed from exposure from various sources, and the results certainly do not bode well for vaccines.  Here is a screen shot of the chapter:


And here is a screenshot of his Table 1, with aluminum from vaccines at 0.07ug daily exposure and aluminum from antacids at 80ug per day:


The low amount calculated “per day”from vaccines, however, is misleading: the dose from a vaccine is given in a single day – and the body has to deal with 100% absorption in real time.  So the numbers to compare are 12-300µg/dose in a day to 80µg/day.  Se the “up to 5,000,000 µg” ingested?  The fact that only 80µg are absorbed per day shows you how little aluminum a normal-functioning GI tract actually absorbs. But that’s a lot for a mom to have in her body while she’s pregnant.  So much for the dismissive position that babies get more aluminum from baby formula. Mothers should breastfeed anyway – unbelievable, CDC recently said moms should not breastfeed to give the vaccines a chance to be more effective.

Add to the 80 from antacids and aluminum in the vaccines offered during pregnancy (bad idea in the first place), and add later aluminum to the baby after via vaccines after birth, you can see we may successively and repeatedly dose our youngest with a neurotoxicant. Aluminum (in a wide variety of forms) causes chronic microglial activation, which occurs when certain cells (microglia) in our brains get stuck in the “destroy” mode and take out dendrites trying to make connections and baby nerve cells (neural precursor cells).

Expectant moms, lactacting moms, throw your antacids away and look at your aluminum intake.  Other foods potentially high in aluminum include pre-prepared pancake mixes and other foods that are kept powdery and dry.  Look at the ingredients and save your baby’s brain from chronic and prolonged exposure.   Get an air filter and filter out the dust that can introduce aluminum into your baby’s body via the lungs or GI tract.

Aluminum is certainly not the only toxin that can induce microglial activation. But 10% of the aluminum absorbed stays in the brain for decades.  Moms and dads, look at the table an find ways to reduce aluminum exposure, and we might just be able to reduce the rates of autism/ASD worldwide.

The full chapter is available from the University of Kentucky website.

baby brain


Dr. Lyons-Weiler is the author of three book, the latest of which is “Environmental and Genetic Causes of Autism”, which can be ordered online or from your local independent bookseller. A companion website to the book includes over 1,000 references to studies on autism.