How to Make the Vaccine Awareness Movement More Effective

I have spent much time researching the contemporary issue of mandatory vaccination and written many articles concerning the subject. We have examined the various safety concerns about continuous vaccinations and chronic immune stimulation. Further, we have investigated why, from the liberty and personal freedom perspective, mandatory and compulsory vaccination is antithetical to American values. Finally, we reviewed several of the possible, adverse side effects of vaccinated, noted by vaccine manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies, and the United States government.

In this article, we will begin by reviewing certain misconceptions about vaccines, uncover why the CDC’s claims about vaccine safety are broad and inaccurate, investigate newer research concerning the relationship between aluminum hydroxide, chronic immune stimulation, and autoimmune diseases, and inspect the main offenders propagating the compulsory vaccination movement.

People must learn this information and provide the supporting data when the conversation presents itself.

Vaccines Are Not as Effective as They Are Portrayed

First, it is commonly believed vaccines are entirely effective and provide a consistent level of protection. However, research shows that is not true.

In a 2019 study, Chinese public health officials expressed concern that the measles vaccine has failed to generate herd immunity in China, even though their data showed that measles-containing vaccination (MCV) is as high as 97% for the first and second dose, with many children also receiving a third dose [1]; however, 97% is much higher than the required percentage of 90-95% to achieve herd immunity for measles [2].

Researchers also found two or more doses only seemed to delay measles cases, and the onset was similar to if someone were to receive only one or no treatments of an MCV. The researchers concluded that one vaccine had insufficient protective effects and being vaccinated at the earliest recommended time, eight months, seems to have a reduced immune response regarding measles immunity [1].

The Chinese researchers noted the following:

“This analysis of measles cases in Tianjin found that among children with a recorded vaccine history, a substantial number of those who contracted measles had received at least one MCV dose. Although time-to-diagnosis following vaccination increases with receipt of each successive dose of measles vaccine, the fact that 8.5% of cases in the surveillance dataset and 26% in the case series contracted measles despite 2 or more doses of MCV is surprising. This also has implications for the VE of the measles vaccine series in Tianjin. Future research is needed to identify whether this is due to primary or secondary vaccine failure, and whether cold chain management, low vaccine efficacy, scheduled dose timing, or host factors such as co-morbidities and waning immunity might be responsible. This analysis motivates further research to discern the cause of these breakthrough cases in both outbreak and isolated case settings [emphasis added].” [1]

These are not the only researchers to find vaccination, even when performed timely and according to governmental standards, does not provide the anticipated protection.

In 1987, researchers investigated a measles outbreak in a Corpus Christi, Texas school that occurred in 1985, and more than 99% of the school’s students had been vaccinated for measles [5]. The researchers obtained 1,806 blood samples from the students, and only 74 of the 1,806 students (4.1%) lacked measles antibodies. Fourteen of the 74 students contracted measles, even though they were vaccinated. The researchers concluded, “We conclude that outbreaks of measles can occur in secondary schools, even when more than 99 percent of the students have been vaccinated and more than 95 percent are immune” [3].

In another 1987 study, researchers investigated a measles breakout that occurred in Montana and found that 98.7% of the investigated school population was vaccinated. Therefore, although the vaccination percentage was higher than the benefit needed for the hypothesized herd immunity (90-95%), a breakout occurred and infected 137 individuals. The researchers concluded, “This outbreak suggests that measles transmission may persist in some settings despite appropriate implementation of the current measles elimination strategy” [4].

In a 1991 study, researchers investigated a measles outbreak that infected 84 individuals at a college in Colorado. However, 98% of the students attending the college has documentation of adequate measles immunity, and 70 (83%) of the 84 infected individuals had been vaccinated. The researchers concluded, “As in secondary schools, measles outbreaks can occur among highly vaccinated college populations” [5].

In another 1991 study, researchers investigated a measles outbreak in Quebec that infected 1,363 people. The researchers stated 84.5% of the infected individuals received a vaccine and 99% of the population was vaccinated, concluding, “Incomplete vaccination coverage is not a valid explanation for the Quebec City measles outbreak” [6].

In a 2014 study, researchers investigated the New York City measles outbreak that occurred in 2011. The researchers found a twice-vaccinated individual could transmit measles to another twice-vaccinated individual [7].

In a 1994 study, researchers noted, “Measles outbreaks still occur in highly immunised [sic] populations when vaccine efficacy appears to be acceptable” [8].

From these published studies, the whole idea of herd immunity through vaccination is mostly unjustified. Even in highly vaccinated populations, individuals can still contract and transmit measles.

Side-Effects Exist, Whether People Want Them To

One of the most massive arguments for mandatory vaccination is that vaccines are completely safe, without any possible side effects.

Newsweek published an article entitled “The Anti Vaxxer Movement is Growing – We Need to Restore Faith in Science.” The article was written by Dr. Barbara Rath, who has a rather extensive academic background. Rath is a co-founder and chair of a pro-vaccine think tank, The Vienna Vaccine Safety Initiative. Yet, her placement on a vaccine safety think tank and her ability to remarkably overlook the indicated health risks of vaccinations are extraordinarily contradictory.

Newsweek’s propaganda piece begins with the following sentences: “The anti-vax movement has been gaining momentum in countries across the globe. In a world of post truth politics, more and more parents are buying into the belief that vaccines come with health risks” [9].

The first sentence begins by slurring anyone who has reservations about vaccine safety, and the second sentence states, “… more and more parents are buying into the belief that vaccines come with health risks,” which implies that there are no health risks that come with being vaccinated.

However, if Rath would read the vaccine insert that is provided by the manufacturer – Merck – she may notice the list of possible adverse reactions, including [9]:

Fever, vasculitis (a condition in which the immune system mistakenly attacks the blood vessels, causing inflammation that can lead to severe problems, including aneurysms), pancreatitis (inflammation of the pancreas that occurs when the digestive enzymes it produces begin digesting the pancreas itself), diarrhea, vomiting, diabetes mellitus, thrombocytopenia (a disorder in which there is an abnormally low amount of platelets, which help a blood clot), anaphylaxis ( a life-threatening allergic reaction that causes cardiac and respiratory arrest), encephalitis (swelling of the brain, which can cause permanent brain damage or death), Guillain-Barré syndrome (an autoimmune syndrome in which the immune system attacks the peripheral nervous system, which can result in paralysis or death), febrile seizures (convulsions brought on by fever), afebrile seizures (convulsions without fever, which may indicate epilepsy), pneumonia, measles-like rash, or “death from various, and in some cases unknown, causes.” [10]

I would much consider “death from various, and in some cases unknown, causes” a possible adverse effect worth bearing in mind, and these are only some of the possible side effects. While the chances of these side effects are slim, they do happen.

When Reactions Do Occur …

Further, when the risks for vaccination turn out to be 100% for a child who has an adverse reaction, and the parents describe what has happened and are forced to deal with the situation, journalists gaslight them. This is a shameful display of ignorance and prejudice against children who are biologically vulnerable to vaccines and their parents who have been obligated to bear the risks of vaccination unequally.

These parents have been demonized for advocating for safer vaccinations, scientifically informed and humane public health policies, and the freedom of informed medical consent. Moreover, the media class is behooved to retaliate against the discrimination and erosion of these liberties and freedoms, not actively condone it.

CDC Does Not Have Evidence to Back Their Safety Claims

The Center for Disease Control (CDC) has continuously asserted that all vaccines and vaccine ingredients have been disproven to cause autism. These statements are highly generic and encompass all vaccines and vaccine ingredients.

For example, the CDC states, “Vaccines Do Not Cause Autism,” “There is no link between vaccines and autism,” and “…no links have been found between any vaccine ingredients and autism spectrum disorder” [11].

These overly broad statements are not supported by available science because the CDC’s evidence to support these statements is limited to the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine, thimerosal preservative, and vaccine antigen exposure [12] [13].

Dr. Frank DeStefano of the CDC’s Immunization Safety Office is co-author of a paper [14] which states: “To date, there have been no population-based studies specifically designed to evaluate associations between clinically meaningful outcomes and non-antigen ingredients, other than thimerosal” [14].

This statement applies to, among other vaccine ingredients, the aluminum hydroxide adjuvant that is added to many vaccinations to promote a better immune response for greater effectiveness.

Moreover, studies of the MMR vaccine cannot be used as evidence of safety for other vaccines, for examples that contain an aluminum adjuvant. The overly-broad, generic assertion that no vaccines and no ingredients can cause autism is, thus, not supported by scientific evidence. 

These CDC statements are contradicted by a large, consistent growing body of scientific evidence, including:

  • Published studies showing the neurotoxic and neuroinflammatory effects (e.g., microglial activation) from dosages of aluminum adjuvants lower than or approximately equal to dosages received by infants according to the CDC vaccine schedule [15] [16] [17].
  • Published studies linking vaccines to immune activation brain injury [18] [19].
  • Published studies showing that early-life immune activation is a causal factor in autism and other neurodevelopmental disorders and mental illness (e.g., schizophrenia) [20] [21] [22] [23] [24].


Autoimmune/Inflammatory Syndrome Induced by Adjuvants (ASIA)

Much research has investigated the immune-stimulating adverse effects of adjuvants, and in a 2011 article published in the Journal of Autoimmunity, researchers dubbed these adverse effects autoimmune/inflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvant or ASIA [25].

As noted above, aluminum hydroxide is used in vaccines as an adjuvant to stimulate a more significant immune response to ensure the vaccine is more effective. Since the 2011 publication, researchers have published numerous studies in various journals investigating the use of aluminum hydroxide as an adjuvant and its adverse effects, with many of the studies calling for future research [26] [27] [28] [29] [30].

Fundamentally, the prolonged and continuous immune stimulation caused by the repeated use aluminum hydroxide in vaccinations can lead to a wide array of autoimmune diseases [25] [31] [32], and this ought to be further investigated before the CDC, or any governmental organization, claims vaccines are completely safe.

Three Factions of Thought Concerning Mandated Vaccinations

Most people and their throughs concerning vaccines fall into three groups.

First, some oppose mandated vaccines. Generally, people in this group either oppose mandated vaccines because of individual liberty and informed medical consent reasons, they have done their research and investigated the risks that are associated with vaccinations, or they understand Big Pharma is the main offender propagating the compulsory vaccination movement.

Second, there are pro-vaccine individuals whose financial existence and success relies on vaccines being much promoted, including pediatricians, Public Health workers, and non-profit front groups for Big Pharma. Typically, these individuals affiliate themselves with the Progressive wing of the Democratic party. Further, a significant amount of these individuals do not have a center moral compass, meaning ever-fluctuating secular humanism, socialistic values, and governmental authority determines their meaning of morality, but that is another discussion.

Third, there are ordinary, non-involved citizens who believe the second group’s information is accurate and chose not to investigate. These individuals believe vaccines are entirely safe and do not warrant further investigation because that is what the second group has told them. These are the people who need to become informed.

Therefore, with the visualization of these three groups, it is easy to see where every person falls. Individuals from group three can be educated and informed with hard data, scientific studies, and information provided by manufactures on the inherent risks of vaccines.

The second group, however, is much more difficult to influence because their economic well-being, to a substantial point, relies on the assumption that vaccines are without risks.

Three Factions of Vaccine Groups

First, there is Big Pharma and their arm of vaccine manufactures. Conservative and liberal news, alike, have reported that Big Pharma consistently violate laws and promote products that are unsafe to people, with three recent examples being the Sackler family – Purdue Pharma – being responsible for the United States’ opioid crisis, Monsanto – owned by Bayer – selling the cancer-causing herbicide glyphosate, and Johnson and Johnson selling asbestos-laced, cancer-causing talcum powder. Major news organizations from both political aisles have reported on these stories.

Second, there is the United States’ Public Health infrastructure, which is made up of Federal, State, and Local agencies. Although this massive net mostly resembles a socialistic program, there could be some good in it, if the system was tightly controlled.

According to the Public Law and Health Center, “More than 90 percent of all state health departments perform vaccine order management and inventory distribution for childhood immunizations, and over 80 percent for adult immunizations” [33].

Therefore, “Public Health” is no longer directed by the public, meaning we the people do not influence the system. Instead, this system has become significantly profitable for Big Pharma through their vaccination sector.

Third, various groups may appear to be citizens advocating for vaccinations but are, instead, Pharma-funded organizations. These groups are not a conspiracy theory either and have been investigated by prestigious organizations.

In the matter of point, The British Medical Journal (BMJ) published an investigation of these groups titled “The unofficial vaccine educators: are CDC funded non-profits sufficiently independent?” [34].

In the publication, The BMJ investigated the authenticity of several pro-vaccine organizations, including Immunization Action Coalition (IAC), Every Child by Two (ECBT), and American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), and stated the following:

“IAC, ECBT, and AAP have a few things in common. They are all non-profit organizations with large online presences that promote themselves as sources of reliable information on vaccines. They also receive funding from both vaccine manufacturers and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. And, in their advocacy for compulsory vaccination, they all have in common a goal that pushes beyond official governmental policy and, in the case of influenza vaccines, the evidence.” [34]

Further, The BMJ noted the CDC’s influential lobbying efforts, through these organizations, and how they have funded pro-vaccine legislation [34].

The BMJ also investigated the “spotty disclosure” surrounding the funding these groups receive from vaccine manufacturers. The BMJ noted:

“And in one case which exemplifies the tangled financial relations between CDC, vaccine manufacturers, and vaccine advocacy organizations, vaccine manufacturers have also funded a coalition that aims to increase the federal government’s budget to keep up with the rising cost of the growing vaccination schedule.”

“In its most recent 2016 annual giving report, AAP lists numerous corporate donors, including vaccine manufacturers GlaxoSmithKline, MedImmune, Merck, Pfizer, Sanofi Pasteur, and Seqirus. Corporations that gave at least $1m include Mead Johnson Nutrition, Merck, Nestle Nutrition, and Pfizer—relations that have recently drawn criticism. But the report omits grant funded projects, which helps conceal the substantial funding AAP receives from government, including the CDC.” [34]

After further investigation, The BMJ concluded, “Ensuring such independence [from vaccine manufacturers, CDC, etc.] seems an essential first step for any organization that wants to seriously respond to public concerns about the safety of childhood vaccines” [34]. You can read the full report here.

This information will never make it to the mainstream news because if it was widely known vaccine manufactures push and fund information that makes them more profitable, people might investigate their true intentions vigorously.

Who Is the Real Target?

Big Pharma does not have the individual American’s interest in mind when they produce and sell new products, as noted by the above-mentioned recent news stories; Big Pharma only exists to make a profit, and they will do it at the expense of the American populous. Therefore, they are the real target, and once Big Pharma parishes, everything else will fall into place.

International banks have a stake in the prosperity of the vaccine industry as well. For example, these banks, through stock purchases of Big Pharma corporations and interlocking corporate directorships, strive for maximum profits because of their fiduciary responsibilities.

For this upcoming, 2020 election, candidates from both aisles have expressed their aversion towards Big Pharma.

Incumbent Donald Trump has been working with his administration to lower drug prices [35], vowed to hold Big Pharma accountable for the American opioid crisis [36] [37], and publicly stated he does not want their money for his 2020 campaign [38]. However, reports show he did receive donations from Big Pharma during his 2016 election, but the amount was a mere quarter of what Hillary Clinton was given [38].

Two Democratic candidates for the 2020 election, Marianne Williamson and Bernie Sanders, have expressed their abhorrence towards Big Pharma.

During the first Democratic debate, Williamson publicly noted Big Pharma’s effect on America’s health when asked how she would fix America’s healthcare system:

“… we don’t have a health care system in the United States, we have a sickness care system in the United States. We just wait until somebody gets sick and then we talk about who is going pay for the treatment and how they’re going to be treated.”

“What we need to talk about is why so many Americans have unnecessary chronic illnesses, so many more, compared to other countries. It gets back into not just Big Pharma, not just health insurance companies, but it has to do with chemical policies, it has to do with environmental policies, it has to do with food, it has to do with drug policies, and it has to do with environmental policies.” [39]

Bernie Sanders has also been a long-time non-supporter of Big Pharma, and during this election season, his campaign pledged to refuse “contributions over $200 from the PACs, lobbyists, or executives of health insurance or pharmaceutical companies,” except for “rank-and-file workers employed by pharmaceutical giants” [40], and he called on his opponents to do the same. The Sanders campaign even returned donations to Big Pharma that it has received before this pledge [41].

1986 National Childhood Injury Act

Another issue concerning Big Pharma is they are no longer incentivized to make vaccines safer because of the 1986 National Childhood Injury Act, which recognized that vaccines could injure and kill [42], was passed to make vaccine manufactures not liable for damages caused by vaccines. Therefore, vaccine manufacturers are no longer incentivized to make these products safer because they are not liable for damages.

Moreover, a 2010 Supreme Court ruling noted that vaccines have “unavoidable, adverse side effects” [43], which again, releases liability from these manufacturers, making the vaccine industry a liability-free, high-profit industry.

The Whole Picture

Here is what we have:

  • Three factions of thought concerning vaccines:
    • People who are aware of a vaccine’s risk and support the right to chose when to undergo a medical operation
    • People who believe the mainstream notion that vaccines are without risks
    • People who push vaccinations because their financial security depends on it
  • Laws exist which make vaccine manufactures utterly immune to the adverse effects of vaccines, which disincentivizes Big Pharma to make them safer
  • Pro-vaccination groups who receive money directly from vaccine manufacturers advocate for compulsory vaccination and claim to be independent
  • Presidential candidates have begun to set their sights on reigning in Big Pharma
  • The vaccine industry is expected to be worth $61 billion in 2020 [44]

My View

My view on this issue stands well-defined: If individuals wish to be vaccinated and consent to the operation, let them be treated. That is their choice. However, do not force me to undergo a medical procedure that I do not consent to. I have the right to informed medical consent, bodily integrity, and personal liberty. I will choose when and where to risk my life, my well-being, and my future health. I am aware of the consequences of my actions.

Misinformation is everywhere, and medical experts and public health officials will claim to be all-knowing experts on this topic and the second you show them facts and data that disagrees with their narrative, they will call you a fraud, a quack, and a conspiracy theorist. That is why it is paramount to be educated and know hard facts and science.

Merely saying, “vaccines cause autism” will get you labeled as incompetent, so you must be more educated than that.

I have spoken with many individuals –Ph.D. students studying public health and biology, nursing students, everyday individuals – who believed the traditional narrative – all vaccines are completely safe – but the second I explained some of the concepts mentioned in this article and had data to back it up, they began to understand this is nothing more than two sides of a debate where monetary greed has significant influence.

The best way to change someone’s mind, especially when they firmly disagree, is hard data. It cannot be refuted. Please continue to remain educated on this topic and stay vigilant.