top of page

Seeing the Truth of Vaccine Lies: All You Have to Do is Open Your Eyes and Think a Little

​

Opinion and perspective by Dr Alex Vasquez completed 13 July 2017

http://www.ichnfm.org/antiviral8

We all have the basic requirements for intellectual integrity: Intellectual integrity is important for us as individuals and collectively as a society; we have to see, understand, and act in accord with reality in order to survive and in order to succeed in life in large ways and small ways, from performing our work, to navigating a map, to feeding ourselves, to performing intellectual tasks. Intellectual integrity does not require education or scientific knowledge; generally it simply requires open eyes and basic honesty. However, a study of science and logic certainly can help us clarify, accept or reject the more nuanced details of statements and arguments.

​

"Respect for the truth and concern for the truth: 

 these are among the foundations of civilization."

Dr Henry Frankfurt, Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at Princeton University

​

Two foolproof ways to spot a liar who is authoritatively speaking to you about something you do not know much about: If someone lies to you about something you know about, then you can probably catch them in the lie because you can accurately contrast what they are telling you against what you already know from your previous experience. If someone lies to you about a subject you have never studied, or if they try to intimidate you with their real or supposed authority, then you are at a disadvantage in discerning truth from falsity, and the other person or group may succeed in getting you to believe the lie. However, even in the latter situation, you still have a useful tool: if someone is telling you about something which you have not studied in detail and you are at risk of being lied to, deceived or manipulated, you can still 1) draw upon other experiences and knowledge, and 2) look for "internal consistency" or lack thereof. Let us now apply these two tools to the information on vaccines published by the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) in a webpage linked below and archived here: 

  1. Prior knowledge of related information: Everyone has prior knowledge of detailed and long-term studies, including studies in children; these are commonly reported in news shows, magazines, and newspapers. We have all read or heard of various studies evaluating drugs, diets, surgeries, and lifestyle factors such as exercise and sleep. Why should vaccines be the exception to research? Given that vaccines are professionally administered and tracked, the study of vaccination effects should be easier than the study of most events and interventions; therefore the statement by the CDC that vaccines cannot be "practically" studied is quite stupid to the point that it indicates a gross lack of integrity. As example that beautifully demonstrates research in children (a similar study design could be used to track negative consequences of vaccination), this study Lancet 2001 Nov 3;358(9292):1500-3 showed that vitamin D supplementation during the first year of life reduced the incidence of type-1 diabetes over the course of 20 years; therefore, in contrast to the statement by the CDC that children's treatments cannot be studied, we see clear evidence that studies in children can indeed be performed for periods of at least 20 years of follow-up for positive and negative effects. 

  2. Internal consistency or lack thereof: A surefire way to catch someone (or in this case an entire organization) in a lie is to look for internal inconsistency, especially as one lie generally necessitates another in order to cover inconsistencies and holes in information. The CDC document states that monitoring for adverse effects is "not practical" ("Q: How do we know vaccines aren’t causing long-term health problems? A: Observing vaccinated children for many years to look for long-term health conditions would not be practical...") and now they are saying that adverse effects are rare ("Based on more than 50 years of experience with vaccines, we can say that the likelihood that a vaccine will cause unanticipated long-term problems is extremely low."). They cannot know if the adverse effects are rare if they have not studied the rate of adverse effects, and such studies need to have a duration of at least 10-20 years. For example, this study N Engl J Med 2016 June; 374:2596-2597 (DOI: 10.1056/NEJMe1606007) showed that this malaria vaccine failed and resulted in more cases of malaria after 7 years; you can see a video of this vaccine failure or "age shift" or "negative efficacy" or "rebound" here from New England Journal of Medicine: 

http://www.nejm.org/do/10.1056/NEJMdo005071/full/ 

 

"The [Government] Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. His heart sank as he thought of the enormous power arrayed against him, the ease with which any Party intellectual would overthrow him in debate, the subtle arguments which he would not be able to understand, much less answer. And yet he was in the right! They were wrong, and he was right.

George Orwell in the must-read classic book Nineteen Eighty Four (1984)

​

The US CDC is lying to everyone: doctors, patients, and policymakers included: The US CDC's website page "https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/parents/tools/parents-guide/parents-guide-part4.html" and the associated PDF document from that same page state that, with regard to monitoring for adverse vaccine effects:

"Observing vaccinated children for many years to look for long-term health conditions would not be practical..."

Doctors and patients alike should immediately recognize this as a completely stupid lie; it is a lie because we all know that research can be conducted to monitor for adverse effects, and it is stupid because everyone can see it for what it is and therefore the attempt to deceive is ridiculously futile, especially when this is coming from the top of governmental regulation for the healthcare of more than 320 million Americans, policies for which commonly extend internationally. We have research studies documenting the effects of diet, lifestyle, nutrients, drugs, surgeries, genes, family relationships, duration of sleep, gastrointestinal bacteria and we can certainly have studies on vaccine effects. Furthermore, and everyone needs to see this for what it is, when the CDC states that it cannot monitor for adverse effects, the CDC is simultaneously stating that it cannot monitor for positive effects; the same study design that would look for negative effects would serve to look for positive effects. By stating that negative effects cannot be monitored, the CDC is stupidly showing its hand and revealing that it does not have the means/desire (i.e., is not using scientific means, choosing to not use available scientific methods) to monitor for vaccine effectiveness. 

        Another way of testing this (or any other statement) for truth or falsity is to view it from two different opposing perspectives: 

  1. For doctors and patients/parents who are "against" mandatory vaccinations, the admission by the CDC that vaccines are not assessed for adverse effects is inflammatory, proving their argument that these drugs are not appropriately assessed for either harm nor for their proposed benefit. 

  2. For doctors and patients/parents who are "in favor of" mandatory vaccinations, the admission by the CDC that vaccines are not assessed for adverse effects should give them major pause, because the CDC is basically admitting that "we don't know the facts because we have not collected the data" and that therefore the position of supporting mandatory vaccinations is by definition uninformed and therefore unscientific. Medical doctors, who typically pride themselves on delivering science-based and "evidence-based" medicine, should be embarrassed, appalled and apologetic for this revelation that the vaccines they have been taught and forced to deliver (and personally receive) have not been properly (let alone convincingly) shown to provide a favorable risk:benefit ratio. 

  3. Third option: selective use of vaccines that have a proven record of 1) safety when compared to no treatment or saline placebo, 2) efficacy documented for at least 10 years, and 3) patient-specific need.

  4. Fourth option: use of antiviral nutritional strategies which provide safety, efficacy, and numerous collateral benefits. 

  5. Fifth option: selective use of vaccines that have a proven record of 1) safety when compared to no treatment or saline placebo, 2) efficacy documented for at least 10 years, 3) patient-specific need, along with 4) antiviral nutritional strategies which provide safety, efficacy, and numerous collateral benefits. 

​

The CDC's page and the associated PDF document from that same page also state:

"We also know there is not a plausible biologic reason to believe vaccines would cause any serious long-term effects." 

Although the general public might not have the scientific knowledge to see this statement for the lie that it is, scientists and medical doctors clearly should be able to apply their study of Toxicology (minor importance) and Immunology (major importance) to the understanding of adverse vaccine effects. If we simply look at the aluminum adjuvant that it is included in many vaccines, we see that it is clearly a neurotoxin but perhaps more importantly it stimulates a vigorous and nonspecific immune response by causing the release of human DNA from cells; these nonspecific and long-term inflammatory/immune responses could very reasonably contribute to allergic and autoimmune and neurologic disorders.

"Although DNA DAMPs are closely associated with the development of autoimmune disease, DNA DAMPs also contribute to the activation of acquired immune responses following vaccination with alum adjuvant. Previous studies have shown that genomic DNA from dying cells induces the maturation of antigen-presenting cells as well as antigen-specific antibody and cytotoxic T cell responses. This suggests that self-DNA DAMPs can activate innate immune responses that induce acquired immunoresponses. Recently, Marichal et al. demonstrated that the adjuvanticity of alum was dependent on self-DNA released from cells at the alum inoculation site." Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2012; 2: 168 doi:  10.3389/fcimb.2012.00168

Furthermore, the research states: 

  • Aluminum is an experimentally demonstrated neurotoxin and the most commonly used vaccine adjuvant (Curr Med Chem 2011): “Aluminum is an experimentally demonstrated neurotoxin and the most commonly used vaccine adjuvant. … Experimental research, however, clearly shows that aluminum adjuvants have a potential to induce serious immunological disorders in humans. In particular, aluminum in adjuvant form carries a risk for autoimmunity, long-term brain inflammation and associated neurological complications and may thus have profound and widespread adverse health consequences. In our opinion, the possibility that vaccine benefits may have been overrated and the risk of potential adverse effects underestimated, has not been rigorously evaluated in the medical and scientific community.” Tomljenovic L, Shaw CA. Aluminum vaccine adjuvants: are they safe? Curr Med Chem. 2011;18(17):2630-7

  • Aluminum and central nervous system (CNS) toxicity in humans and animals; vaccine adjuvants and autoimmunity (Immunol Res 2013 Jul): "The literature demonstrates clearly negative impacts of aluminum on the nervous system across the age span. In adults, aluminum exposure can lead to apparently age-related neurological deficits resembling Alzheimer's and has been linked to this disease and to the Guamanian variant, ALS-PDC.  ... In young children, a highly significant correlation exists between the number of pediatric aluminum-adjuvanted vaccines administered and the rate of autism spectrum disorders." Shaw CA, Tomljenovic L. Aluminum in the central nervous system: toxicity in humans and animals, vaccine adjuvants, and autoimmunity. Immunol Res. 2013 Jul;56:304-16

  • Aluminum Should Now Be Considered a Primary Etiological Factor in Alzheimer’s disease (Journal of Alzheimer's Disease Reports 2017 Jun): "Aluminum is unquestionably neurotoxic and it is accepted as the cause of encephalopathies in, for example, individuals undergoing renal dialysis and similarly in individuals who have received aluminum-based prostheses. There are myriad ways by which alumin