Story at a Glance:
•The blatant dishonesty of our drug regulators throughout COVID-19 has led to many realizing they can’t trust that other recommended vaccines are “safe,” “effective” and “necessary.”
•Since many people have asked me about this topic, I’ve worked to produce an independent assessment of each recommended vaccine.
•This is a surprisingly challenging calculation to make which is extremely prone to the assessor’s bias, and remarkably, in many cases, the data we need to determine the risk and benefits of each vaccine accurately does not exist.
•In this article, I attempted to provide the best assessment I could of each CDC recommended vaccine. In some cases, it is very clear the risks outweigh the benefits of a vaccine, while in other cases, it is less clear. For those on the fence about vaccinating, I believe it is best to initially pay attention to avoiding the worst vaccines.
Note: due to the immense interest in the initial version of this post, I have significantly revised it and added a lot of initial information for those interested in this topic.
One of the common questions I get from readers is “Which vaccines should their kids get?” This is surprisingly difficult to answer because it requires accurately weighing the likelihood of an adverse event from a vaccination vs. the likelihood of suffering a complication from the disease that the vaccine would prevent you from getting, and each of those figures is a fairly complex calculation. If you do however begin to dig into it, you’ll often discover the data necessary to answer this question simply doesn’t exist and instead has been replaced with the blind declaration that each vaccine is “safe and effective.”
This touches upon what I believe is one of the greatest issues our society faces. Most human beings (regardless of their expertise) will selectively filter their perception of reality so that they ultimately only see what conforms to their pre-existing biases. In the case of vaccines, the media trains us to hyper-focus on the rare cases of an unvaccinated individual becoming ill from a disease a vaccine could have prevented while simultaneously ignoring the large numbers of people who develop severe or chronic complications from vaccines.
Fortunately, COVID-19 provided a once in a lifetime opportunity to actually answer this question, and in turn, we’ve been able to determine that:
•The COVID-19 vaccine has a significantly greater rate of complications than the disease it prevents.
•The vaccine is only partially effective in preventing COVID-19, and that efficacy rapidly declines with time.
•The large studies of the vaccine show once deployed, it makes things worse not better.
In short, it’s very hard to argue that the benefits of that vaccine outweigh its risks. Remarkably, this has not deterred all the federal health agencies from recommending (or mandating it), even to those who have no risk at all of dying from COVID-19 (e.g., children), irrespective of the public protest they’ve faced. This in turn raises a fairly simple question—does that conduct suggest we can blindly trust their recommendations on the other vaccines (which in almost all cases those agencies rubber stamp and push upon America)?
The Risks and Benefits of Vaccines
From looking into this question at length, much as is in the case for the COVID vaccines, I have concluded that for many of the widely used vaccines:
•Many of the benefits attributed to a vaccine (e.g., preventing the disease, preventing transmission of it, or preventing severe complications of it) are much less than the public (or the medical field) is led to believe.
•Many of the justifications used to justify vaccination are based on historical realities that no longer apply today.
•In cases where a vaccine actually “works” natural selection will quickly make the vaccine stop working.
•Side effects from vaccination are so frequent and varied that any assessment of a vaccine’s risks will inevitably miss many of the actual problems vaccination entails.
In short, I feel a very high bar must be met for vaccination, but as we saw with COVID-19, it often is not.
To accurately determine the risks and benefits of a vaccine, you need to consider all of the following
This is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, please consider becoming a free or paid subscriber (and to see how others have benefitted from this Newsletter click here).
To accurately determine the risks and benefits of a vaccine, you need to consider all of the following:
Disease Risk
If you review the vaccine schedule, very few of the diseases in it have both a significant likelihood that you will get them and a significant likelihood that they will develop into a severe condition. Many of the diseases believed to fall into this category are no longer an issue in the United States (e.g., polio or smallpox). Unfortunately, people who look at this question are often fixated on the past presentations of the disease when it was far more pathogenic or when we did not have a way to treat it. Let’s now look at some of the specific questions one might ask to evaluate this question.
How likely is it for a person to get the disease?
Some diseases we vaccinate against are incredibly rare (e.g., tetanus or polio) while others are now non-existent (e.g., diphtheria).
How likely is the disease to cause a negligible, minor, moderate, severe, or fatal complication?
It is very important to distinguish between these categories because, for most infections, the risk of catching it and then subsequently getting a severe case of the condition is extremely low. For example, a Neisseria meningitidis infection (which can cause septic meningitis) is really bad and can progress very quickly, but also very rare for people to develop (one in ten people are asymptomatic Neisseria meningitidis carriers whereas approximately one in a million get septic meningitis from it each year).
Likewise, we vaccinate everyone against chickenpox despite the fact it almost never causes issues (e.g., only 1 in 100,000 children who get it die from it, many of whom are individuals with pre-existing immune suppression).
How likely is it that the severity of the disease can be improved with an existing medical treatment?
Most of the infections we vaccinate against (e.g., pertussis) are very easy to treat. Unfortunately, the focus is always on vaccinating against the disease rather than providing treatment for it (especially if the treatment is something more unorthodox than an antibiotic). In the case of COVID-19, while severe complications represent the minority of cases, they (and the more minor ones) can in most cases easily be prevented by early outpatient treatment. Unfortunately, the Federal government has refused to sanction effective treatments for COVID-19 and instead keeps pushing an endless number of unsafe and ineffective boosters for the disease.
How likely is it that you will have access to the necessary treatment before you get seriously ill?
While I have many criticisms of the vaccine approach, I have to acknowledge that this area is one of the strongest arguments for it. With rapidly progressing diseases, those in isolated areas, those unable to recognize their need to seek medical care, and those of limited economic means, often cannot get the necessary treatment for the disease before it is too late to prevent a severe complication. Hence, if the disease can be “prevented” through mass immunization, it mitigates the unfortunate circumstances that arise when care for a dangerous infection is not immediately available.
Vaccine Efficacy
How likely is the vaccine to be effective in preventing the disease, and does the presence of vaccine antibodies correlate with a decreased risk of the disease?
Many vaccines fail to do one or both of these. COVID-19 has provided the greatest red pill in history on this topic, especially since successive COVID-19 vaccines, despite increasing antibody levels, actually increase your risk of catching the disease.
[…]
How long does the vaccine’s protection last following immunization?
Many vaccines suffer from declining immunity, hence needing repeated boosters, which re-expose the recipient to the vaccine’s risks. COVID-19 again has provided the greatest red pill in history on this topic, as immunity from it wanes approximately three months after the most recent injection. Many other vaccines also suffer from this issue, which must be taken into account when assessing their risk to benefit ratio.
To illustrate, if something has a 10% chance of injuring you and only protects you for 3 months after which point it must be taken again, it’s hard to justify taking it, whereas if something has a 10% chance of injuring you but it protects you for life, the justification is stronger. Unfortunately, many vaccines that only provide temporary immunity are marketed in a manner that implies they provide permanent immunity (e.g., this is what was initially done with the COVID-19 vaccines).
How likely will it be for the vaccine to prevent you from getting the disease when you need to be protected?
The hepatitis B vaccine is routinely given at birth, and then twice more very early in life. This is nonsensical for two reasons. First, at the time of birth, infants lack an immune system that can mount a proper antibody response to the vaccine. Second, hepatitis B is spread by blood-to-blood contact (e.g., sharing heroin needles or having unprotected sex), both things are very unlikely to happen in early childhood. This is important because the hepatitis B vaccine typically only lasts for around 6-7 years (estimates vary). The best explanation I have seen for why the vaccine is given immediately following birth (despite being completely unjustifiable) is that it habituates parents to come in for regular well-child vaccination visits starting at two months of age.
[…]
Vaccine Side Effects
An explosion of chronic illness (particularly of neurological and autoimmune nature) in our society has paralleled the mass vaccination of society. This has been most apparent at three times in history: the period of the smallpox vaccines, after 1986 when Congress passed legislation to shield manufacturers from liability for producing dangerous vaccines (which led to a rapid increase in the number of childhood vaccinations and no motivation to ensure their safety), and following the COVID-19 vaccines. In each case, we’ve tragically become acclimated to an increase in baseline levels of chronic illness which never existed in the past, and we have simply assumed that the current disease burden is normal, when in reality it is not.
[…]
Does the vaccine priming your immune system to target one pathogen reduce its ability to respond to other pathogens or cancerous cells within the body?
Off-target immunity is a frequent but under-appreciated consequence of vaccination (discussed further here). As far as I know, the worst offender in this regard has been the COVID-19 vaccines, which have been linked to an explosion of cancers and unusual diseases typically only seen in immune-suppressed individuals.
[…]
Does the vaccine cause the immune system to attack the body and give rise to chronic illnesses?
All vaccines work by provoking the immune system to go into overdrive to attack the vaccine antigen that is present. The downside to this is that it typically also causes the immune system to attack other proteins in the vicinity (e.g., a mice study showed that mice develop allergies to pollen that is in the air at the time of their vaccination). Autoimmunity is especially likely to happen if the vaccine shares antigen sequences with human tissue (homologies) and contains a very strong adjuvant (the vaccine component that stimulates the immune system). Before the COVID-19 vaccines (which have a remarkable number of homologies with human tissue), Gardasil (the HPV vaccine) was the greatest offender here as it had to use a very strong adjuvant and had homologies to human tissue.
[…]
Via https://www.midwesterndoctor.com/p/what-are-the-risks-and-benefits-of
The Most Revolutionary Act 
As far as I am concerned, there are only risks, no benefits. I’ll take my chances with whatever comes down the pike. It’s why I have an immune system. Let it do its thing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree, Shelby. My immune system must be very good, since I expose myself to all kinds of environments. I do what I must to do what I want, and excessive medical care does not comply with my agenda for living.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s what doctors should be doing, Shelby, helping them boost their immune systems. Sadly the heavy metals in childhood vaccines destroy essential gut bacteria and weaken their immune systems.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I suspect you share gut bacteria with your chickens, Katherine, and they’re saying diversity is essential for the microbiome to serve its immune function.
LikeLiked by 1 person