Before the press was captured, vaccine injuries were openly covered on national TV. Now the dam of censorship is breaking, and we can finally confront the tragic history that keeps repeating.
Story at a Glance:
•Something about vaccines (e.g., their promise of a simple injection being sufficient to safely and effectively end all diseases) has always deeply appealed to the minds of government officials.
•That promise is often a lie. Over and over, unsafe and ineffective vaccines reach the market, and each time, the officials invested in them do everything they can to shield the vaccines from scrutiny and bury the red flags. The medical field has dutifully gone along.
•In earlier decades, the press was far less captured than it is now, and it occasionally aired real investigations into what was happening — segments that documented the suffering of the injured.
•Watched together, these reports show two things at once: how much more candid the media used to be, and how precisely the lies of that era match the lies we face now.
•I compiled this article in the hope of breaking the collective amnesia, now that the pharmaceutical industry’s grip on the media is finally slipping. Below are 75 news reports on the dangers of vaccination that have been almost entirely forgotten and would never be broadcast today.
A key theme I’ve tried to highlight in this publication is that the same medical catastrophes keep repeating (because those responsible are never held accountable), so by understanding what happened in the past, you can see and understand what is happening now and what will likely happen in the future.
For example, because vaccines are “risky but necessary,” the medical profession and government, again and again, concluded that they needed to tell the public all vaccines were “safe and effective” as the potential injuries a mass vaccination campaign would cause were outweighed by “necessary” benefit the vaccines could offer. As such, examples can be found again and again of severe injuries being systematically covered up for the “greater good” (e.g., the earliest documented example I know of this happened in 1874 with the smallpox vaccine) and health authorities concocting the same set of excuses we’ve seen since smallpox as to why those vaccines failed to prevent the diseases they were supposed to.
Since the risks of most vaccines (detailed here) far outweigh their benefits, a mass-vaccination paradigm can only be sustained by censoring the evidence of harm — and then citing that manufactured silence as proof of safety. Over the decades, more and more has been done to conceal those harms. For almost a century, severe neurological injuries after vaccination were routinely reported in the medical literature. Now vaccine injuries are censored, and it is nearly impossible to publish anything critical of vaccines in a “reputable” journal.
Likewise, despite the “science” that says vaccines are safe, it is nearly impossible to obtain the raw datasets that could actually answer the question — as Steve Kirsch showed the public throughout COVID-19 with his relentless, endlessly stonewalled quest to get that data. Likewise, VAERS, a public injury-reporting database only exists because the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act required a way for patients to bypass doctors refusing to report their injuries, and as such, ever since a law mandated its creation, everything possible has been done to undermine and discredit VAERS (except when the industry uses it as “proof” to prove vaccines are safe).
This is the inescapable problem at the heart of mass vaccination. When you take a product that is not completely safe and give it to an entire population, tens of millions of healthy people, most of whom were never at meaningful risk from the disease, even a small rate of serious harm guarantees that enormous numbers are injured or killed. Since there is no way around that arithmetic the authorities have chosen concealment every time, suppressing the data, reclassifying the injuries, and dismissing each casualty as a coincidence, because the alternative is admitting the paradigm itself produces the ever-increasing wave of chronic illness sweeping our society.
For a long time, the injuries were too numerous to fully hide, so the public kept reawakening to them and the mainstream media kept covering them. The industry’s solution came after it won liability protection in the 1986 vaccine law: spend whatever it took to censor the coverage and bury the injuries. But removing that check, the public finding out and objecting, removed the only real constraint on toxic vaccines reaching the market, and progressively more dangerous ones followed, until the COVID-19 catastrophe injured so many people that even a robust censorship apparatus couldn’t contain it. Numerous polls I’ve summarized in detail here demonstrate the scale of the vaccine injuries: depending on the survey, 7% to 13% of recipients reported a serious side effect, 24% to 28% say they know someone they believe died from the shot, and 46% to 55% believe the COVID vaccines have killed a significant number of people. Propaganda has its limits, and once numbers like those take hold, a new awareness of vaccine injury surfaces across the media ecosystem, occasionally on conservative networks, but mostly in the independent press.
[…]
Watch them in sequence and two patterns jump out. The same lines protected the schedule every time. We just need more research before we change anything, and we’ll do that research soon. Yet decades later, we still “need more research.” And the things vaccine-safety advocates warned about, and were denounced for warning about, kept coming true.
Mass Media Censorship
Actions like these were only possible because the corporate media suppressed dissent — even when large numbers of Americans believed the mandatory vaccines were injuring or killing their children, which is exactly the kind of story the press has a foundational duty to cover.
[…]
Because of this, many people in the media wanted to speak out against the vaccines, but effectively could not, and to my knowledge, other than a few Fox hosts lightly criticizing them, only two did. One, a recently hired reporter at a local station, on live television announced Fox was muzzling stories the public wanted to hear (and was promptly fired) after which she provided secret recordings to Project Veritas corroborating this censorship.
The other was Tucker Carlson, who was able to leverage both being the most popular news host in America and having a show which did not rely upon pharmaceutical funding to speak out against the vaccines without being fired. Nonetheless, this was still a huge risk for him and eventually, after airing this remarkable 4-19-23 segment (which took a lot of courage), at immense cost to Fox News, was immediately fired.
Once he left, he began talking openly about how much pharmaceutical money kept these stories off the air — and other former hosts corroborated him:
When I was on Fox News [circa 2007] and we talked about the possibility of vaccine injuries … They would RUN out to the set to tell you to shut that down.—Megyn Kelly
Likewise, Sharyl Attkisson (an acclaimed CBS investigative journalist) has extensively chronicled (e.g., in her 2020 book and even more so in her 2025 book) how in the early 2000s, the pharmaceutical industry, feeling the pressure from negative coverage of disastrous vaccination programs was creating for them, lobbied to prevent future negative coverage. Once this happened, it became impossible for her to air well produced segments which were critical of any vaccine initiative, and likewise, that in the post-2000s, stories on vaccine risks “disappeared” due to advertiser pressure.
However, things were not always this way. Rather, major networks used to air numerous scathing stories about vaccine disasters—and in many cases, the dangers they covered were so explicit by current journalistic standards that I frequently find sharing those (previously inconceivable) segments with people on the fence about vaccination opens their minds to the entire mess.
Mass Censorship
The Vietnam War was considered by many to be the event that broke the public’s trust in the Federal Government.
[…]
It is hard to overstate how much work went into hiding the horrors of war, and how effective it was — transforming war from something much of the public vehemently opposed into an abstraction they were largely apathetic about (the best documentary I’ve seen on how military propaganda evolved is Why We Fight).
The sanitizing of war parallels the medical censorship we now face. The same PR (public relations) firm that manufactured a heart-wrenching but entirely made up testimony that dragged the U.S. into the Gulf War has a long history of pharmaceutical work — and was contracted both to promote the COVID narrative and to eliminate “vaccine hesitancy.”1,2,3
Turning Points in Medical Censorship
Numerous medical catastrophes have happened which provoked widespread public outrage, and like the Vietnam War, those events brought the government to conclude it was imperative the public was prevented from becoming aware of future medical atrocities. Some of those events include:
The Polio Vaccine
In 1955, after an expedited approval, the government released a much-heralded vaccine, and two weeks later, children across America began turning up paralyzed in the exact limb where they’d received Salk’s polio shot.
After some investigation, it was discovered that:
•Only two of the five vaccine manufacturers had produced the same “safe” vaccines used in the clinical trials—which meant many of the vaccines the public got (which at the time were a new experimental technology) had never been tested in humans.
•At the urging of Salk, when the vaccine was mass produced, a different and less safe production process was used for the vaccine so the orders could be met.
[…]
•Bernice Eddy, an NIH employee, had immediately discovered this mass produced vaccine caused paralysis in monkeys.
•All of the paralyzing vaccines came from the same manufacturer (Cutter Laboratories).
•The (early) FDA delegated testing of the vaccine for safety to the vaccine manufacturers rather than doing so itself.
•There were many safety concerns with the testing of the Salk vaccine, but the professional publications chose to censor them and instead continually repeated the message that the vaccine was completely safe and effective.
The public was outraged, the government faced a public-relations crisis, and lawsuits dragged on against Cutter. In response, the federal government took direct control of every aspect of the vaccine program — switching from a neutral external auditor to a major stakeholder. As you’d expect, that conflict of interest gave the government every incentive to bury safety problems, and business as usual soon resumed.
[…]
The National Foundation told doctors, in a memo, that the vaccine was completely safe and the risk of paralysis was “zero.”
[…]
In 1960, five years after Cutter, Bernice Eddy determined that the polio vaccines were contaminated with a cancer-causing virus, SV-40, and were not fit for the public. Ordered to keep quiet so the public wouldn’t lose faith in the program, she published anyway — and was immediately demoted and stripped of her lab. Officials had known since 1959 that their vaccine caused cancer (a consequence of cutting costs with imported monkey kidneys) and were scrambling to address it while still promoting the shot. Only in 1963 did the government force manufacturers to stop growing the vaccine on contaminated kidneys — by which point between 40 and 98 million Americans had been infected, and a case can be made that SV-40 lingered in some vaccines until around 2000. This drove an increase in cancer that, until COVID, was unprecedented.
Around 1997, Canada’s Broadcasting Corporation aired a remarkable program on the recent findings that SV-40 was turning up in tumors, how it caused cancer, and the full history of how the polio vaccines became contaminated with it.
Many severe kidney diseases are also strongly associated with SV-40, and have likewise exploded since the polio vaccines. Because SV-40 was introduced into the population through the program (and transmits between humans and to fetuses) there has been a persistent reluctance to study its danger or admit it lingered in the supply for decades.
[…]
The Most Revolutionary Act 