Turtles All The Way Down

By Anonymous – 50 Q&As – Unbekoming Book Summary - Plus 17 Questions to ask your doctor

“I can only show you the door. You’re the one that has to walk through it.” - Morpheus, The Matrix

---

Having spent three years writing and discussing childhood vaccination—far less time than many of the true warriors in this space—it's easy to lose sight of the audience. I constantly remind myself of who I was before this journey began and strive to speak to that guy. This book was written for him.

"Turtles All The Way Down: Vaccine Science and Myth" boldly challenges the widely accepted notion that vaccines are unequivocally "safe and effective." This book argues that the very foundation of vaccine safety science is built on a series of flawed practices, hidden data, and a lack of transparency that ultimately serve to protect the vaccine program rather than the public. The authors, choosing to remain anonymous, meticulously dissect various aspects of vaccine research, drawing on mainstream scientific literature and government sources to expose what they believe to be a carefully constructed illusion of safety. They invite readers on a journey "to the other side of reality," urging them to question the pronouncements of health authorities and critically evaluate the evidence for themselves.

Using the striking analogy of a tower precariously balanced on a stack of turtles, the book highlights key areas where vaccine science falls short. Clinical trials that employ other vaccines instead of true inert placebos, inadequate adverse event reporting systems that fail to capture the true extent of vaccine injuries, a dearth of biomedical research exploring the biological mechanisms of vaccine harm, and the conspicuous absence of large-scale studies comparing the long-term health outcomes of vaccinated and unvaccinated populations – these are just some of the “turtles” that the book exposes. The authors contend that this lack of rigorous scientific scrutiny, coupled with the medical establishment's resistance to open debate and its silencing of dissenting voices, has resulted in a system where the risks of vaccination are downplayed, and potential harms are swept under the rug.

With thanks to Anonymous.

Turtles All The Way Down: Vaccine Science and Myth: Anonymous

Related Posts

• Interview with Larry Cook

• Interview with Mary Holland

• Interview with Josh Walkos

• Interview with Anne Dachel

• Interview with Judy Wilyman PhD

Deep Dive Conversations (Bonus for Paid Subscribers)

This deep dive is based on the five interviews mentioned above and this new post.

Discussion No.10: 20 things to know about childhood vaccination

Thank you for your support.

Analogy

The book, "Turtles All The Way Down: Vaccine Science and Myth," argues that the supposed safety of vaccines is built on a foundation of flawed science and deliberate deception. This can be likened to a tower built on a shaky foundation of turtles stacked on top of each other.

• The tower represents the public perception that vaccines are safe and effective.

• Each turtle represents a flawed aspect of vaccine science:

  • Clinical trials that use other vaccines instead of true placebos to mask adverse effects.

  • Inadequate adverse event reporting systems.

  • A lack of biomedical research into vaccine injuries.

  • Biased epidemiological studies sponsored by health authorities and conducted by researchers with conflicts of interest.

  • The absence of studies comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated populations.

  • Key vaccination guidelines that aren't based on sound science.

• As the tower gets taller (more vaccines are added to the schedule and more people are vaccinated), the flaws in the foundation become more apparent.

The book argues that the medical establishment, pharmaceutical companies, and government agencies are complicit in maintaining this illusion of safety, similar to people propping up the tower of turtles to prevent it from collapsing. The authors encourage readers to question the official narrative and seek out the truth about vaccine safety, to see that "it's turtles all the way down".

12-point summary

1. Research Methodology Gap: While Randomized Control Trials (RCTs) are considered the gold standard for medical research, current vaccine safety studies have significant limitations, particularly in evaluating long-term effects and multiple vaccine combinations. Pre-licensure trials focus primarily on short-term outcomes and individual vaccines rather than cumulative effects of the entire vaccination schedule.

2. Historical Disease Decline: Research by Thomas McKeown and others demonstrates that the majority of decline in infectious disease mortality occurred before widespread vaccine implementation, primarily due to improvements in sanitation, nutrition, and living conditions. This challenges the conventional narrative attributing disease reduction solely to vaccines.

3. Safety Monitoring Limitations: The current vaccine adverse event reporting system (VAERS) relies on passive reporting, making it difficult to establish causality and potentially missing important safety signals. The voluntary nature of reporting and inability to confirm causal relationships represent significant limitations in post-market surveillance.

4. Schedule Evolution: The US childhood vaccination schedule has expanded dramatically from a single smallpox vaccine to 28 doses for 14 diseases by age two, without comprehensive studies examining the cumulative effects or optimal timing of these combinations.

5. International Variations: Significant differences exist between vaccination schedules across developed nations, with several Western European countries maintaining more conservative approaches to certain vaccines, suggesting different risk-benefit assessments internationally.

6. Multiple Vaccine Administration: Concerns exist about the safety of administering multiple vaccines simultaneously, particularly regarding the cumulative effects of adjuvants and other ingredients. The source indicates limited testing of many vaccine combinations currently recommended.

7. VU Study Potential: Vaccinated-unvaccinated (VU) studies could provide crucial insights into overall vaccination program impacts, but face resistance despite their potential to address important safety and efficacy questions through retrospective analysis.

8. Polio Complexity: Historical understanding of polio demonstrates the complexity of disease transmission and potential environmental factors, including the "Pesticides Theory," challenging simplified explanations of disease occurrence and prevention.

9. Scientific Assumptions: Early research assumptions, such as those made by Landsteiner and Wickman regarding polio, may have inadvertently limited exploration of alternative factors in disease occurrence and prevention.

10. Individual Susceptibility: Current systems lack adequate methods for identifying individuals who might be more susceptible to vaccine reactions, representing a significant gap in personalized vaccination approaches.

11. Evidence Gaps: The childhood vaccination schedule as a whole has never been properly studied for safety or efficacy, a fact acknowledged by the Institute of Medicine in 2013. This represents a crucial gap in understanding the overall impact of vaccination programs.

12. Research Independence: The source emphasizes the need for more independent, transparent, and methodologically sound research to address numerous unanswered questions about vaccine safety, particularly regarding long-term outcomes and cumulative effects.

INTRODUCTION

“I can only show you the door. You’re the one that has to walk through it.” - Morpheus, The Matrix

If you are reading this introduction, we can safely assume that you are aware, at least to some extent, of the controversy surrounding vaccines. On one side of this prominent public debate stands the health establishment with its many representatives repeatedly assuring us that vaccines are safe and effective. Opposing them is a large and growing group of parents claiming that vaccines can, and do, cause severe side effects, and even their efficacy is exaggerated.

Due to the inherent complexity of its underlying subject, the vaccine debate challenges medical professionals and scientists alike – and, to an even greater extent, the average parent. In order to attain even a moderate level of expertise on this topic, one needs to have at least a basic understanding of numerous and varied medical and scientific disciplines, which are described and noted in parentheses below.

To begin with, one has to have a good grasp of vaccine-preventable diseases (expertise in infectious diseases ). Some of these illnesses are specific to infants and children (expertise in pediatrics ), while others are common to all age groups (family medicine). Next, one has to understand how vaccines for these diseases are developed (vaccinology): First, one must identify the causative agent (pathogen) – typically a bacterium (bacteriology) or a virus (virology) – and study its interaction with the body’s immune system (immunology). Furthermore, researchers need to investigate the pattern of disease in various populations and how a vaccine may affect disease dissemination and severity (epidemiology).

Along with any potential health benefits, vaccines are also liable to have undesirable side effects. Vaccines are composed of a multitude of diverse biological and chemical compounds, some of which are considered toxic (toxicology). To diagnose adverse side effects, assess their severity, and find suitable treatments, one needs considerable knowledge of clinical medicine, with the specific fields depending on which organs are affected and the level of harm sustained (neurology, gastroenterology, dermatology, allergology, rheumatology, autoimmune diseases, etc.)

The above is by no means an exhaustive list. Vitally important aspects of the vaccine debate lie outside the domain of medical science, and one must also devote time to those as well in order to truly understand this complex issue. One must learn how vaccine research is conducted and vaccine policy is formed in the real world – where power, money, and politics shape the rules. Vaccines are manufactured by corporations intent on maximizing their profits. As is the case for every other business sector, vaccine company executives are first and foremost obligated to their shareholders, rather than to the health and well-being of the general public. Licensing, regulation, and marketing of vaccines are all carried out by governmental entities, which are influenced by political and financial considerations. Supposedly objective and impartial, scientific research dedicated to vaccines and vaccination practices is mostly funded by these same governmental entities and vaccine manufacturers whose considerations and interests may be at odds with the interests of the general public.

Vaccine research is published in scientific and medical journals which are, in every sense, also commercial enterprises endeavoring to maximize profits for their shareholders. Physicians and researchers working in the field of vaccines (or related areas) operate inside a confined system with strict rules, both formal and informal, that limit their freedom of investigation and expression. Media coverage of vaccines is also not immune to bias and conflicts of interest. Media outlets have financial relationships with some of the entities mentioned above, and these relationships shape their reporting on the subject of vaccination.

Legal and constitutional matters, especially with regard to severe vaccine side effects, occasionally crop up in courts across the globe. And ethical questions arise from legislative initiatives to compel immunization by law. Every one of these aspects (and this is still just a partial list) is an essential piece of the intricate tapestry that is the world of vaccines. It is impossible to grasp the whole picture without understanding how each of its diverse parts fits into it.

Thus, some knowledge in all the aforementioned academic and non-academic disciplines is required if one is to gain a comprehensive understanding of all the issues surrounding vaccines. Vaccination, then, has to be one of the most complex issues – if not the most complex – to be publicly debated over the last few decades. It’s safe to assume there isn’t a single person on Earth with expertise in all of these fields, even among those celebrated as “experts” on vaccination and those responsible for shaping vaccine policy. Despite the extreme complexity of this wide-ranging topic, at the end of the day it is you, the parents, who have to make vaccination decisions: Get vaccinated or not? Vaccinate your children or not? Vaccinate on schedule or space them out? Skip some of the shots or get them all?

Like everyone else nowadays, when you need information in order to make important decisions, you go to the Web, launch Google, and type in some relevant search terms, hoping the results will help you make an informed decision. But after surfing the Web in search of the answer to the to-vaccinate- or-not-to-vaccinate dilemma, you realize in short order that nailing this one will be anything but easy. A vaccine war is raging out there: Proponents and critics, parents and doctors, authorities and executives – all are stirring an enormous cauldron of… controversy soup. You’ll find a dizzying variety of material – photographs, videos, testimony, articles, quotes, opinions, arguments, explanations, proofs, and rebuttals – an endless assortment of information, interpretations, and conflicting opinions being published 24/7. And, as you delve deeper, it just gets more and more confusing.

So, where do you start? How do you put all this chaos in some kind of order? How do you collate all the seemingly random pieces of information floating around the Web into a logical and coherent mental image? How do you reconcile the contradictions between the different positions? Do you really have to spend years diligently reading in WhatsApp or Facebook groups and carefully analyzing multitudes of scientific papers in order to make decisions about a procedure that, up until a few years ago, wasn’t questioned by the vast majority of parents? Is it even possible to make informed decisions without proper medical training? And who should one believe – the parents who warn against the harms vaccinations inflicted upon their children or public health experts staunchly asserting that vaccines are proven safe and effective?

Who in heaven’s name is right?! Come on, we have to make this @#$& decision!

Take a breath. You can relax. You have come to the right place.

After spending a few days reading this book, your question – Who is right? – will be answered. The answer to this question that troubles millions of parents around the world is out there, its pieces scattered across hundreds of cyberspace locations – visible to all, yet hidden in plain sight for the vast majority of the public.

The purpose of this book is to reveal that answer and shine a spotlight on it for everyone to see.

17 Questions

to ask your doctor about vaccines, based on the book:

1. Was the vaccine you are recommending tested in a pre-licensure clinical trial with a (real) placebo control group? If not, how do you (or anyone else, for that matter) calculate its true rate of adverse events?

2. Is it morally acceptable to conduct a clinical trial in infants for a new vaccine, where the “control group” receives an untested compound, i.e., the vaccine-sans-antigen, which is likely to cause irreversible side effects and has no potential benefit?

3. Are you familiar with the VAERS system? Have you ever filed a case with VAERS?

4. If your patient experiences an adverse health event following vaccination, do you check VAERS for reports of similar symptoms before deciding how to proceed with the case? Do you report it to VAERS?

5. Do you think healthcare professionals should be required by law to report adverse health events following vaccination, similar to their obligation to report cases of notifiable infectious diseases?

6. If our child experienced a health problem following vaccination, what medical tests are at your disposal to decide whether the condition was actually caused by the vaccine?

7. We fear that our child could be adversely affected by a particular vaccine. What medical tests can you perform in order to determine whether or not she is at high risk of being injured by that vaccine?

8. Do you know who funds most vaccine safety research? Are you familiar with the process used to allocate medical research grants?

9. Would you expect pharmaceutical companies and government agencies to fund vaccine safety studies that could potentially find serious faults in the vaccines they manufacture, license, and recommend to the public?

10. Are you aware that studies published in leading medical journals which ostensibly confirm the safety of vaccines suffer from serious methodological flaws and are fraught with authors’ conflicts of interest?

11. Are you familiar with any medical study that compared the overall health of vaccinated children to that of unvaccinated children?

12. In the absence of studies comparing the overall health of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated children, what is the scientific evidence for the safety and benefit of the vaccine program?

13. In the absence of a study comparing the overall health of children who vaccinated according to the official schedule to that of children who received no vaccines, would you still tell parents their children are better off getting all routine vaccinations? If so, on what grounds?

14. Do you know of any studies that have examined the safety of the simultaneous administration of 9 vaccine injections against 13 different diseases to a 15-month year-old infant?

15. Are you familiar with any studies that have shown that spacing out vaccines does not reduce the number and severity of side effects?

16. Do you believe that administering 10,000 vaccines in one day to an infant is safe? If you do, can you provide studies that have demonstrated the safety of this procedure?

17. Do you know of any studies that examined the safety of the recommendation to vaccinate infants with mild illness? If not, what is the scientific evidence on which the CDC relies in determining that this would not increase the risk for vaccine injury?

The book emphasizes the importance of critically evaluating vaccine safety claims and encourages readers to engage in informed discussions with healthcare professionals. It argues that relying solely on professional authority without questioning the underlying scientific evidence is inadequate. The book advocates for transparency and thoroughness in vaccine research and recommends that individuals consult various sources to gain a comprehensive understanding of the subject.

50 Questions & Answers

1. What are the fundamental principles and methodology of randomized controlled trials (RCTs)? Random assignment of subjects to experimental or control groups serves as the core principle of RCTs, ensuring groups are as similar as possible at the start to minimize bias. This randomization helps establish a foundation for determining the effectiveness of medical interventions with greater reliability.

The methodology involves carefully controlling all aspects from participant selection through data collection. Researchers analyze data from both groups to determine if the intervention produced statistically significant effects. RCTs are considered more reliable than other study types due to their reduced susceptibility to bias.

2. What specific challenges exist in conducting RCTs for vaccine safety? Cost and time requirements present significant hurdles, particularly when studying rare side effects or long-term outcomes. The complexity increases when researchers must account for various factors that could influence results while maintaining scientific rigor.

Strict inclusion and exclusion criteria can limit the ability to generalize findings to broader populations. Ethical considerations further constrain research design, especially when dealing with potentially harmful substances or vulnerable populations, making it challenging to establish appropriate control groups.

3. How does blinding work in vaccine trials, and why is it important? Blinding conceals treatment assignment information from participants, researchers, or both to minimize bias. In single-blind studies, participants remain unaware of their group assignment while researchers know, whereas double-blind studies keep both parties unaware of treatment assignments.

This approach prevents conscious or unconscious bias from influencing study outcomes. Blinding reduces the likelihood of participants reporting symptoms differently based on their treatment group and prevents researchers from inadvertently influencing data collection, interpretation, or reporting based on preconceived notions about treatment effectiveness.

4. What role do control groups play in vaccine research? Control group selection represents a critical aspect of ensuring scientific validity and ethical integrity in vaccine studies. Ideally, control groups receive a placebo - an inert substance indistinguishable from the tested vaccine - allowing researchers to isolate specific vaccine effects from potential placebo effects.

Ethical considerations must be carefully weighed when using placebos, especially for diseases with serious consequences. In some cases, researchers may need to use an active control group receiving standard treatment or an alternative vaccine when withholding proven effective treatment would be unethical. The choice requires justification and transparent reporting.

5. How are adverse events measured and documented in vaccine trials? The source material primarily addresses adverse event reporting through VAERS rather than specific trial documentation methods. VAERS relies on passive reporting where healthcare providers, vaccine recipients, or their guardians voluntarily submit reports of suspected adverse events following vaccination.

The system collects comprehensive information including vaccine type, event timing, patient demographics, medical history, and adverse event nature. This data undergoes analysis to identify patterns or clusters warranting further investigation.

6. What are the limitations of pre-licensure vaccine trials? Pre-licensure trials focus primarily on individual vaccines or limited combinations administered simultaneously, failing to evaluate long-term and cumulative effects of routine vaccinations on recipient health. The narrow scope of these trials leaves significant gaps in understanding potential interactions between multiple vaccines over time.

Additionally, strict inclusion criteria and controlled conditions may not reflect real-world vaccination scenarios. These limitations make it difficult to identify rare adverse events or effects on vulnerable subpopulations before widespread vaccine implementation.

7. How do three-arm trials differ from traditional RCTs? Three-arm trials incorporate an additional control group beyond the standard two-group design, providing more comprehensive data and addressing some limitations of traditional trials. This structure enables researchers to make more nuanced comparisons, such as comparing a new vaccine formulation against both a standard vaccine and a placebo.

The additional arm allows for direct comparison of both new and standard vaccines to placebo, offering more robust safety and efficacy assessment. However, these trials require larger sample sizes and face increased logistical challenges compared to traditional two-arm studies.

8. What ethical considerations impact vaccine trial design? Ethical considerations primarily center around the use of control groups and the potential withholding of proven effective treatments. Researchers must carefully balance scientific rigor against participant welfare, particularly when studying vaccines for serious diseases where leaving control groups unprotected could pose significant risks.

The challenge extends to vulnerable populations and the need to protect participant rights while gathering necessary safety data. These ethical constraints often influence crucial decisions about control group selection, study duration, and monitoring protocols.

9. How is long-term safety assessed in vaccine trials? According to the source material, comprehensive long-term safety assessment remains a significant gap in vaccine research. Traditional pre-licensure trials typically focus on immediate or short-term effects, failing to adequately evaluate long-term health impacts of vaccination programs.

The absence of systematic long-term safety studies, particularly regarding cumulative effects of multiple vaccines, represents a key limitation in current vaccine safety assessment. This gap in knowledge particularly affects understanding of potential chronic health impacts and delayed adverse events.

10. What role does statistical significance play in vaccine trial interpretation? The source material does not directly address the specific role of statistical significance in vaccine trial interpretation. However, it mentions that researchers analyze data from both experimental and control groups to determine whether interventions produce statistically significant effects.

This analysis helps establish whether observed differences between vaccinated and control groups represent genuine effects rather than random variation. However, the source emphasizes that statistical significance alone may not capture the full complexity of vaccine safety and efficacy.

11. How are confounding factors controlled in vaccine research? Randomization serves as the primary method for controlling confounding variables in vaccine trials. This process helps ensure that potential confounding factors are distributed equally between experimental and control groups, minimizing their impact on study outcomes.

However, certain confounding factors, particularly in observational studies, remain challenging to control. These include differences in healthcare access, lifestyle factors, and genetic predisposition, which can influence health outcomes independently of vaccination status.

12. What are the key differences between observational and experimental vaccine studies? Observational studies examine patterns of disease occurrence and health outcomes in populations, providing insights into potential associations between vaccines and adverse events. These studies can analyze large datasets and identify trends that might not be apparent in smaller clinical trials.

Experimental studies, particularly RCTs, offer more controlled conditions but face limitations in studying rare side effects or long-term outcomes. While observational studies help assess vaccines in real-world settings, they struggle to establish causality due to potential confounding factors and biases.

13. How has the understanding of infectious disease transmission evolved historically? Early understanding of disease transmission focused primarily on direct contact between infected individuals. However, research by figures like Wickman revealed the role of healthy carriers in disease transmission, particularly for conditions like polio.

This evolution in understanding challenged simplistic transmission models and highlighted the complexity of disease spread. The source notes that despite decades of research, significant questions remain about transmission patterns for diseases like polio.

14. What role did improved living conditions play in disease reduction? Improvements in sanitation, hygiene, nutrition, and general living conditions played a crucial role in reducing infectious disease mortality, particularly during the 19th and early 20th centuries. This decline occurred before the widespread introduction of vaccines, suggesting these factors were primary drivers of improved public health.

The implementation of public health measures such as sewage systems, clean water supplies, and proper waste disposal significantly reduced disease transmission. Better nutrition strengthened immune systems, while improved housing conditions decreased overcrowding and limited pathogen spread.

15. Who was Thomas McKeown and what were his key findings? Thomas McKeown was a British physician and demographer who conducted extensive research on mortality decline in England and Wales during the 19th and 20th centuries. His analysis concluded that improvements in living standards, particularly nutrition, were the primary drivers of mortality reduction, with medical interventions playing a relatively minor role.

McKeown's 1972 study, examining mortality trends in four European countries, found similar patterns suggesting that decline in mortality was primarily due to factors other than medical interventions. His work challenged the prevailing view that medical advances were the main cause of improved public health outcomes.

16. How did the polio narrative evolve over time? The understanding of polio underwent significant changes, from initial theories about transmission through healthy carriers to later debates about environmental factors. Early research by Wickman and Landsteiner established foundational assumptions about viral transmission, which shaped subsequent research directions.

However, alternative theories emerged, including the "Pesticides Theory" linking polio outbreaks to DDT exposure. This perspective challenged conventional explanations and highlighted the complexity of polio's epidemiology, particularly the unexpected surge in cases during the post-World War II period despite improving living conditions.

17. What evidence supports the historical decline in infectious diseases? Historical mortality data from multiple countries demonstrates significant declines in infectious disease deaths before the introduction of vaccines. Records from England, Wales, and other European nations show substantial reductions in mortality from various diseases during the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

McKeown's analysis of English mortality data from 1901 to 1971 revealed that over half the decrease in infectious disease mortality occurred before 1931, prior to widespread antibiotic use or vaccination. Similar patterns were observed across different countries and diseases, suggesting broader public health improvements drove these declines.

18. How has vaccine development changed over the past century? The source material focuses more on historical disease patterns than vaccine development evolution. However, it notes that vaccine recommendations expanded significantly from a single smallpox vaccine to the current schedule including multiple vaccines against numerous diseases.

Modern vaccination programs evolved from individual disease-specific campaigns to comprehensive childhood immunization schedules. This evolution brought new challenges in testing vaccine combinations and understanding their cumulative effects.

19. What was Dr. Morton Biskind's contribution to polio research? Dr. Morton Biskind identified potential connections between DDT exposure and health problems, including what he termed "virus X syndrome." His observations noted similarities between DDT poisoning symptoms and those reported in polio cases, suggesting environmental factors might play a role in disease manifestation.

Despite facing opposition from the medical establishment and chemical industry, Biskind continued advocating for recognition of DDT's potential health hazards. His work contributed to alternative theories about polio's causation and challenged conventional viral-only explanations.

20. How did early polio researchers approach disease transmission? Early polio research was heavily influenced by Ivar Wickman's assumption about healthy carriers' role in transmission and Karl Landsteiner's work establishing the viral nature of the disease. These foundational assumptions directed subsequent research toward investigating viral transmission patterns and carrier states.

However, this focus may have limited investigation of other potential factors in polio's spread and manifestation. The source suggests that early researchers' assumptions potentially overshadowed alternative explanations, such as environmental factors' role in disease occurrence.

21. What role did Karl Landsteiner and Ivar Wickman play in polio research? Karl Landsteiner achieved the first successful isolation of poliovirus, establishing the viral nature of polio and directing subsequent research toward virological investigations. His work became a cornerstone of polio research, fundamentally shaping scientific understanding of the disease.

Ivar Wickman, through extensive epidemiological studies in the early 20th century, developed the theory that healthy carriers played a primary role in polio transmission. These two researchers' foundational assumptions heavily influenced the direction of polio research, though the source suggests their focus may have inadvertently limited exploration of alternative factors.

22. How has the reporting of vaccine adverse events evolved? VAERS emerged as a passive reporting system for monitoring vaccine safety post-market. The system relies on voluntary reporting from healthcare providers, vaccine recipients, or their guardians to identify potential safety signals or concerning trends.

This evolution in adverse event monitoring reflects recognition of the need for ongoing safety surveillance beyond pre-licensure trials. However, the passive nature of the system creates inherent limitations in data collection and interpretation.

23. How does the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System work? VAERS collects voluntary reports of suspected adverse events following vaccination from healthcare providers, recipients, and guardians. The system gathers comprehensive information including vaccine type, timing, patient demographics, medical history, and adverse event details.

Analysts review this data to identify potential patterns or clusters that might warrant further investigation. This surveillance system serves as a post-market safety monitoring tool, though it cannot establish causality between vaccines and reported events.

24. What are the limitations of VAERS data? VAERS data suffers from limitations inherent to passive reporting systems, including potential underreporting, especially for mild or less common events. The voluntary nature of reporting means not all adverse events following vaccination are captured in the system.

Additionally, VAERS reports cannot establish causality between vaccines and reported adverse events. Reports may reflect coincidental timing rather than actual vaccine effects, requiring additional research and investigation to confirm potential links.

25. How are vaccine safety signals identified and investigated? Safety signals emerge through analysis of VAERS data patterns or clusters of reported events. When potential signals are identified, they undergo further investigation to determine whether they represent genuine safety concerns or coincidental associations.

This process requires integration of multiple data sources beyond VAERS, including epidemiological studies and controlled clinical trials. The investigation process aims to establish whether reported adverse events have a causal relationship with vaccination.

26. What role do epidemiological studies play in vaccine safety? Epidemiological studies examine patterns of disease occurrence and health outcomes in populations, providing insights into potential associations between vaccines and adverse events. These studies can analyze large datasets to identify trends that might not be apparent in smaller clinical trials.

However, epidemiological studies face limitations in establishing causality. Observed associations between vaccines and adverse events could be influenced by confounding factors or biases, requiring careful interpretation and additional supporting evidence.

27. How are long-term safety outcomes monitored? The source material indicates significant gaps in long-term safety monitoring of vaccines. Pre-licensure trials typically focus on short-term outcomes, while post-market surveillance through systems like VAERS may not adequately capture delayed or chronic effects.

This limitation in long-term monitoring represents a key concern, particularly regarding the potential cumulative effects of multiple vaccines and their impact on chronic health conditions. The source emphasizes the need for more comprehensive long-term safety studies.

28. What is the process for investigating potential vaccine-related injuries? The source material does not provide specific details about the process for investigating individual vaccine-related injuries. However, it discusses the general approach of using multiple data sources and investigation methods to evaluate potential vaccine safety concerns.

This includes analysis of VAERS reports, epidemiological studies, and additional research to determine whether reported adverse events have a causal relationship with vaccination. The investigation process requires careful consideration of alternative explanations and contributing factors.

29. How does post-marketing surveillance contribute to vaccine safety? Post-marketing surveillance through systems like VAERS helps identify potential safety signals that might not have been apparent during pre-licensure trials. This ongoing monitoring can detect rare adverse events or patterns that emerge only with widespread vaccine use.

However, the source emphasizes limitations in current post-marketing surveillance systems, particularly regarding their ability to establish causality and capture long-term effects. The passive nature of reporting systems may result in incomplete safety data.

30. What methods are used to analyze VAERS data? VAERS data analysis involves examining patterns and clusters of reported adverse events to identify potential safety signals. This includes reviewing the timing, frequency, and nature of reported events across different populations and vaccine types.

The analysis must account for the limitations of passive reporting and potential confounding factors. Researchers use this data alongside other sources to evaluate potential safety concerns, though the source emphasizes the need for careful interpretation given the system's limitations.

31. How are causality assessments conducted for adverse events? The assessment of causality between vaccines and reported adverse events requires a comprehensive approach considering multiple factors. While VAERS collects reports of adverse events, these reports alone cannot establish causation, necessitating additional investigation through epidemiological studies and clinical research.

Determining causality involves analyzing temporal relationships, biological plausibility, consistency across reports, and the presence or absence of alternative explanations. The source emphasizes that current methods may not adequately capture all causal relationships, particularly for long-term or delayed effects.

32. What role do healthcare providers play in vaccine safety monitoring? Healthcare providers serve as primary reporters to the VAERS system, submitting information about adverse events following vaccination. Their position on the front lines of vaccine administration makes them crucial observers of potential safety concerns.

However, the voluntary nature of reporting means not all adverse events are captured, and provider reporting practices may vary. The source suggests this inconsistency in reporting contributes to limitations in safety monitoring systems.

33. How has the childhood vaccination schedule evolved? The vaccination schedule expanded significantly from a single smallpox vaccine to include up to 28 vaccine doses for 14 different diseases by age two. This evolution began with the widespread distribution of the DPT vaccine in the late 1940s, followed by the polio vaccine in the mid-1950s and subsequent additions.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), established in 1964, has shaped the US vaccination schedule, continuously adding new vaccine recommendations. This expansion occurred without comprehensive studies examining the effects of new vaccines on existing schedule components.

34. What factors influence vaccination schedule development? The source indicates that when new vaccines are added to the schedule, no studies examine their effects on other vaccines already in the schedule. Additionally, research evaluating different schedule variations to ensure optimal timing and combinations is notably absent.

The development process lacks sufficient understanding of subpopulations that may be particularly susceptible to vaccine side effects. There is also a shortage of data and diagnostic tools for early identification of children who might be at higher risk for adverse reactions.

35. How are multiple vaccines tested for simultaneous administration? Despite CDC assertions about testing new vaccines alongside existing schedule vaccines, most combinations have not undergone comprehensive safety testing. The source reveals that the CDC website does not specify which vaccine combinations on the US childhood schedule have been tested.

A World Health Organization document claims vaccine combinations have been studied before and after licensing but fails to provide specific details about testing methods or timing. The source suggests this effectively enrolls American infants in a large-scale vaccine trial without parental consent or awareness.

36. What evidence supports current vaccination schedules? The source emphasizes that the childhood vaccination schedule as a whole has never been properly studied for safety or efficacy, a fact acknowledged in a 2013 Institute of Medicine report. Pre-licensure trials focus on individual vaccines or limited combinations rather than evaluating long-term and cumulative effects.

Studies examining the long-term impact of the entire vaccination program on children's health remain notably absent. The source indicates this represents a significant gap in understanding the overall safety and effectiveness of current vaccination schedules.

37. How do international vaccination schedules differ? Several Western European countries maintain different vaccination schedules compared to the United States. For example, countries like Norway, Sweden, France, and others do not include the varicella vaccine in their childhood vaccination programs, while Australia and Switzerland only recommend it for children over 10 years old.

The UK administers fewer doses of certain vaccines compared to the US schedule, such as three doses of the DTaP-equivalent vaccine in the first 18 months versus four doses in the US. These variations suggest different approaches to risk-benefit assessment across nations.

38. What considerations go into vaccine spacing decisions? The source indicates a lack of scientific evidence supporting either the recommended vaccination schedule or alternative spacing approaches. Health authorities generally discourage deviating from the recommended schedule, though no comprehensive research demonstrates the optimal timing between vaccines.

Parents who desire to space out vaccines often face opposition from medical professionals who maintain that spacing offers no benefit and may leave children vulnerable to disease for longer periods. However, the source notes that this position lacks robust scientific support.

39. How are vaccine combinations evaluated for safety? The evaluation of vaccine combinations appears inadequate according to the source. While the CDC claims new vaccines are tested alongside others on the recommended schedule, documentation of these studies remains limited. The source questions the comprehensiveness of combination testing.

References cited to support combination safety often focus on efficacy rather than safety concerns, and many studies are outdated given the addition of new vaccines to the schedule. This raises questions about the thoroughness of safety evaluations for current vaccine combinations.

40. What role do adjuvants play in multiple vaccine administration? The source expresses concern about the long-term health effects of aluminum adjuvant accumulation in the human body, noting these effects remain poorly understood. The impact of multiple vaccines containing adjuvants administered simultaneously lacks thorough investigation.

The potential adverse biological effects of combined vaccine ingredients, including adjuvants, on infant bodies have not undergone in-depth study. This represents a significant gap in understanding the safety of multiple vaccine administration.

41. How is individual susceptibility to vaccine reactions assessed? The source indicates significant gaps in understanding and identifying individuals who may be more susceptible to vaccine reactions. Current systems lack adequate diagnostic tools or methods for early identification of children who might be at higher risk for adverse events.

This limitation in assessing individual susceptibility represents a crucial gap in vaccine safety practices. The inability to identify vulnerable subpopulations beforehand means potentially susceptible individuals receive the same vaccination schedule as the general population.

42. What factors influence the timing of vaccine administration? The source material suggests that the current timing of vaccine administration lacks comprehensive scientific validation. While health authorities promote specific schedules, research examining the optimal timing of different vaccines or their combinations remains limited.

The determination of vaccination timing appears to prioritize practical considerations, such as ensuring completion of recommended doses, rather than being based on studies demonstrating optimal developmental stages for vaccine administration. The source indicates this represents another area where scientific evidence is lacking.

43. What is the rationale for conducting vaccinated-unvaccinated studies? Vaccinated-unvaccinated (VU) studies could provide crucial insights into the overall impact of vaccination programs on public health. These studies would allow direct comparison of health outcomes between vaccinated and unvaccinated populations, potentially identifying both benefits and risks that current research methods might miss.

The source argues that VU studies are essential for comprehensive and unbiased evaluation of vaccine safety and effectiveness. Such research could help identify potential long-term health consequences and adverse effects that might not be apparent in shorter-term studies.

44. What are the main obstacles to conducting VU studies? The medical establishment cites ethical concerns as a primary barrier, arguing that withholding vaccines from a control group would be unethical. However, the source counters that retrospective VU studies using existing medical records would avoid ethical dilemmas.

Additional obstacles include claims about feasibility, cost, and potential selection bias. The source suggests these arguments are largely unfounded, particularly regarding retrospective studies, and may reflect reluctance to conduct research that could challenge existing vaccination policies.

45. How might VU study findings impact public health policy? VU study results could potentially lead to significant changes in vaccination policies and practices. If studies demonstrated that vaccinated children experience better health outcomes, it would reinforce current vaccination policies and potentially increase public confidence.

Conversely, if studies revealed health concerns or unexpected patterns, it might necessitate reevaluation of current practices. The source suggests this potential for policy disruption might contribute to reluctance in conducting these studies.

46. What methodological challenges exist in VU study design? Designing VU studies requires careful consideration of potential confounding factors, such as lifestyle differences between vaccinated and unvaccinated populations. The unvaccinated group might have different health behaviors or environmental exposures that could influence outcomes.

Statistical analysis must account for these variations while maintaining scientific rigor. The source acknowledges these challenges but argues they can be addressed through proper study design and analysis methods.

47. How do researchers address selection bias in VU studies? The source acknowledges that selection bias presents a significant challenge in VU studies, as parents who choose not to vaccinate may differ in various ways that could affect health outcomes. However, it maintains that careful study design and statistical analysis can address these concerns.

The potential for bias requires researchers to carefully document and account for differences between groups, including factors like healthcare access, lifestyle choices, and socioeconomic status. These considerations must be incorporated into study design and data analysis.

48. What ethical considerations impact VU study implementation? While prospective randomized VU studies raise ethical concerns about withholding vaccines from control groups, retrospective studies using existing medical records avoid these ethical dilemmas. The source argues that ethical arguments against VU studies often overlook this distinction.

The source suggests that ethical considerations should also include the potential harm of not conducting VU studies, as this leaves important questions about vaccine safety and effectiveness unanswered. This represents a different ethical perspective that considers the broader public health implications.

49. How might VU studies contribute to vaccination science? VU studies could provide valuable insights into the cumulative effects of vaccination programs that are difficult to assess through other research methods. These studies might identify both positive and negative health outcomes associated with different vaccination approaches.

Such research could help identify susceptible subpopulations, optimize vaccination schedules, and improve understanding of vaccine-related health impacts. The source suggests this knowledge could lead to more personalized and effective vaccination strategies.

50. What role could VU studies play in addressing vaccine hesitancy? VU studies might help address public concerns about vaccine safety by providing more comprehensive data about long-term health outcomes. Transparent research comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated populations could either confirm vaccine safety or identify areas needing improvement.

The source suggests that conducting and openly sharing results from VU studies could help restore public trust in vaccination programs. This transparency might be particularly important given growing public interest in vaccine safety research.

I appreciate you being here.

If you've found the content interesting, useful and maybe even helpful, please consider supporting it through a small paid subscription. While everything here is free, your paid subscription is important as it helps in covering some of the operational costs and supports the continuation of this independent research and journalism work. It also helps keep it free for those that cannot afford to pay.

Please make full use of the Free Libraries.

Unbekoming Interview Library: Great interviews across a spectrum of important topics.

Unbekoming Book Summary Library: Concise summaries of important books.

Stories

I'm always in search of good stories, people with valuable expertise and helpful books. Please don't hesitate to get in touch at unbekoming@outlook.com

For COVID vaccine injury

Consider the FLCCC Post-Vaccine Treatment as a resource.

Baseline Human Health

Watch and share this profound 21-minute video to understand and appreciate what health looks like without vaccination.