Part 1 – Evidence questioning the most widely held vaccine assumptions.
Part 3 – An exploration of the problems establishing vaccine efficacy & safety and consideration of research funding.
Part 4 – Examples of some apparently ineffective and/or unnecessary vaccines and consideration of the regulatory and licensing environment.
[Please Note: These articles form a single investigation. Reading them in order is recommended.]
I am not suggesting that all vaccines are useless, nor potentially dangerous. Vaccines come in a variety of forms and human susceptibility, both to contracting and spreading infection, is unique to the individual. As are our immune system’s responses to inoculation. Contracting viruses naturally is a vital component for the healthy development of our individual immune systems. At a very basic level, some scepticism regarding the potential risks of interfering with this natural process is warranted.
Having received some feedback on Part 1 from the Twitterati, the problem we face in establishing any kind of reasonable dialogue about vaccines was painfully apparent. I wrote Part 1, partly out of my own interest, but also to respond in full to those who, contrary to my understanding, insisted there was no empirical evidence questioning vaccines.
I cited peer reviewed papers, government statistics and intergovernmental inoculation campaign statements throughout the post. Yet still most of these people refused to consider, or even look at this evidence. Preferring instead to call me an idiot, accuse me of being a child abuser or claim that I was spreading dangerous ‘anti-vaxxer’ disinformation.
One individual, who claimed to be eminently qualified, said he was looking forward to the day I would be imprisoned. This hysterical reaction is based upon the narrative forced upon people by a MSM. It is very easy to be convinced that all the ‘science’ supports your point of view if you never look at any.
The overwhelming body of scientific studies and evidence strongly supports vaccines. In Parts 3 and 4 We’ll look at the evidence which raises concern about the possibility of widespread scientific fraud in vaccine R&D and corruption of both the licensing authorities and the adverse reaction reporting system. Remarkably, given the overwhelming bias in research funding, there is still a significant body of scientific research which does question vaccine safety. You are free to dismiss this research if you like but you can’t pretend it doesn’t exist, no matter what you are told to believe.
Some of the studies which question vaccines are written off by vaccine supporters because they claim they were not published in ‘reputable scientific journals,’ such as the British Medical Journal. However, it should be noted that respected journals such as the BMJ and the Lancet have financial partnerships with the vaccine manufacturers. So if we are going to question the respectability of a journal we might start by looking at its independence and who funds it. Many of the studies I cite here are published in so called reputable journals. This is a prerequisite for some to even accept the science as real. Personally, I don’t see it lends them any additional credibility.
Another objection is that the studies which question vaccinations are not properly peer reviewed or, even when they are, that peer review process isn’t trusted. Aside from the fact that the peer review process itself is in deep trouble this often boils down to people’s choice, or preference. This appears to be based upon some arbitrary set of standards they apply independently to the science they either accept or reject.
If you reject the peer review process, for some science, because you disagree with the reviewers then you reject the entire peer review process because you acknowledge it is subjective. Inevitably this leads to a situation where you only ‘believe’ the peer reviewed science you already agree with. Which makes a mockery of any claims to respect either the peer review process or science, both of which should maintain higher standards of objectivity.
So we are now going to consider a small fraction of the peer reviewed scientific evidence which suggests there may be health risks associated with vaccines. If for no other reason than to provide a semblance of balance.
The Science Questioning Vaccines Exists
Dr Lucija Tomljenovic Ph.D from the Neural Dynamics Research Group, criticising the statement made by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention senior epidemiologist Dr Robert Chen, outlined the wide availability of scientific research questioning vaccines:
“…….The statement by Dr Chen that ‘the science behind vaccination safety is rock solid’ is factually inaccurate and contradicts a large body of scientific literature published on this subject. As with any medication, vaccines can carry risks of adverse reactions (ADRs). However, in spite of the widespread notion that vaccines are largely safe and serious adverse complications are extremely rare, a close scrutiny of the scientific literature does not support this view. For example, to date the clinical trials that could adequately address vaccine safety issues have not been conducted (i.e., comparing health outcomes in vaccinated versus non-vaccinated children).”
As ever, I recommend you do your own research on everything discussed at Iain Davis and make up your own mind. If you ‘Google’ Dr Lucija Tomljenovic you will immediately encounter the ‘debunking’ of someone going by the name of the Skeptical Raptor. This anonymous character, who makes claims about their own scientific knowledge, none of which can be verified, is often cited by those who call Dr Tomljenovic an anti-vaxxer. For her part Dr Lucija Tomljenovic has a Ph.D. in biochemistry and is currently a senior research fellow at the University Of British Columbia School Of Medicine in Vancouver.
Alphabet inc. is the multinational conglomerate holding company for Google. It’s venture capitalist arm GV is a major investor in vaccine technology and research. I suggest avoiding Google for anything but basic information searches. DuckDuckGo is currently a far more informative and reliable alternative.
A 2013 study published in the Journal of Toxicology scientists from the University of British Colombia and MIT outlined how Aluminum is harmful to the Central Nervous System (CNS). The paper points out how CNS problems are correlated with neurological disorders like Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), and makes a strong argument that Aluminum adjuvants in the form of pediatric vaccines, could be contributing to increased rates of ASD.
Statistical analysis demonstrates that the increase in the diagnosis of ASD’s correlates directly with the rapid expansion of the vaccine schedule. However, improved diagnostic tests could also account for the increase. Similarly there is also a strong correlation with the increasing level of Glyphosates in food stuffs. So this statistical analysis alone certainly doesn’t ‘prove’ a link between ASD and the vaccine schedule. Equally, what cannot be claimed, is that the apparent correlation between ASD diagnosis and the vaccine schedule doesn’t exist.
This potential link between vaccines and Autism, first widely acknowledged following the 1998 paper by Dr Andrew Wakefield et al, has emerged in a number of other papers. For example a 2010 study by the Stony Brook Medical Center found that the Hepatitis B vaccine more than trebled the likelihood of developing ASD. A more direct possible link between ASD and the MMR vaccine emerged in a paper by the Utah Department of Biology and Biotechnology Center who found elevated levels of MMR antibodies in children diagnosed with ASD.
A further 2007 study by researchers at the University of Iowa, looking at data sets from 2004, found a suggested link between the mercury adjuvant in many vaccines (Thimerosal) and rates of autism. The potential damaging effect of injecting unprecedented levels of metals directly into the blood stream of small children was effectively conceded by the vaccine industry and the CDC who recommended that Thimerosal, in particular, be removed or reduced. However, contrary to numerous studies, they maintained that the risks were low.
Consequently Thimerosal was removed as a precautionary measure. Which does beg the question, if there was certainty that the risks were low, why this precaution was necessary. Contrary to the reassurance studies showed this increased exposure to mercury may have been linked to increased fetal ASD risks. Therefore, while we can welcome its removal from some but not all vaccines, we might question how it ever passed supposed licensing safety standards in the first place. Something we’ll explore later.
Why Consuming Metals Is Not The Same As Injecting Them
Concerns over increased exposure to metals via vaccination have been roundly dismissed by vaccine proponents because numerous studies suggest no elevated risks. We commonly encounter both heavy and other metals, such as Aluminum, in our environment. The levels found in vaccines are deemed to be safe by comparison according to the vast majority of both scientific researchers and the public.
However, the debate centers around the way in which vaccines introduce these metals into the body, especially with regard to infants. Most studies which have looked at potential risks have tended only to consider immediate, short term, reactions. Very few, and certainly none funded by the vaccine manufacturers, have studied the potential longer term impacts.
The argument for this lack of inquisitiveness by the manufacturers and regulatory authorities is that metal based adjuvants are absorbed quickly, rapidly excreted and are unable to pass the Blood Brain Barrier (BBB). Consequently, longer term studies into these potential risks are one of the few areas of vaccine science where the weight of evidence tends towards scepticism.
There is significant evidence to challenge what appears to be an assumption, within many of the short term studies, regarding how metals, and in particular Aluminum Adjuvant Nanoparticles (AAN’s), are absorbed. The assumption is that the absorption and excretion mechanism following ingestion of aluminum also applies when it is injected directly into the bloodstream via vaccination. The scientific evidence suggests this is not the case.
Aluminium (Al) is naturally absorbed via ingestion in a water soluble ‘ionic’ form. It is toxic but natural ingestion and environmental exposure means we are adapted to process and excrete this toxin. Our immune response dispatches cells called macrophages (MF) to attack and digest the Al in a process called ‘phagocytosis.’ We then excrete it in the normal way.
Vaccine delivered AAN’s are not digested within the MF’s, remaining in the body for a much longer duration. The ‘infected’ MF’s effectively become toxic and transport the AAN’s around the body. MF’s freely traverse the BBB and the brain is extremely sensitive to Al. The studies which demonstrate this process are numerous and experimental proof is consistent and repeatable. For example Khan et al stated:
“…continuously escalating doses of this poorly biodegradable adjuvant in the population may become insidiously unsafe, especially in the case of overimmunization or immature/altered blood brain barrier…”
From a legal perspective there is no doubt that vaccines can and do cause significant harm. The only question is the level of risk associated with vaccines. Vaccine manufacturers in the U.S are immune from prosecution. In 1986 the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program was set up to ensure such cases would not be heard in open court. The NVICP dictates:
“….claims against vaccine manufacturers cannot normally be filed in state or federal civil courts, but instead must be heard in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, sitting without a jury.”
The situation in the UK and other European nations is similar. However, as this freedom of information request illustrates, the indemnity is on more of an ad-hoc basis in the UK. You might ask why vaccine manufacturers should be afforded any indemnity. Why do so many states consider it important that they be protected against prosecution?
Vaccines Can And Do Cause Harm
There have been a number of cases which have come to public attention. For example, in 2017, the family of Christina Tarsell was awarded compensation for her death as a result of receiving the Gardasil Vaccine. This has been strenuously denied by vaccine advocates but it is beyond reasonable doubt in law.
The state had previously tried to shift the onus of the burden of proof onto the family. Winning a decision in 2012 as a result. However the Tarsell family persisted and cited the Althen Standard which required them to demonstrate three points to the courts satisfaction.
1. There was sound medical theory and evidence linking the death to the vaccination.
2. There was a logical sequence of cause and effect showing vaccination as the cause of Christina’s arrhythmia (her cause of death.)
3. Demonstrate a temporal connection between the vaccination and the onset of the arrhythmia.
The Tarsell family did precisely that and the onus was then on the state to prove that the Althen Standard had not been met. They couldn’t and the family was awarded compensation. The potential for the Gardisil vaccine to damage the heart has been demonstrated by scientists from the Department of Molecular and Computational Biology at the University of Southern California who found that the ammino acid sequence, common to the the Gardisil virus proteins, are identical to the sequence of some heart muscle cells.
Similarly, children with acquired brain injuries, such as in the cases of Polar, Banks and Mojabi have been awarded payments by the NVICP courts. In each and every instance the proponents of vaccination insist these cases prove nothing. However the fact remains they were awarded compensation as a result of a vaccine acquired injury.
For example, in the case of Baily Banks the court stated:
“……. that Bailey’s ADEM (Encephalomyelitis) was both caused-in-fact and proximately caused by his vaccination (MMR).”
[Please note: bracketed content added]
These court findings, signifying the potential for some vaccines to cause health harm, are consistent with the scientific research. Flarend showed that Al adjuvants are retained in the body far beyond the time claimed by the vaccine manufacturers. These results were confirmed in a study by the Michigan State University among others.
Another claim of the vaccine supporters is that while some people with genetic anomalies, allergies or immune deficiencies, may be at greater risk from adverse reactions, this tiny risks is virtually non-existent for the otherwise healthy. Again science disputes this notion. A study by a team from the Barcelona Infant Hospital found the process of MF corruption by AAN’s was clearly identified in blood samples taken from healthy individuals.
The Immunity Research Group from the University of Calgary observed that inflammation anywhere in the body prompted the toxic MF’s to travel to the brain. This was corroborated by collaborative study by the Cedars-Sanai Medical Center and the French Institute of Health and Medical Research who showed how the MF’s could carry AAN’s across the Blood Brain Barrier directly into the brain.
The studies here are just a few of those which indicate a possible link between vaccines, brain injury and potential ASD. There are many more which highlight evidence which suggests vaccines may also increase the risk of a range of neurological, physical and mental health problems.
None of this means the benefits of vaccines don’t outweigh the risks, nor that widespread vaccination definitely presents a long term danger to public health. But the science is clear and further research is definitely warranted. What is also evident is that the manufacturers and the regulatory authorities are, for some reason, extremely reluctant to invest in this further research.
In reality, completely contrary to most peoples understanding of vaccines, there is no scientific evidence that long term exposure to AAN’s is safe. The assumption in vaccine ‘safety studies,’ which assert no metal adjuvant risk, are all based upon a provable falsehood. Namely that ionic Al consumption is the same as AAN injection via vaccination. The vaccine acolytes who call anyone who questions vaccine safety ‘anti-vaxxers’ are either unaware of or choose to ignore this fact.
Therefore it is extremely concerning that the state have announced they intend to legislate to remove ‘anti-vaxxer disinformation.’ They have yet to define what they consider to be ‘disinformation.’ However, I expect this post will be among those to fall foul of the new state Internet censorship regulations. The MSM have already convinced the masses that everyone who questions vaccine safety is a lunatic, regardless of the scientific evidence, and the state is using this narrative to roll out censorship legislation.
At the same time the state, with widespread public support, are moving towards compulsory vaccination. Anyone who challenges this is then castigated as an ‘anti-vaxxer’ child abuser. Rather than debate the science there is a global initiative to shut down all discourse, remove freedom of speech and force people to undergo invasive medical procedures against their will.
This smacks of fascism and book burning. Even if you think everyone who highlights scientific scepticism about vaccines is insane, if you can’t recognise the danger in allowing such laws to exist, you may soon find you won’t be able to express your views either. Because once the ‘Ministry of Truth’ cat is out the bag it won’t stop at the critics of vaccines. The UK state is already planning legislation to censor criticism of its foreign policy.
Many do not accept that the case for mandatory vaccination has been made. The risks are largely unknown and there is a distinct lack of evidence to demonstrate that the long term use of some vaccines is even safe, let alone effective. Claiming that there is no scientific or substantive evidence to question vaccines is absurd.
Please consider supporting my work. I really need your help if I am going to continue to provide the research and analysis that you value on a full-time basis. You can support my work for less than the price of a cup of coffee via my donor page or alternative become a paid subscriber to my Substack.
I extend my gratitude to my editor, who has provided invaluable contributions to my articles since October 2021 (but who, for personal reasons, prefers to remain anonymous).
Please feel free to share anything from iaindavis[.]com excluding any and all third party content. I use a Creative Commons License. All I ask is that you give credit to the author and clearly mark any changes you make. Please share my work widely. Censorship is increasing and we need to get this information out there. If you value what I do then please consider supporting my work. Many thanks.
Be the first to comment on "Vaccines – The Truth About The Debate – Part 2"