The Slow Moving Catastrophe of Behavior, Learning and Mental Health Problems in Kids
Today 4:00pm Eastern Dr. Paul Thomas Talks Health on the Pat Miller Show


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Jeannette Bishop

My understanding is that diphtheria bacteria (various species) are ubiquitous, but can become dangerous, toxin producing, in the presence of a virus (B phage?), rather like scarlet fever. Makes me wonder if the vaccines that seem most effective (in terms of titer readings years later) are the ones for microbes we're continually exposed to (continually generating the antibody arm of immunity maybe), but are we actually effectively programmed to fight a dangerous case of diphtheria when the right circumstance for that occurs?


"Tetanus is killing 2.6 people a year now because close to 100% of Americans have gotten the tetanus series, which gives protection for at least forty years."

yes but no vaccine is 100% effective, some parents do not vaccinate their children and in some cases the protective titers don't last. If you think about it Tetanus can't be as common as it used to be back then.

cia parker


Tetanus is killing 2.6 people a year now because close to 100% of Americans have gotten the tetanus series, which gives protection for at least forty years. I've read that most of those who get tetanus are elderly people who haven't gotten a booster in a long time. And it's also true that not many people have contact with horse manure the way they used to. But it's also true that we continue to have contact with the poop or decayed-in-the-ground poop of dogs, cats, guinea pigs, and, really, all mammals, including humans, which has tetanus spores in it. Also true that most fertilizer now has been sterilized to kill things like tetanus spores. There are too many factors involved to give even a rough estimate of how many people might get clinical tetanus if no one vaxxed for it. I'm glad I got a tetanus booster when Chiara (we changed her name to Killer) the gerbil bit both of us, and would hang on and not let go. She had a leg wound from the breeder which never healed, caused her chronic pain, and her premature death from sepsis, I'm not blaming her, but I was a little concerned about tetanus from the bite wounds. But if it's true that vaccine protection lasts forty years, I'll probably never get another one.

I learned in the Plotkin and Mortimer book that a certain percentage of the population has immunity to tetanus from natural exposure to low levels of the toxin. It's probably true that that was as true a hundred years ago as it is now. But at this time I don't think anyone knows if they're naturally immune or not, nor if their tetanus vaccine protection is still working.

I just looked up the population of the US in 1921, it was 108.5 million, and now it's 326,766,748 million. So closer to three times more rather than the four I said in my previous comment.

cia parker

The international agencies only mounted a campaign to give the diphtheria vaccine in the Third World in 1980, and the rate of disease plunged by ninety % in twenty years. The rate of diphtheria in the UK during WWII was high until the vaccine was introduced nationally in 1943, according the chart put up by Eindeker, and the rate plunged right down to zero immediately. Living conditions continue to be very poor in many countries in the Third World, because overpopulation taxes the ability to nourish hungry populations. Living conditions in the UK continued to be very poor in the UK for the rest of the War and for some years after. I'm not disputing that hunger, cold, and misery contribute to incidence of deaths from diphtheria, and it's clear that the vaccine does prevent diphtheria and starts to do so as soon as it starts to be given. And I don't dispute that well-nourished healthy adults usually have resistance to clinical cases of diphtheria and it will may be mild if they gt it. But even First World societies have a lot of babies, elderly people, immuno-compromised people, and malnourished people who might easily get and die of diphtheria if no one vaxxed for it and it came back.

As for tetanus, 1,560 Americans were diagnosed with it in 1921, the highest year, with about 50% dying of it. I'd have to look up the population then and compare it with the population now, but since the tetanus spores are ubiquitous, I'd say that the rate of infection would be comparable population-wise now as then. We'd have at least a somewhat higher survival rate with the muscle relaxants given in hospitals now. It's impossible for me to predict any better than that. Fatality is still between ten and fifty percent when tetanus occurs, even with hospital care. We should certainly educate on the benefits of vitamin C treatment. I don't know, is our population now four times what it was then? At 30% mortality that would be 1,872 deaths a year. Without vitamin C. I don't care what people choose. Whatever happened would make other people's decisions easier in the future.


"Which is not going to happen, at least for diphtheria and tetanus. We would have to see if a toxigenic strain came back and how deadly it was."

Tetanus in the United States is killing 2.6 people each year. At least some people are not immune against it. If we said that all of these are not immune and 1% don't have immunity against tetanus that would be 260 deaths each year if no one vaccinates. I would say the percentage that is not immune is possibly higher so I don't see how tetanus could ever come back in a big way regardless of whether or not people vaccinate.


"The WHO article I linked at the bottom of my comment last night said that in the 1970s in low and middle income countries there were fifty to sixty thousand deaths a year from diphtheria, but when the diphtheria vaccine was introduced in the '80s there was a 90% reduction in diphtheria between 1980 and 2000. And that's recent history."

I think that's a highly misleading comment. We are talking about changes in living conditions. Of course you can find countries that have living conditions that we had 100 years ago but that's not what we are discussing here.

Yes there are millions of deaths from measles in some areas of the world but that does not mean that measles would kill the same number here.

cia parker

Pfarmster and Jeannette,

The WHO article I linked at the bottom of my comment last night said that in the 1970s in low and middle income countries there were fifty to sixty thousand deaths a year from diphtheria, but when the diphtheria vaccine was introduced in the '80s there was a 90% reduction in diphtheria between 1980 and 2000. And that's recent history.

Sure, we could say that most of people in the First World are healthy and well-nourished enough that we probably wouldn't die of diphtheria if it came back, but the old, very young, immune-compromised, and marginally- or ill-nourished even in the First World would probably be hard hit if no one vaxxed. Which is not going to happen, at least for diphtheria and tetanus. We would have to see if a toxigenic strain came back and how deadly it was.


"And, again, it's not that I'm in favor of vaccines as much as I'm against babies choking to death from diphtheria. As many thousands used to do before the vaccine."

I don't think that the numbers of deaths from 80 years ago would be the same as today. This was before we even had antibiotics. Look at what happened to Tuberculosis which killed far more than Diphtheria.

Mortality from virtually any infectious disease dropped dramatically in the past 150 years regardless of whether or not we had a vaccine for it. Scarlet fever used to be one of the leading causes of deaths. Were are the people dying from scarlet fever today?

Jeannette Bishop

I believe financial warfare was the major driver in loss of life expectancy (probably including increase diphtheria incidence and mortality) in Russia. Not something to dismiss as we are poised to perhaps undergo the something much the same here in the U.S. (if not more of "the west") if the same players get away with it here as well, but vaccination status may not provide any meaningful protection:

"Russia in the 1990s was a case in point. During that decade, there was significant political and social turmoil. Russian literature points out the the vaccinated develop diphtheria and that mortality is highest in those who are malnourished and alcoholic. In 1994 male life expectancy dropped from its high of 65 years down to 57 years in Russia. (337) Belarus data from 1990s show that highly vaccinated Russia still had diphtheria.

"'The analysis of vaccination history shows that out of 11 cases 7 (63.6%) were vaccinated according to schedule, 4 vaccinated but not according to schedule. (338)'

"An outbreak in St Petersburg, Russia, occurred in the 1990s. More than 2500 cases were in that city. A complete analysis of the vaccination history and disease severity was undertaken. The authors concluded that vaccine immunity is 'short lived' and that:

"'If a wide diphtheria epidemic affects an industrialized country, it would probably not any more be the big killer that it was in Europe and in the United States in the 19050s and 1960s. (339)'"

(Dissolving Illusions by Humphries & Bystrianyk, p. 203-4)

They go on the describe some benefits observed with high vitamin C dosing against bacterial toxins. Something worth adding to any health training and application IMO.

I believe some of the graphs of the section on diphtheria are here: (starting with graph 16)

cia parker

Thank you, Eindeker, I saved your page to my desktop. It was stunning how the incidence of diphtheria plunged in the UK from 1945. I just looked for more information on it: worldwide even in the 1970s, there was a million cases a year with fifty to sixty thousand deaths a year in the Third World. From 1980 to 2000 there was a 90% reduction, largely because of the use of the toxoid vaccine. The antitoxin was introduced in the US in 1894, but it caused serum sickness (allergic reaction) in many cases and sometimes killed. In the US in the '20s there were 13,000 to 15,000 deaths a year, with 100,000-200,000 cases a year. In the 1880s the mortality in Europe and the US was 50%, but it went down to 15% by WWI, largely because of the use of the antitoxin. In Europe in 1943, in the thick of the War, there was a million cases with 50,000 deaths from diphtheria, and that was when the UK introduced the toxoid vaccine, with the dramatic results seen on your chart. I was surprised that the WHO document said that the vaccine was only introduced in Europe and the US in the 1940s. That is not the case: it was developed in 1921, and started to be used, but wasn't widely used in the US until the 1930s. The article I cited about the Russian outbreak said that the vaccine had been used there since the 1920s.

I think we will have to continue observing the situation, but these statistics on the huge number of deaths from diphtheria even in recent times is horrifying. And the immediate plunging down to zero once the vaccine started to be used is impressive as well. And I know that both the antitoxin and the vaccine were often dangerous. I'd just have to say the parent would have to make the decision considering both sides in his place and time.;jsessionid=7B741898840CCB7C278569155FF87E55?sequence=1


Cia, Pharmster, David here’s some UK epidemiological evidence on the role of toxoid vaccine in the elimination of diphtheria:
Graphs showing UK incidence of diphtheria & deaths 1914-2014
Information on introduction of toxoid vaccine in the UK
The outbreak of the Second World War provided the necessary impetus to introduce diphtheria vaccination with central government allocating funds to local authorities to meet the costs of introducing the programme. By the end of 1942, a third of all children under 15 years of age in England and Wales, and a half of all in Scotland had been protected against diphtheria.
Why did the disease decline before this in the US, but not apparently in the UK? The use of horse anti-toxin was more common in the US “One of the most infamous outbreaks of diphtheria was in Nome, Alaska; the "Great Race of Mercy" to deliver diphtheria antitoxin is now celebrated by the Iditarod Trail Sled Dog Race Of course improved living conditions also helped, but the precipitate drop in cases following the introduction of toxoid vaccine in the UK, in the middle of the second world war, was clearly the major driver.
As to why the anti-toxin vaccine should result in a drop in the number of cases, as well as deaths, this may well be that the disease in vaccinated individuals is relatively less severe with no toxin effect “ In the UK, the classical disease is now very rare and clinicians may not recognise it. Milder infections (without toxin production) resemble streptococcal pharyngitis and the pseudo-membrane may not develop, particularly in vaccinated individuals. so clinicians may not have recognised the disease as diphtheria, some references refer to it as being no worse than a sore throat in vaccinated individuals.

cia parker

David Burd,
You cited less than 500 diphtheria deaths in the US in 1948. The DPT was introduced that year, but the diphtheria vaccine by itself had already been being given since the 1920s. I put up a figure from a Mothering book the other day which said the highest number of diphtheria cases in the US was in 1921, 206,939 cases. So in 1921, shortly before the introduction of the diphtheria vaccine, there were that many cases and 15,520 deaths (see link below) from diphtheria in one year. I am not fear-mongering. Diphtheria used to be a horrendously destructive disease, and as soon as the vaccine was introduced, rates of both incidence and death plummeted. Your quote from 1948 was over twenty years AFTER the vaccine was introduced. Don't forget how Hib disease almost disappeared within five years of the introduction of the vaccine: once people start getting them, they work fast to quell the disease. My quote about diphtheria in the Soviet Union the other day said that the diphtheria vaccine had started to be given there in the 1920s. Mercury was put into it as a preservative in 1932. In other words, the vaccine was introduced and immediately started saving lives many years before the year you cite, which was MANY years after most children had been getting the vaccine. No wonder less than 500 of them died.[]=50

"Diphtheria once was a major cause of illness and death among children. The United States recorded 206,000 cases of diphtheria in 1921, resulting in 15,520 deaths. Diphtheria death rates range from about 20% for those under age five and over age 40, to 5-10% for those aged 5-40 years. Death rates were likely higher before the 20th century. Diphtheria was the third leading cause of death in children in England and Wales in the 1930s.[1]
Since the introduction of effective immunization, starting in the 1920s, diphtheria rates have dropped dramatically in the United States and other countries that vaccinate widely."

And, again, it's not that I'm in favor of vaccines as much as I'm against babies choking to death from diphtheria. As many thousands used to do before the vaccine.

david m burd

@ Cis Parker,

In your latest Comment you say: "Diphtheria was decreasing in incidence, probably because of better nutrition and housing, but it was still killing thousands a year when the vaccine was introduced."

Don't you listen?! My prior Comment way back on this thread regarding Diphtheria deaths in the U.S, for children under 5 years age, per the United States Vital Statistics, on mortality for 1948 was less than 500 for that year. Yet you cite "thousands."

It's sensible to project that without ever having the damn very-toxic DtaP vaccine, this mortality would have kept going down toward zero via proper nutrition, etc. and/or improved medical care.

Please, stop your fear-mongering that is not justified,

cia parker


I just reread Eindeker's comment. He grants that the toxigenic strains may be reduced by another virus which parasitizes them, but adds that the toxigenic forms are still circulating in countries with low vaccine coverage like India and Indonesia. I don't think we can be sure what is happening with diphtheria worldwide or what it's going to do in the future. It may develop defenses against the parasitizing virus.

cia parker


It is premature to say that the toxigenic strains have disappeared. I found in one book that diphtheria experienced a resurgence every eight years and another book said ten years. Pertussis resurges about every three and a half years, and measles and chickenpox, I think it was every two years, but I'd have to look it up and I'm translating right now. Eindeker mentioned an organism which parasitized some forms of diphtheria: it would be interesting to know more about that. I think we'd need worldwide statistics over maybe twenty years of the strains of diphtheria carried by sample populations. Maybe the toxigenic kind has disappeared or will disappear. English sweating sickness killed many thousands in France and England in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, brought over from France in a war, and then completely disappeared so that no one knows exactly what it was. Henry VIII's brother died of it and Anne Boleyn nearly died of it. Some noble families lost all their children to it, and then it just disappeared.


"Ten years ago the incidence of diphtheria was relatively high in Greece and a survey of school children had revealed a carrier prevalence of non-toxigenic Corynnebacterium diphtheriae of 3.4%. A similar survey undertaken now has revealed that the disease seems to be disappearing. Among 895 school children (6–13 years-old) in seven primary schools of different socioeconomic levels, only seven were carriers of non-toxigenicC. diphtheriae strains, corresponding to a prevalence of 0.8%. Toxigenic strains were not found. All the carriers were found in a school serving a socioeconomically deprived area"

To me it seems that Diphtheria is associated with poor living conditions.

cia parker


I just read your articles. The first one was only about the measles outbreak in California and the MMR. I am in favor of permitting all healthy children to get measles and I am against the MMR, although I would warn women that they need to have a plan if they're planning to get pregnant at some point, or even might become pregnant accidentally, if rubella comes back. Natural exposure would be best, I would like my daughter to get natural exposure to M, M, and R, but I don't know how to do it. It could be done on a national level, but isn't available now. So that leaves the nosode as the only safe option other than the unsafe vaccine.

Your second article was about advice to parents, and I have several concerns with it. I agree that some of the major contagious diseases were decreasing in incidence in the First World before the vaccines. Measles, however, was still infecting 99% of American children by the age of 18 in 1963, the year the vaccine was introduced. A good thing, but it was not decreasing in incidence. Both pertussis and measles became naturally attenuated, so that they were no longer nearly as dangerous as they had been. But when the less effective DTaP was introduced, pertussis made a reappearance so that it is now a very common disease. Only dangerous to a few of the youngest newborns and the immunocompromised, but it's common enough that it should be protected against in these groups. Isolation and nosodes. Scarlet fever has virtually disappeared in the US, and for a while it was the biggest killer of them all. Still around as strep throat: you should wait two days before starting antibiotics, to give your immune system time to make antibodies to it. Diphtheria was decreasing in incidence, probably because of better nutrition and housing, but it was still killing thousands a year when the vaccine was introduced. So we're back to the question: is it better to knowingly promote not vaxxing for diphtheria KNOWING that it will cause thousands of babies to choke to death, because you want to see if it will eventually fall to low levels or disappear by itself with no vaccine? How many parents would go along with that? Same with tetanus, polio, and Hib disease.

You advocate breastfeeding, keeping infants at home, not taking them to the supermarket, daycare, or doctor's offices, giving them only nutritious organic food. I do too. But we had a discussion here a few weeks ago about how it wasn't possible for most American families to be able to afford any of these measures. And, even if you left the baby with a babysitter while you went to the store, it would be common for the mom to catch a cold or flu while standing in the checkout line or touching a bin with organic apples that an infected person with germs on their hands had just touched. And then the mom would take the germs home with her. And if the baby has a severe cough which is interfering with breathing, she's going to have to take him either to a doctor or to the ER, with all their germs. My daughter was breastfed until self-weaning, which turned out to be exactly five and a half years old. I only bought organic food for her. But she still caught pertussis at 18 months old at a La Leche League meeting, a bad flu probably at a play group at three and a half years old, a bad flu with severe vomiting which lasted a week at nearly five years old, chickenpox at nearly two, a bad summer flu with vomiting at seven, which started her bowel disease, the EV-68 virus four years ago at fourteen, bronchitis several times which caused months of coughing, and many other colds and flus. And all of that was good for her immune system, but it wasn't that years of breastfeeding and organic food protected her from the diseases.

No vaccine is 100% effective, and no one has ever claimed that status for them. A 90% effectiveness rate is probably the average effectiveness rate. But they do usually reduce incidence by at least that much. The pertussis and flu vaccines are much less effective than that. But the reason that no one, unfortunately, gets chickenpox or measles anymore is because close to everyone has gotten the vaccines. I think it is fortunate that no one gets tetanus, diphtheria, polio, or Hib disease anymore, but that is because nearly everyone has gotten the vaccines for them. I think it's better to look at the diseases, incidence, mortality, virulence, and vaccine reactions individually, and then look at the total number you are considering, and the age and health status of the person contemplating vaccination or having it contemplated for him.

I don't trust the government, and I am aware that no vaccine has been tested against a completely unvaxxed control group. Of course they should be. But in the meantime, you have to look at how many people who have gotten the vaccines I mentioned have not gotten either the diseases or severe vaccine reactions to these vaccines. I don't think it would be good to refuse these four vaccines on principle and then in some cases have the child die or be crippled by them. And you have to look at the evidence put forward by those doctors who have had good outcomes using their reduced vaccine schedules. As well as the outcomes of those who got these vaccines before the Vaccine Epidemic of MANY vaccines being routinely given after 1990.

It is not the case that vaccines cause only harm. Vaccines have saved the lives of many who would otherwise have died of diphtheria, tetanus, or Hib disease, or have died or been crippled by polio. And a number of lives from the other diseases, too, but there you get onto the turf of a lot were permanently damaged by the vaccines, while the diseases are not usually as serious as the ones which most concern me, so it gets harder to make comparisons which result in overall benefit from the use of the vaccine(s). If you forbid Prevnar, for example, then you have made yourself responsible for those who die of pneumococcal disease who would not have died if they had gotten the shot. I'm willing to say that I would not recommend Prevnar, recommending instead the nosode if desired and the health-promoting measures we agree on, if the family is able to provide them, but I'll also say that the disease DOES kill a certain number of people, and the vaccine DOES have dangers, but would in many cases protect against the disease. Serotype replacement and the many reactions to it ARE factors which everyone should know and consider, but it is still true that the disease CAN be dangerous, even deadly, for many people.

And as for pets, it is a good thing that rabies is very rare now in pet dogs and cats, because most of them get the rabies vaccine. Also true that most of them get too many: it is thought that one, at most, two rabies vaccines will protect most animals for life, and overuse of the vaccine causes cancer in many pets now. But you shouldn't completely forbid the rabies vaccine, because it would result in the horrendous death of many animals of rabies, as well as the deaths of a certain number of humans who got rabies from them. Feline distemper is an evil disease, and the vaccine CAN cause adverse reactions, including kidney failure, but it is considered the most effective vaccine for any species, including humans, meaning that it has saved the lives of millions of kittens. It gives protection for at least seven years, probably for life in many cases. So I don't think that it should be forbidden, but it does have dangers, and its use, like that of all vaccines, should be minimized.



"I don't think you had seen the comment I put up last week when you commented last, and, of course, you're free to doubt its accuracy, but I found the following in Dr. Halvorsen's book:"

I don't think you understood what I meant. I don't doubt that deaths declined due to Diphtheria vaccination but you have to understand that does not mean that the vaccine was fighting the bacteria. They were not. They were designed to prevent damage due to toxic effects of the bacteria.

If you reduce the toxic effects of bacteria you see less cases and less deaths. That's it.
Nothing of this shows that you eliminate toxic strains. That's conjecture.

cia parker


The tetanus vaccine is similar to the diphtheria vaccine in that both of them target toxins produced by the pathogens and not the pathogens themselves. And that makes the diseases particularly dangerous, as the tetanus and diphtheria toxins are among the most potent and deadly in the world. Right up there with poison ivy toxin. Infection with the diseases really doesn't matter as they are usually mild in themselves.


I'll read the articles you linked, but it's not fair to say that you don't think that healthy people would suffer disability or death from the contagious diseases. A large percentage of the people in every society are not healthy and many cannot become healthy, for various reasons. And of course individual health is important, but at least as important is the virulence of the infecting pathogen, and if it is very virulent, then it will fell and kill even the healthiest individuals. Especially since the healthiest individuals have very active, alert immune systems which often mount so vigorous a response to the disease that its very response is what kills. Inflammation is its primary response, and this inflammation can itself kill. As in the Spanish flu, in which healthy young adults in their twenties and thirties were the hardest hit and the most frequent fatalities. And new pathogens often have a very high fatality rate, because no one's immune system has seen them before and it doesn't know how to respond to vanquish it. That's why diseases that had become relatively mild in Europeans, Africans, and Asians, such as measles, were so devastating and killed 90% of the indigenous Americans after the arrival of the Europeans. And why Ebola had almost a 100% kill rate when it first appeared in people in 1976, and also why mortality had fallen to around 50% four years ago in the pandemic in Africa: people's immune systems were starting to learn how to cope with it. And many people got subclinical cases and antibodies that way, which is the way it always works. Probably subclinical cases are being contracted from sewage infected with minimal levels of the virus even now. In another fifty years, Ebola will probably have become like chickenpox, fairly mild and universal in Africa. But if the vaccine for it works, and it may, then most people will get the vaccine for themselves and their children, and the natural process will be disrupted. You could say that in the long run it's better to just let tens of thousands of people die in agony so that their descendants may benefit from the eventual natural process of attenuation. And there's something to be said for that, but only if you're mainly concerned with the whole population and not with the individuals involved. And, again, I wish they would do large-scale studies of the effectiveness of the nosode or crotalus horridus in protecting people from Ebola with homeopathy. That would be a much better answer, if it worked as well as I think it probably would.

cia parker


I don't think you had seen the comment I put up last week when you commented last, and, of course, you're free to doubt its accuracy, but I found the following in Dr. Halvorsen's book:

"The department of health itself admitted the decline in the death rate of children from diphtheria couldn't be attributed solely to immunization. After all, this had fallen from 888 deaths for every million children in 1901 to 301 deaths per million in 1938 (a 66% reduction), and all this happened before the introduction of widespread immunization. But there was little doubt that immunization helped, and it was estimated that the death rate in 1946 was one-fifth of what could have been expected had the death rate continued to have fallen at the pre-immunization rate." (Martin WJ, "The recent trend of diphtheria in England and Wales," Monthly Bulletin of the Ministry of Health and PHLS," 1948: 232-236. "

So yes, diphtheria was declining before the vaccine, but the vaccine still reduced deaths to one-fifth of what they would have been before the vaccine if current reduction rates had continued. And it came back in force in the ex-Soviet Union forty years later. It is not gone from the earth, and if conditions were right, it might easily come back, even in First World countries. We certainly have enough immune-damaged people with sub-optimal immune systems.

I put this up the other day and you commented on it, so forgive the redundancy, but Plotkin and Mortimer give possible reasons that diphtheria has not come back, even though most adults no longer have antibodies to it. One additional factor is that in many cases, antibodies fade, but there is still cellular immunity which doesn't show up on antibody tests. Plotkin and Mortimer think that it is very likely that when most children have immunity to diphtheria, that it creates a type of herd immunity.

In this regard an important question is whether the proportion of susceptible individuals has increased in recent years, perhaps because the widespread immunization of children has resulted in a diminished circulation of toxicogenic C. diphtheria in the population and a consequent decrease in reinforcement of immunity by casual exposure to the organism. Curiously, however, a comparison of the results of current serological surveys of diphtheria antitoxin levels with those of 25 to 40 years ago provides no evidence of an increase in the proportion of nonimmune adults (granting that strict comparability among these various studies does not exist).

Nonetheless, it can be hypothesized that the reason that these low levels of immunity in adults have been associated only with small focal outbreaks of diphtheria in recent years is a form of herd immunity due to high levels of immunity in children. It has been generally accepted that 70% or more of a childhood population must be immune to diphtheria to prevent major community outbreaks, but this is an oversimplification of a more complex issue. Whether an epidemic occurs is influenced by a number of factors other than the proportion of immune and susceptible persons in the population, including the age distribution of immune and susceptible persons, the extent of mixing of individuals and subgroups in the community, and the infectivity and routes of transmission of the organism. In countries with high rates of childhood immunization against diphtheria, it may well be that epidemics do not occur among adults, up to half of whom may be susceptible, because the reservoir of disease in the childhood population has been eliminated and because the strains of C. diphtheriae circulating in the community are less apt to be toxigenic. Nonetheless, although there is disagreement, the proportions of susceptible adults is of sufficient concern that most authorities recommend maintenance of diphtheria immunity by periodic reinforcement using Td."

I don't know how we would ever be able to tell for sure since we don't have any virgin population in the world which has never gotten the diphtheria vaccine, and if we did, I don't think the residents would be willing to see how many of them died of diphtheria if the members assigned to a control group didn't get the vaccine.

Hans Litten

Posted by: Grace Green | August 18, 2018 at 05:31 PM

I think you are one of the better people posting here. No doubt.

Please go to and view the 2018 videos.

Something has happened the perpetraitors never figures on, is that science has swept past them, and that communication would improve to this degree.

I really feel they are clinging on now.
They are spending their time blocking science that exposes them.
They are spending their time locking down the internet because the narrative is in freefall.

Cia, Endecker .......

Number 20 . Nagalase surreptitiously secreted into vaccine to promote cancer ?


"I thought until several years ago that vaccination was optional in European countries, but then learned that in France the diphtheria, tetanus, and polio vaccines were mandatory. I can't find the article with each country's schedules that I saved, but I just found this:"Q

I think you may have misunderstood what I had written. I did assume that all children in europe were vaccinated but I said that adults weren't.

If you introduce a childhood vaccine you don't vaccine adults and because of this it takes a long time before you get herd immunity on a population level because of this even in the nineties 50% of europeans did not have good or any immunity against diphtheria because the older generations were never vaccinated.


That's good. Eindecker can spout his nonsense but Age of Autism has decided that it doesn't want actually consistent anti vaccine voices and only wants people who say "vaccines are great but just need to be made a teensy bit safer" so my responses get moderated.


"as soon as every country has introduced the diphtheria vaccine (and Hib, polio, measles, tetanus, chickenpox, etc. vaccines) rates start to drop, even precipitously drop, until very few or no cases occur and most people have vaccine antibodies in their blood."

Cia, but rates would have started to drop just due to the fact that the Diphtheria vaccine protects you from getting the symptoms of the disease because it blocks the effect of the toxin. From this alone you can't conclude that it reduced or eliminated the number of diphtheria infections.

The diphtheria vaccine was modeled after the tetanus vaccine which may have lowered the rate of tetanus cases but it certainly did not not decrease the number of tetanus infections.

The other vaccines are not good examples as they were designed to target the germs not the toxins.

David Weiner


I am inclined to agree with your assessment. It is not a pleasant reality, but one that we must face.

Grace Green

I don't think we will ever end the autism epidemic (and all the other diseases being caused by vaccines) until we realize that "They" are doing this deliberately. I've just been watching videos by parents who have seen their child suffer a vaccine injury, and the response they get from the doctor is complete denial and lies. They know what they're doing.
The reason that the governments/Pharma are doing this is in order to make us all dependent on their drugs, so that we won't dare to start a revolution. If the state collapsed and people couldn't get their necessary pills they know they could be suffering dreadfully. That's why the conditions they're causing us to have are not usually fatal, but are chronic. This makes everyone feel they would rather have the governments they've got than risk trying to change things. Somewhere in the Book of Revelation (last book of the New Testament) it prophesies that people will suffer from open wounds (eczema?) which won't kill them but they'll wish it would. This is what our governments are aiming to do to us. When I detoxed from dental aneasthetics and stopped getting hay fever, I can't tell you what a relief it was to be no longer dependent on their antihistamines. Take control of your own and your families' lives, folks, and together we'll beat Them!

cia parker


Plotkin and Mortimer said that the evidence for the success of the diphtheria vaccine was indirect, so to speak, but I agree with them that it is convincing. As soon as every country has introduced the diphtheria vaccine (and Hib, polio, measles, tetanus, chickenpox, etc. vaccines) rates start to drop, even precipitously drop, until very few or no cases occur and most people have vaccine antibodies in their blood. I'm not saying that it's necessarily a good thing, measles and chickenpox are very healthy for children to get, I'm just saying that that's what happens, and there really is no other logical explanation for it.

Dr. Richard Halvorsen, in Vaccines: A Parent's Guide, p. 63: "The (diphtheria) vaccination campaign was hugely successful. By 1943, half of all children in the UK had been immunized. Though the death rate from diphtheria was already falling, immunization appears to have hastened the decline.

The department of health itself admitted the decline in the death rate of children from diphtheria couldn't be attributed solely to immunization. After all, this had fallen from 888 deaths for every million children in 1901 to 301 deaths per million in 1938 (a 66% reduction), and all this happened before the introduction of widespread immunization. But there was little doubt that immunization helped, and it was estimated that the death rate in 1946 was one-fifth of what could have been expected had the death rate continued to have fallen at the pre-immunization rate." (Martin WJ, "The recent trend of diphtheria in England and Wales," Monthly Bulletin of the Ministry of Health and PHLS," 1948: 232-236.

cia parker

I thought until several years ago that vaccination was optional in European countries, but then learned that in France the diphtheria, tetanus, and polio vaccines were mandatory. I can't find the article with each country's schedules that I saved, but I just found this:

"Starting in 2018, as many as 11 vaccinations will become mandatory for children under the age of 2 in France, up from the current three (diphtheria, tetanus, and poliomyelitis)."

But beyond that, nearly all middle-class, even working class children in Europe have always been vaccinated with DPT, polio, and MMR, plus many of the newer ones. Not because of mandates but because for many decades it's just what responsible parents did.

cia parker

The issue of pet vaccines is also very interesting. You should read the chapter in Don Hamilton's book on Homeopathic Care for Dogs and Cats. He's against vaccination for pets and has seen a lot of vaccine damage in them. Then there's Marty Goldstein who wrote an excellent book with a chapter on vaccines. And Dr. Pitcairn's book, the first. Then there's Dr. Jean Dodds on the Internet who has a minimal vaccine program which is very popular and which I followed. Many authors recommend that if you have a puppy or kitten, the vaccines won't work until the maternal antibodies fade (same as for measles vaccine), but that time varies. So they say a vaccine for canine distemper or the feline distemper-calicivirus-rhinotracheitis vaccine at nine weeks old, then the second dose at sixteen weeks old. Parvovirus at twelve weeks and nineteen weeks old. Then rabies for both at six months old, with a booster one year later. And that's all. I got an e-book on Amazon called How to Immunize Your Dog without Vaccines by a Serbian homeopath, Aleks Mikic, and I talked with her on Skype and bought nodoses for our new puppy. But I was frightened enough of parvovirus that I got the minimal vaccine schedule as well. And no others.

It's really interesting, literally thousands of dogs and cats have reacted to vaccines with fatal sarcomas, and many with many other kinds of vaccine damage, including organ failure. But, as with humans, the main culprit seems to be over vaccination. Getting all the pet vaccines every year is absolute insanity which even the mainstream veterinary associations have recognized. But not my neighbor, who gets her two cats ALL the feline vaccines recommended by her vet EVERY year. The cats are thirteen years old now and she's ninety, so it would be good if the cats met a natural demise before she does. She has no one who would take them when she dies.

Laura Hayes


Thank you for taking the time to think through why vaccines must be eliminated at this point in time. I have covered that topic both in an article I wrote here on AoA, and more extensively in my WAPF presentation:

"Vaccines: Elimination Mandatory!" by Laura Hayes

"Vaccines: What Is There to Be 'Pro' About?" by Laura Hayes


Agreed, a far superior market model is needed. Government regulatory agencies are not the solution, and won't be in the future, either.


I greatly appreciate your vote of confidence with regard to your suggestion that I run for office. At this point in time, I have found the most effective way to turn the tide is still the slowest, that of one-on-one conversations...which I like to think also "take place" via my articles, interviews, rally speeches, and presentations. And, of course, the full-time job of taking care of our severely vaccine injured young adult son makes having another full-time job outside the home next to impossible. However, never say never, right?! Perhaps the day will arrive when that is the course of action I am to take next :)


You asked me, "What is your advice for parents if and when the most dangerous contagious or infectious (tetanus and pneumonia are infectious without being contagious) diseases return in the absence of vaccination? Just good nutrition?"

Please see these 2 articles of mine which contain information pertinent to your question:

"Disney, Measles, and the Fantasyland of Vaccine Perfection" by Laura Hayes

"I Have Decided to Vaccinate My Child Because..." by Laura Hayes

Additionally, just because a "disease" is frightening does not mean a vaccine for it is safe, effective, needed, or wise. Health does not come through a syringe full of toxins, viruses, bacteria, carcinogens, food proteins, glyphosate, chemicals for which the body has no need, retroviruses, contaminants, and poisons being injected into a closed system, while also bypassing the first parts of our God-given, intricately-woven, highly-effective, complex-beyond-our-comprehension immune system.

cia parker


I don't think that that is exactly my position. I would love to get no vaccines and recommend no vaccines: I know that all of them are on a continuum from causing imperceptible damage never associated with the vaccine in many people all the way to autism, severe autoimmune disease, organ failure, and/or death.

I cautiously recommend consideration of a few of them because it would be so dangerous for large numbers of people, or even small numbers of people, if they didn't vax, or if large numbers didn't vax and the diseases came back. I'm not giving vaccines the benefit of the doubt, but more saying that if your choice is between a chance (highly variable) of a severe or fatal case of Hib, polio, diphtheria, or tetanus, then in many cases I'd take or recommend the vaccines for them, even in the state the vaccines are in now. At this time in the US, there is close to no chance at all of getting polio or diphtheria, so I have no problem with people skipping those at this time. Tetanus has always been rare, but the spores are all around us all the time, carried by many mammals and in their poop and in the soil after the poop decays. I read that 30% of dogs carry it, also most guinea pigs. Yikes. I've had two dogs here and have dumped tons of used rabbit and guinea pig litter with their poop into the back yard or garden, and walked barefoot in the yard. People just have to realize that it's a possibility, that it's a horrifying disease, and even now it's often fatal. Yes, good wound care is essential and prevents most cases, but half of all cases of tetanus are from unapparent wounds or splinters. How many people are going to gouge open the site of a splinter with a knife to flush out the entire area? (And I'm certainly not recommending that they do. But the splinter is now in an anaerobic site where the tetanus spores can flourish if they were present. ) I would LOVE to see a large-scale study done on outcomes of even 5,000 children who get the DT series after the age of two, and none others. I would never put my hand in the fire and say that the vaccine will be safe for the vaccinee. But it IS almost 100% effective in preventing tetanus for, in most cases, over forty years. And almost 100% of the people you see around you every day got numerous tetanus shots and boosters (usually, unfortunately, as the DPT or DTaP). And everyone must judge for himself if he thinks the outcome for all those people was satisfactory enough for him to take the chance of the tetanus vaccine. I can say that it's satisfactory enough for me. It's not that I'm giving it a free pass, which seems to be the implication of "giving it the benefit of the doubt." One of my books says that no one who had ever seen a case of tetanus would fail to give the vaccine to his child. I think that's a big part of what's missing here. Very few or none of those here have ever seen severe or fatal cases of these diseases, largely because, for better or worse, nearly everyone we see every day has gotten the vaccines to prevent them. And that's crucial. It would be one thing if I said, Oh, I think we should believe the doctors who say that vaccines are nearly always harmless and absolutely don't cause autism. I've heard friends say they have had severe reactions etc., but I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt and get or recommend them anyway. That is not the case. But in the case of these four diseases (two if you just count those conceivable here and now, only tetanus for those who breastfeed and keep their babies at home to prevent Hib disease), I think the vaccine outcome in the case of everyone I know is good enough for me to say that the diseases are MORE dangerous. I know that some people have had severe reactions to just the tetanus vaccine, but most don't.

David Weiner


I agree with you that the debate within our movement is healthy and that it helps us to increase our knowledge, sharpen our arguments, and so forth.

I do not subscribe to the (so-called) government regulation model of promoting safer goods and services. I think that it is a terrible approach, for a variety of reasons, and we can clearly see that this is the case in the context of the health care sector. We can complain about the regulatory failure and hope that one day the regulators will do a better job. Or we can seek to replace the failed model of government regulation with a better one. This latter approach is the one that I promote.

The government regulation model is premised on the notion that the government should have a monopoly on decisions about which goods or services should be allowed on the market. The model assumes that the bureaucrats have all of the necessary information and wisdom needed to determine which goods or services are suitable for every single person. All of these premises are deeply flawed.

In a free society, the quality of goods and services is "regulated" in a different manner. Businesses operating in a competitive environment need to make sure that the safety of their products are good in relation to their competitors (note that in the current environment, not only do the FDA and CDC do a poor job of determining which vaccines pass muster, other would-be competitors are shut out, since they are priced out due to the FDA's approval gauntlet. So they are gagged and can't advertise that their products are safer and/or more effective than vaccines).

Businesses operating in a free society are not allowed to commit fraud, as is the case in our "government regulation" of vaccines environment.

Business operating in a free society are liable for harm that their goods or services cause. This ensures that products that are excessively risky will either not make it to market, because they can't charge enough to cover the liability insurance, or will be subsequently pulled after lawsuits.

Businesses operating in a free society depend upon approval of competing private firms to certify their products. These firms succeed only if they have a good track record of doing sound assessments. If they make major mistakes, they will lose business to firms that are more trustworthy. Contrast this with what happens when the government monopoly regulator fails.

In short, instead of trying to shore up a failed model, activists should be advocating for the far superior market model.

david m burd

Jeannette Bishop,

Thanks so much for JB Handley's article and the additional references contained therein:

Here on AoA Comments there has been an amazing array of technical knowledge from all sides; however JB ties it all together, and essentially sifts through all competing vaccines' pro/cons.

I urge everybody to read and pass on JB's truly encompassing knowledge, and I would guess his wife also shares the credit. Thank you Mr. and Mrs. Handley!


Oh, and by the way; my sister-in-law was not able to get SSI either, but she lives in Mississippi, and they are tough on everything. Her second son is a mess too (bipolar and ADHD really bad). She is blessed though cause her eldest son is married to a hoarder, and they have two little boys that they are well on their way destroying. The oldest had to get on the short bus when it was 3 and 1/2 years old to work on having weak muscles for speaking. Both the boys have weak muscles in the eyes that makes them cock eyed, and are wearing eye patches and special glasses. They are still getting those yearly flu shots - along with insulin shots since last year one developed diabetes.

We are in our own little world for the most part. We can get isolated a bit. We think we are rare, and so being a generous people (we are) we still worry about and even stick up for vaccination of some of the more horrible diseases. Don't worry CIA Parker; we have a government and the CDC to do that for us and ignoring just how really bad vaccine injuries are.


CIA Parker; I have been through all of that too. I think my son's psych evaluation was given on the second appeal. She was private, but the federal government sent their cases to her that was in her area. She said she had seen a lot of cases like ours and that is why she was selective in the vaccinations of her children, or did she say she did not vaccinate? I can't remember, and I am not sure if perhaps her profession has taught her how to get along and draw people out by giving the appearance of being very accepting of ideas? We lost that second appeal. The third appeal sent us to the big huge federal building in our state; to see a judge.

Yes, I went though a lawyer on the third appeal; she (the lawyer) filled out all that exact same stuff that I filled out two times before; myself. I even had a big binder of ever piece of paper from doctors, psychs evaluations, and education papers from right on back to his birth. It was all in order, and I even had written a short guide to it all in the front with a way to quickly reference it the papers that I had in the giant big binder.


The federal building had a security guard that took his job really seriously. He wanted to make sure that the metal on my back (my bra hooks) was exactly that.

We got no compensation (the way I looked at it). Maybe my son is not so disabled after all? That might be the case as I look at my sister-in-laws twins that are really disabled. They do not have epilepsy, but they have I Qs of 69 and 70. They did not even capable of getting a high school diploma, just a certificate that they did attend the whole four years. However; I think it makes a difference in what state you live in.

A back lash of the public, if diphtheria comes back might be the least of our problems


David, I agree completely, and I would add that disagreements within a movement is not necessarily indicative of  weakness, but often can be seen as a strength, and vitality of the movement.  Consider the Civil Rights and Suffrage movements from the past both had their fair share of internal disagreements and competing ideas.  I would also add the listless consensus that we find with provaxxers, as they roboticly mouth off about vaccines being safe and effective and calling for an end to the discussion, projects insecurity and weakness.

Still, something about Cia's support for vaccines got me stumped that I had to give it a deeper thought as to what was so problematic about it. I think Laura's take that any other product with as much complaints and concerns circulating it would've been pulled a long time ago is instructive here.  This view exposes a basic rule concerning product safety, and that's guilty until proven innocent, and not criminal court one of innocent until proven guilty.

When enough complaints and concerns are lodged against a product, in the interest of protecting consumers we air on the side of accepting the complaints and taking actions against the product.  If, of course, further testing scientifically clears the product, then we accept that it's vindicated or innocent, but never before then.  It's never the case of giving the product the benefit of the doubt.  Interestingly, if you listen to the 'shrewd' provaxxers you will find that they also abide by this rule.  You will never hear them say let's give vaccines a break, but, instead, they will parrot the line that we must accept vaccines because science has established that they are safe and effective.  

Reflecting on what Cia is now saying about vaccines,  we find the basis of her support extends from wanting to give vaccines a break or the benefit of doubt.  Cia has long exposed her concerns about vaccine safety research, so its quite clear that her support is not extending from 'trusting the science'.  Cia, instead,  is strictly asking that we give vaccines the benefit of the doubt, lest things backfire and we face undesirable consequences.  Compare this thinking to suggesting  that we refrain from pulling that birth-control pill from the market that is suspected of causing cancer because we're only dealing with mere suspicions, and, besides, the pill has shown remarkable success in preventing unwanted pregnancy.  Of course we would not buy this line, not so much because we accept the suspicions, or even because we consider that the potential risks of not sanctioning the product may outweigh the benefits. We would still pull the pill since it's the only prudent option given the hit to the pill's reputation.  Again -- it's guilt until proven innocent. 

Now Cia, please understand that I am making this argument not so much wanting to criticize you, but to aid in the understanding of where exactly you're going wrong with your support.  By my own argument, I too am guilty for not  joining Laura in calling for an immediate ban on all vaccines.  Again -- given the serious and ubiquitous complaints surrounding vaccines, this is the most prudent and just option.  Likely most antivaxxers here are also not in favour of a ban, and they too should be faulted.  I suppose what makes your position appears more of a 'heresy' and betrayal is the fact not only are you disagreeing with sanctioning vaccines, but you're actually taking things one step further by recommending them.   

Jenny Allan

From The Guardian UK (although this story has been taken up in several UK mainstream press outlets)
"Weedkiller found in wide range of breakfast foods aimed at children
Cancer-linked herbicide, sold as Roundup by Monsanto, present in 45 products including granola, snack bars and Cheerios"
"Monsanto, which said it will appeal against the verdict, has said glyphosate has been used safely for decades. In 2015, the EPA said that glyphosate has a low toxicity for people but could cause problems for some pets if they consume the chemical.
However, the World Health Organization has called glyphosate a “probable carcinogen” and authorities in California list it as a chemical “known to the state to cause cancer”.
In April, internal emails obtained from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) showed that scientists have found glyphosate on a wide range of commonly consumed food, to the point that they were finding it difficult to identify a food without the chemical on it. The FDA has yet to release any official results from this process.
There was no indication that the claims related to products sold outside the US.
US farmers spray about 200m pounds of Roundup each year on their crops, including corn, soybeans, wheat and oats. It can also be used on produce such as spinach and almonds."

Monsanto, of course is screaming these levels are safe, safe safe, but let's not forget Roundup was designed as a selective weedkiller to be sprayed on cereal crops modified to resist the chemical. In view of the fact that cereal crops are a basic foodstuff for humans and animals, we can safely assume this stuff is now present in our own bodies and those of our children, as it will also be in animal meat and milk . Vaccines, grown in chicken's eggs or pig derived agar medium will have picked up the contamination.

I am disgusted by all the attempts to claim this chemical, admitted by the WHO to be a 'probable carcinogen' is safe for human consumption.

Hans Litten

Posted by: Eindecker | August 17, 2018 at 06:11 PM

You are possibly correct.
Someone explained to me that if monsatan wins on appeal according to law the case is then closed forever and can never be reopened ..... is this correct ?

So defeat in the opening round could potentially be planned, expected and part of their tactic ?


End of discussion I would suggest (End_decker): Nope, not over until the fat lady sings Sophie, and she’s ain’t even on stage yet…
1 These results allegedly finding glyphosate in vaccines were never published in a journal & subject to a proper peer review

2 This Moms Across America report is here To detect Glyphosate, an enzyme linked immuno-sorbent assay (ELISA) was used at Microbe Inotech Laboratories Inc.

3 This Elisa test used is a screening test to test for the presence of glyphosate in WATER samples, it has never been validated to test in vaccines
“ELISA testing methods for pesticides can produce false positive and false negative results and thus cannot be used by regulators. ELISA methods can give inaccurate results. These methods are usu-ally used as a screening tool and any positive results have to be confirmed by a chromatographic method to be usable in risk assessment.” Quote from The Detox Project: “The Detox Project has created a unique one-stop resource based on independent peer-reviewed science to help you under-stand more about the probable harm being caused by glyphosate-based herbicides worldwide.”

4 The Moms Across America report refers to the need to do further non-Elisa testing, but makes no mention of any results obtained, instead it relies on the Elisa results which are only reliable to screen out negatives, not to quantify positives, and certainly not without further non-Elisa testing.

5 Of course we’ve been here before, in 2014, when Mums across America published another report claiming to have found glyphosphate in mother’s milk, again not peer reviewed in a journal, using the same Elisa test by the same analytical laboratory, without further analysis to confirm positive re-sults This led to extensive testing using verified methods in independent laboratories without any evidence of glyphosate in the breast milk, even when there were traces in the urine samples.

So Sophie Moms Across America used the same screening technique twice, not validated for screening milk or vaccines and certainly not capable of producing reliable positive results without appropriate secondary testing, or as the lead researcher in this investigation said "The Moms Across America study flat out got it wrong," said McGuire, who is an executive committee member for the Interna-tional Society for Research in Human Milk and Lactation and a national spokesperson for the American Society for Nutrition. "Our study provides strong evidence that glyphosate is not in human milk. The MAA findings are unverified, not consistent with published safety data and are based off an assay de-signed to test for glyphosate in water, not breast milk."

So there is zero reliable verified evidence to support the claim of glyphosate in vaccines, it’s a rehash of a previously debunked scare story from the same sponsor using the same methods: end of discus-sion Sophie ?

cia parker


I had read that the pneumococcal vaccine was not very effective in elderly people. And, as I said, it is one I would refuse if I were raising a small child. I was thinking of a backlash if serious epidemic diseases return. I don't think pneumococcal meningitis would be one. The germs are ubiquitous, but most people are not affected by them, or get only mild disease. Most, but not all. I'm really thinking only of diphtheria and polio, should they come back, and Hib disease and tetanus. But we all know that if there were a polio epidemic again, and children were being permanently paralyzed, that people would say that antivaxxers had led them astray. And lose faith in our wisdom or our knowledge. And turn to the pro-vaxxers, many of them. I think it's good to be as honest and accurate as possible. I think when measles returns, people will be shocked at how undangerous it usually is. And I always forget to mention rubella. Same thing, as soon as people saw deformed babies from CRS, they would go back to the rubella vaccine, maybe the whole MMR. It would be very desirable to deliberately expose schoolchildren to measles, mumps, rubella, and chickenpox at school, one a year, and then not have to worry about it.

David Weiner,

Thank you, I agree. Totally agree that most people just get whatever their doctor (i.e. pharma rep) recommends.


Thank you. It was a psychologist who saw Cecily yesterday. He asked some questions (which I had to answer) and then did an IQ test. I told him about the vaccine encephalitis, and after that, he just referred to the encephalopathy as though it were something he believed and accepted. He said at the end that he hadn't scored it, but that that wasn't the problem. Meaning that her IQ was normal, which the school had already said about five years ago. They said 98 IQ, 103 on the verbal part, whatever that means. But the first one the school did when she was five was only an IQ of 72. I said that wasn't true, but the school psychologist assured me that it was. IQ can't be changed significantly. I think it was because of the lack of the language structures in her brain, which have been repaired little by little with homeschooling, etc. I told the psychologist that he could see that she wasn't able to use much language and would not be able to provide for herself. He said yes, and if SS turned us down, I should appeal. I guess I could get a lawyer who only charged if he got her accepted by SS, and took it out of that. And I guess the psychologist would probably testify.

Susan Welch

David Weiner, What you said!

John Stone


I think that’s a good statement.

David Weiner

I see a lot of debate here between 2 positions on vaccination:

1) Vaccines are awful and should never be used.

2) Most of the current vaccines are awful, but there may be certain situations where a small number of vaccines might do more good than harm.

I don't want to weigh in on this issue, other than to say that I see no reason that vaccine activists have to achieve unanimity on position 1). We can and should agree to disagree here.

I think we all agree that the government vaccine program is a disaster and it has been a disaster for a very long time, if not always. This is where we ought to focus our attention.

We didn't get into this mess because individuals like Cia Parker did a lot of research and decided to utilize vaccines in a very limited manner. We got into this mess because most people did not do any research and instead blindly relied on what their doctor, their school, and their government officials told them about vaccines and the threat of infectious disease. And such people were also told that their kids needed to get their shots in order for them to be able to attend school.

If we want this nightmare to attend, we need to concentrate on ending the indoctrination and coercion surrounding vaccines, in other words the government vaccine program.



Thanks for posting this from the book. In my opinion what they are doing is largely guessing or conjecture. They start from the assumption that the vaccine and only the vaccine is the factor that matters and then they come up with complicated theories on why the vaccine works and everything that happens is connected to the vaccine. They shape the evidence according to their beliefs not the beliefs according to the evidence.

That's mostly theoretical. It's not hard science even though it is disguised as such.

From they way they write I would say they mostly make theoretical guesses, few of this is certain or based on conclusive evidence. Remember these are the people that still haven't figured out that vaccines cause autism. Why should they be an infallible authority?


Low vaccination coverage in Europe and absence of diphtheria is proof that the vaccine works.
Low vaccination coverage in Russia and Diphtheria outbreaks is proof that the vaccine works and we need more of it.

To someone with a hammer everything looks like a nail.

Jeannette Bishop

Another great post by JB Handley:

I've just finished reading the paper by McKinlay and Mckinlay he references, and I would strongly recommend the paper or JB's post to anyone who can't get past the description "deadly diseases" now often assigned to vaccine targeted infections (that sometimes result in disease) to begin considering the disease causing effects of vaccination.

John Stone


No doubt there is going to be a backlash over "vaccine preventable diseases" - there already is of course. One issue is that though some vaccines may be effective at suppressing diseases there is not necessarily an overall benefit to health and mortality, and likely the reverse - particularly as the program expands. I tried to highlight the problem in my submission to the UK House of Commons Health and Social Care Committee inquiry into Microbial Resistance.

One thing I didn't go into is the enormous cost. Recently, the Health committee of the European parliament rather foolishly complained that the cost of vaccinating a single child had gone up by 68 times between 2001 and 2014 (and heaven knows how much in 2018, but I would guess greater than x100) and it seems very unlikely that we have better health to show.

Having said all of which I am not sure pneumococcal vaccine would be a great example. In my Microbial Resistance submission I cited two papers, the Vila-Corcoles paper and the Mawson paper:

“After multivariable adjustments we found that the PCV13 vaccination did not alter significantly the risk of pneumococcal pneumonia (multivariable-adjusted hazard ratio [mHR]: 1.17; 95% CI: 0.75–1.83; p = 0.493) and all-cause death (mHR: 1.07; 95% CI: 0.97–1.18; p = 0.190), although it remained significantly associated with an increased risk of all-cause pneumonia (mHR: 1.69; 95% CI: 1.48–1.94; p < 0.001). In stratified analyses focused on middle-aged or elderly persons and immunocompromised or immunocompetent subjects, PCV13 vaccination did not appear effective either.”

"In Mawson’s small but ground-breaking vaccinated vs. unvaccinated study of home-schooled children (18) it was found that 1.2% of unvaccinated children had had pneumonia against 6.4% vaccinated, while 5.8% unvaccinated had had Otitis Media against 19.8 vaccinated."

We still have plenty of pneumonia, and we are not even going to begin to eradicate it by vaccination.


cia parker


The crucial question is how common these conditions were before the Vaccine Epidemic began in 1990.

This is an article by Barbara Loe Fisher, using CDC statistics. It was written in 2004, so current prevalence is much higher now, but the basic point is that in the days when few vaccines were routinely given, these conditions were very uncommon.

Again, I don't think you have to choose all or nothing either way. It's always going to be a gamble either way you go, but it's not the case that contagious disease (or tetanus) would not be a problem in a completely unvaccinated population.

cia parker


I completely agree that every dose of every vaccine is dangerous and unpredictable. The question is only which diseases are enough of a threat to the individual person in a certain place to warrant taking the chance of the vaccine. Everyone in my family has gotten many vaccines which didn't seem to cause any reaction, but it may be that they caused some damage which we didn't realize, or that the insult was cumulative and eventually we reached the straw which broke the camel's back. Or, in the case of my brother, me, and my daughter, vaccines given to young infants. I hope I haven't given the impression that I think that any vaccine is certainly going to be safe. I've separated the VPDs into two categories, the ones which I think present a real and present danger here and now, and those which usually don't. But no, I don't think any of them are certainly safe. But tetanus, diphtheria, polio, and Hib disease are not safe either.

cia parker

Thank you for your explanation as to why the toxigenic diphtheria pathogens may have been reduced in prevalence. I didn't know about the parasitization.

I saw this in the Plotkin and Mortimer book, p. 53. "Of obvious concern is that this apparently high proportion of susceptible adults may offer the potential for recrudescence of outbreaks of diphtheria in adults. In this regard an important question is whether the proportion of susceptible individuals has increased in recent years, perhaps because the widespread immunization of children has resulted in a diminished circulation of toxicogenic C. diphtheria in the population and a consequent decrease in reinforcement of immunity by casual exposure to the organism. Curiously, however, a comparison of the results of current serological surveys of diphtheria antitoxin levels with those of 25 to 40 years ago provides no evidence of an increase in the proportion of nonimmune adults (granting that strict comparability among these various studies does not exist).

Nonetheless, it can be hypothesized that the reason that these low levels of immunity in adults have been associated only with small focal outbreaks of diphtheria in recent years is a form of herd immunity due to high levels of immunity in children. It has been generally accepted that 70% or more of a childhood population must be immune to diphtheria to prevent major community outbreaks, but this is an oversimplification of a more complex issue. Whether an epidemic occurs is influenced by a number of factors other than the proportion of immune and susceptible persons in the population, including the age distribution of immune and susceptible persons, the extent of mixing of individuals and subgroups in the community, and the infectivity and routes of transmission of the organism. In countries with high rates of childhood immunization against diphtheria, it may well be that epidemics do not occur among adults, up to half of whom may be susceptible, because the reservoir of disease in the childhood population has been eliminated and because the strains of C. diphtheriae circulating in the community are less apt to be toxigenic. Nonetheless, although there is disagreement, the proportions of susceptible adults is of sufficient concern that most authorities recommend maintenance of diphtheria immunity by periodic reinforcement using Td."

Hans Litten

Posted by: cia parker | August 17, 2018 at 10:27 AM

Can you also help me with my list of all the CHRONIC lifelong afflictions caused by vaccination
I reckon I might be able to make 50 you know (with your help & Eindeckers)

Alzheimers (cumulataive Vax)
Autism of course (how could I forget my first introduction to the subject matter - cumulataive Vax)
MS (HepB)
Diabetes (Pertusis)
SIDS (flu vax ?)
Cancers (polio sv40 just for starters)
Leukemia (all formealdehyde containing vaxs)
Anorexia & Bulimia - pituitary gland damage via vax
Obesity - pituitary gland damage via vax

Again I am only on 19 or 20 - pathetic - but I will work on it - & you can too !

Not bad for my first effort to be fair , but i know there is a good 50 in here if its all fully broken out.

Angus Files

A lot of answers to the discussion here.From a lecture in Sweden autumn 2014 Dr Humphries

Dr. Suzanne Humphries speaks on tetanus, about the disease, how to treat the disease and how to protect from tetanus.
She goes through cases of vaccinated groups, that still developed tetanus, which shows that tetanus vaccine is not a guarantee to protect from the disease.

She also goes through the term herd immunity and how epigenetics function and could be affected by vaccination.

Pharma For Prisson


cia parker


Five thousand people, half of them adults in their forties, were killed by diphtheria thirty years ago in the ex-Soviet Union. Around ten times that number were diagnosed with diphtheria. I think that means that diphtheria could come back in areas where few are vaccinated for it, and that it could once again kill many of those who got it. Again, I don't care what parents choose. We all have to look at current reality and make decisions based on it. At this time in the US and other western countries, vaccine-induced autism and autoimmune disease are much bigger problems than contagious diseases. I don't think there would be any danger in refusing the diphtheria vaccine at this time, although in the US it would mean refusing the tetanus vaccine as well, as it only comes as the DT or dT. But once the ground shifts, we have to be ready with a plan as to what to do if the dangerous diseases come back. Parents of vaccine-damaged children reproach ourselves for having permitted whatever vaccines were responsible. But we need to also imagine how we would reproach ourselves if we had a baby or small child who died because we had refused the DT or Hib vaccines. Important to remember that a number of doctors who give a reduced vaccine schedule report no autism and little autoimmune disease in their patients. It's always a gamble, but I think if an entire society chose zero vaccines for several decades, that it would quickly reverse course.

cia parker


I think rtp is referring to an idea I read in several books, that removing the Hib microbe from circulation opened up an ecological niche for other meningitis germs, namely pneumococcal and meningococcal to move into. I researched it a couple of years ago and found that this phenomenon, if it occurred at all, was negligible. Pneumococcal infections have always been common, and, like the haemophilus germs, are carried by a large percentage of the population much of the time, without their causing disease. Most people develop permanent immunity through subclinical infection to all the meningitis germs by the age of five. Deaths and disability caused by pneumo infections have never been that many. Meningo infections are extremely serious, often deadly or requiring amputation of a limb, but have fortunately never been common, while the vaccine is very dangerous.

I don't care what parents choose. In my opinion, Hib disease was both common enough and dangerous enough that I could see a parent of a child in daycare choosing it. Again in my opinion, I think the dangers of Prevnar are common enough, the death and disability uncommon enough, that I wouldn't get it or recommend the vaccine.

And whimsical is not the term I would choose either.


CIA Parker:
Good luck with the SSI. I think it all depends on what state you live it of how easy or hard it is to get it. Difficult hoops to jump through, takes a great deal of your time, and patients.

cia parker


What is your advice for parents if and when the most dangerous contagious or infectious (tetanus and pneumonia are infectious without being contagious) diseases return in the absence of vaccination? Just good nutrition?

cia parker


But the danger from diphtheria and tetanus is from the damage done by the toxins they produce, not from the bacteria themselves. So producing antibodies to the toxins is really all you need. Also true that antibodies don't always mean protection from anything, and the absence of antibodies doesn't always mean lack of protection. Pertussis is also a toxin-mediated disease, but since it's no longer dangerous except for a few of the youngest newborns, I'd just say shelter newborns at home, give them the nosode, and treat with vitamin C if it occurs despite precautions. Diphtheria and tetanus, on the other hand, still have a high death rate when they occur, an average of 10% from diphtheria and 30% from tetanus.

But the fact is that in countries with diphtheria, once the vaccine is widely given, deaths from diphtheria stop occurring. That's good enough for me.


CIA Parker.
I would never down play any of these diseases seriousness.

Diphtheria was first described by Hippocrates in the fifth century BC; I am sure you are right. Civilization, dirt, filth, poverty and all that was around back then too; just like perhaps ex- satellite states of the failing, Russian, socialist system were back in the 90s.

You are for the DT because you saw no immediate reaction to it as you did with the P part of the DPT. I know you think that cause I have been there as well. Mine never reacted to the MMR vaccine either at least I did not think so.

We really don't know though and that whooping cough disease is capable of some pretty scary stuff too.

And yes CIA Parker; I know I am talking to you as part of the choir, and no; I don't think you should be against all vaccines; I just think you need to rethink that there is a danger and they are not even telling us, and we are not noticing the very, very slow reactions that eventually lead to other auto immune diseases like thyroid, or diabetes.

In the Untied States today we are not facing a Diphtheria problem, but we did lose 63,000 people this year to drug overdoses. This year is not even over with either. My conclusion is that Inflammation is painful after all. My daughter works with drug addicts and they all are telling her that they hurt, and that is why they took pain medicine that they became addicted to in the first place. All the drug addicts tell the other drug addicts to just suck it up and hurt. It is better to hurt than being a drug addict.

Hans Litten

CIA &/or Eindecker

Would either of you two be able to get me up to 20 with my list on why vaccination is a complete and total abomination please ? I know we can do it if we work together !

1. Infected African Green Monkey Kidney Vero Cells Foreign animal species viruses sv40 (Maurice Hilleman)
2. Deadly Porcine (Pig) Virus called Circovirus (in highly experimental Rotavirus jab - Offit)
3. Fetal Cells from Human Abortions RNA\DNA fragments (readily recombines with a childs own stem cells Dr. Theresa Deisher)
4. Peanut Oil (the main cause of childhood severe peanut allergies)
5. Latex (some syringes are poked through latex vial stoppers, hence severe childhood latex allergies)
6. FD&C Yellow #6 aluminum lake dye (why do we need vaccines to be colorful?)
7. Squalene (main cause of auto-immune disorder) MF59 squalene Gulf War syndrome
8. Over 50 Parts Per Million of Ethyl Mercury (still found in certain flu shots & in trace amounts elsewhere – toxic and nanograms 1948 Dr Frank Engley)
9. Genetically Modified DNA from other Humans (foreign proteins cause unnatural immune reactions)
10.Polysorbate80 opens that BBB and lets the poison right in
11. Retroviruses XMRV, ME, Lyme
12.The Gatti contaminants (all sorts of foreign contaminants, Tungsten, Titanium, Zirconium, Silicon, Chlorine etc)
13. Mycoplasmas Aids ? Gardasil ? mass Sterilisation ?
14. Formaldehyde leukemia being censored with the FDA right now
15. Glyphosate contamination in vaccinations (Samsel-Seneff)
16. MSG in vaccination – as a stabilizer (An Excitotoxin Like Aspartame)
17. L-Histidine used in the maintenance of the myelin sheaths which protect the nerve cells
18. hCG in secretly laced Tetanus vaccination programs in many countries :
Kenya 2015, Phillipines 1995, Mexico 1974 , Nigeria, Mexico, Nicaragua
19. & aluminium salt adjuvants (found in the brain specimens of both autistic and alzheimer sufferers
Exley Keele Univ.)

If not ....................
Perhaps we could collaborate in trying to put these in order of highest toxicity concern to the lowest. I have no idea what is the worst or the least despicable ?
Glyphosate probably belongs high up now given the recent California Monsatan ruling.


cia and anyone who is interested.

I looked into this further and found this:

they blamed diphtheria outbreaks in Russia on poor vaccine coverage but in 1996 even in Europe there was poor vaccine coverage due to many older adults never having been vaccinated as a child.

"So, while most children were fully protected, provided that the majority of them were properly vaccinated, about 50% of the European adult population was not, and is presently partially or totally susceptible to diphtheria."

So it is an illusion that the european population had immunity to diphtheria but the russian outbreaks were caused by poor vaccine coverage.

Thinking about this further.. look at this chart.

Diphtheria cases dropped dramatically within 10 years of starting the vaccine program. Cases nearly disappear. The vaccination program did however only cover children to my best knowledge. Of course a large part of the deaths and cases must have been in children but can this explain how the disease virtually disappeared when adults were never vaccinated? Were children the only reservoir for the disease?

I don't know about the vaccine coverage in India and Indonesia but I see 70-80% I don't know if that is children or total population?

Perhaps I am misinterpreting something but I find it hard to believe that vaccination would be the only factor here.

John Stone


I think Jesus’s reputed miracles are too unspecific, nor do we know of any method. I don’t think it is practically germane. I rather doubt rtp’s ability to go round performing miracles despite his conviction.

Sophie Scholl

End of discussion I would suggest (End_decker):

Posted by: Eindecker | August 17, 2018 at 07:21 AM

· MMR II (Merk) vaccine had 2.671 parts per billion (ppb) of glyphosate

· DTap Adacel (Sanofi Pasteur) vaccine had 0.123 ppb of glyphosate

· Influenza Fluvirin (Novaris) 0.331 ppb of glyphosate

· HepB Energix-B (Glaxo Smith Kline) 0.325 ppb of glyphosate

· Pneumonoccal Vax Polyvalent Pneumovax 23 (Merk) had 0.107 ppb of glyphosate

Grace Green

John, I find rtp's comment about Jesus and the Hebrew scriptures very interesting. From what we know, Jesus' attitude to illness was quite different from that prevailing at the time, and probably ever since. He seemed to have more concern about the state of the "patient" than germs or infections. This in my view is a better approach than that of modern medicine. I would differ from some comments in this thread in identifying the cause of the illness as neurological rather than being in the mind (which implies emotional). Doesn't this all fit with Teresa Conrick's article today?


Thank you John, although I would have used a slightly different term than "whimsical", but Mr or Ms RTP two final comments

1 No "doctors" didn't stopped blaming Hib and instead blamed meningococcal and pneumococcal.: the identification of the organism is a laboratory based procedure based of what is cultured (grown) from the blood or CSF of the patient, so it's a lab tech who will enter the organism into the data base, they will have no idea of the vaccine status of the patient, the sample will arrive at the lab requesting "culture & (antibiotic) sensitivity"
2 Why do patients infected with antibiotic resistant organisms have so much worse clinical outcomes when the “best guess” antibiotic is administered before the antibiotic sensitivity test results are available?
RTP you really do need to wake up & smell the coffee, as they say in America
Pharmster & Cia the diphtheria toxoid vaccine provides protection against the very potent diphtheria exotoxin, enabling antibiotic treatment for the skin or respiratory mucosa infections. As to why the toxigenic strains have apparently reduced in prevalence where there is good vaccine coverage it may be that these strains are at a growth disadvantage compared to the non-toxigenic strains, (they are parasitized by a virus which codes for the toxin) a similar situation occurs with antibiotic resistant bacteria where these resistant strains tend to revert to the antibiotic sensitive “wild type” form if the selective pressure of antibiotics is with removed, but that’s just my guess as a microbiologist. 80% of the “classic” diphtheria cases occur in India and Indonesia, circulating toxigenic strains occur in countries with low vaccine coverage.

John Stone


I think it is obvious your ideas on infectious disease are whimsical - obviously a critical factor with infectious disease is poor living conditions, poor nutrition, contaminated water, poor sanitation etc. I certainly object to the idea that populations burdened with all these problems could somehow be injected to good health, but it does not mean that the problem does not exist. As to Jesus, unfortunately we only have severely edited versions of what he thought about anything assembled decades after his death.


In a sense you're correct Cia it isn't vaccines per se that you are entranced by.

It's contagious disease.

Civilizations have been petrified of it - even before germ theory.

Jesus had no interest in it but the Jewish scriptures were obsessed by it.

The Black Death and Spanish Flu were both caused *entirely* by the fear of contagious disease.

The moment you are persuaded that disease can be spread you instantly lose all reason and morality. Today it's a needle full of poison but tomorrow people could be persuaded to put their hand in a blender to prevent the spread of disease.

Sophie Scholl

Posted by: Laura Hayes | August 10, 2018 at 05:51 PM

JB Handley did the same thing in another interview (& Dr Paul Thomas).

Its all part of the tactic, to fill our ranks with leaders who could deliver a soft landing if the backlash builds to a breaking point.
We are being managed in many respects.
They taxed us to poison us. If the truth breaks, the whole authority of government is gone.

And Del Bigtree and RFK are the best I have seen all along these last 10 years.

That is why I ask over and over for you to enter the political fray. Brett Wilcox too.

Sophie Scholl

Posted by: cia parker | August 16, 2018 at 05:32 PM

I am also grateful to Stanley Plotkin.
He explained to me that the CDC-EIS was & perhaps still is actually part of the US Navy.

So vaccination is very much a part of the US military .
Vaccination has absolutely nothing to do with the promotion of anyone persons health.

Vaccination has everything to do with the decline of a persons health.
& its deliberate (& you are an apologist for these genocidal policies).



"Second is the fact that during outbreaks of diphtheria rates of disease are negligible among immunized persons."

Many people do not appear to have good or any protection.

"Diphtheria antibody level in serum samples obtained from 270 subjects aged 4–70 was measured by in vitro seroneutralization test on Vero cells. Of the studied population, 27.8% had an antibody titre below the protective level (<0.01 IU/ml). The prevalence of susceptible subjects showed a significant age-related increase (p<0.01), with the highest value (53.8%) in the 31–40 age group."

The vaccine makes you produce antibodies against the toxin not against the bacteria. It was never designed to prevent colonization or transmission. It's not a vaccine against infection.

" The vaccine does not confer absolute immunity, as people who receive the vaccine often are carriers of the disease but do not display symptoms (4)"

"In the US, toxigenic diphtheria had not been found to be circulating in national surveillance data"

So my interpretation of this is. Toxigenic strains are very rare in wealthier nations today and many people are not protected against Diphtheria despite being vaccinated. That's why I would say one of the reasons why Diphtheria is so incredibly rare today is because certain strains are not circulating anymore.

So regardless of whether or not you vaccinate you are not likely to get Diphtheria today.

The question is why did the toxigenic strains disappear? Of course the vaccinators want to take credit for that and say that a vaccine that was never designed to do something other than protecting you against a toxin has magically eliminated the bad strains and if we don't vaccinate they come back.

Is this really true? Personally I have learned to be skeptical as the history of vaccination shows they love to take credit for things they didn't do and they always find a way to deceive themselves or others to make it seem that the vaccine and only the vaccine could have been responsible for any improvement seen.

Remember the WHO, the CDC and the people who are writing those books deny that vaccines can do any significant harm to the population.

A while back I spent some time trying to figure out how a toxoid vaccine could have eliminated dangerous diphtheria strains and trying to trace the claims back I did not find much other than speculation and conjecture and some correlation= causation studies.

I don't think it's impossible that the vaccine eliminates toxic strains with some poorly understood mechanism. One idea was that the bacteria produce the toxin to damage the tissues to be able to spread in the body. Other studies argued against it. Others claimed that the bacteria disappeared due to evolutionary pressure as toxin production was no longer a survival trait but all of this is speculation and no one knows why this happened. They want to believe that it was the vaccine.

Tracing back the sources I found one single 50 year old WHO study that said we introduced the vaccine in a one country and toxins strains went away. That's the only thing I found.

Is this reliable evidence?

Knowing how the WHO lies with Polio statistics I remain skeptical.

The main argument today is that toxic diphtheria strains are common in poor countries where vaccination coverage also happens to be lower therefore it must be the vaccine that is making the difference.

Of course it could also be that poverty causes disease as low vaccination coverage.

So is it really true and certain that the Diphtheria vaccine keeps the toxic strains away from us?

I have no idea.

cia parker

I think it's good to read books from both sides of the issue. I bought Vaccines by Plotkin and Mortimer several years ago, and I respect them. Their tome is massive and scholarly, packed with solid information, my edition published in 1994 before the autism epidemic began to make itself felt. I am certain that they believed that vaccines helped children avoid untimely disease, disability, and death, and that they are sincere in what they write.
P. 51: "No controlled clinical trial, acceptable by today's scientific standards, has ever been conducted for three reasons. First, given the serious nature of the disease and the clear perception of benefit first from the toxin-antitoxin combination and subsequently from the toxoid (the vaccine), its value seemed obvious to early investigators. Second, the development of surrogate approaches to assessing immunity (the Schick test and serological methods) made such trials unnecessary. Third, the early appearance of strong presumptive evidence that the toxin-antitoxin preparation and the toxoid were effective made such trials unethical.

In spite of the lack of a controlled clinical trial, ample evidence exists that diphtheria toxoid prevents clinical disease in the vast majority of recipients and controls the disease from a public health standpoint. First is the nearly complete disappearance of the disease in countries in which immunization has been widely employed. Second is the fact that during outbreaks of diphtheria rates of disease are negligible among immunized persons. Third, when partially, or, rarely, fully-immunized individuals acquire diphtheria , the disease is milder and complications are fewer. Fourth, a good correlation has been established between clinical protection and the presence of serum antibody in the toxin, whether resulting from disease or immunization.

There is solid circumstantial evidence, too vast to review here (although they cite many studies in footnotes), that the introduction and widespread use of diphtheria toxoid immunization in populations are associated with a remarkable decline in morbidity and mortality from the disease (more studies footnoted). These temporal trends and the near disappearance of diphtheria in developed countries are far too striking to be attributed to secular fluctuations in the disease or to better therapy."

I think that developed countries no longer have diphtheria because almost everyone has received many vaccines against it. I believe that if some unknown percentage of people stop getting it for their children, that it will come back. I am against mandates, but I think everyone should think about what they would do if they had young, unvaxxed children and they read about a diphtheria outbreak in their city that was killing unvaxxed children. Would you seek out the nosode and hope it was effective? Would you get the DT or dT shot for your children and perhaps yourselves, even though you are anti-vax? Would you hope that you could get antibiotic and vitamin C treatment for your children quickly enough to often save their lives if you decide to just take your chances, remembering that diphtheria fatalities are at least 10% even with rapid hospital treatment? Do none of these and hope for the best? Any of these options is the right of every parent, but I'm sure everyone realizes that most parents would get the vaccine for themselves and their children if diphtheria made a reappearance in developed countries.

cia parker


Vaccines have no emotional sway over me. What does is reading descriptions of tetanus, diphtheria, polio, and Hib disease. You do not believe that bacteria and germs can cause serious, disabling, or fatal cases of disease, and that is your right, but I do. We discussed the other day the doctors who use a reduced vaccine schedule and have had no patients with autism. When I was a child, no one had ever heard of classic autism, nor seen it, even though all children got the DPT series (same schedule as now, it's not true to say that children then only got three shots total, as I have read in several places), the polio series, and one or two smallpox vaccines. Well, in three in 10,000 children autism occurred, apparently. As I have said, I think if you waited until two years old to get the DT series, and if you had a baby in daycare less than 18 months old, it WOULD be somewhat risky, but it might be a good idea to get the Hib series anyway starting at four months old, because while the vaccine is dangerous, Hib disease is MORE dangerous, and ever possible if the child is exposed to a lot of people. Polio if it comes back here. And no more. That is MY version of a reduced vaccine schedule, and I think it would also result in few or no cases of autism. Or get the nosodes, especially for pertussis, Hib, and pneumococcal meningitis. I like the nosode option better, but would like to see large-scale testing done with each of the nosodes. It is not accurate to say I like any vaccines or have a soft spot for them, or am emotionally attached to them. It's more that I am horrified at the images of the suffering and death of children from these diseases.

cia parker

I looked it up last night in Plotkin and Mortimer's Vaccines, second edition. P. 50. "Specifically, a strain of C. Diphtheriae that is known to produce large amounts of toxin is grown in a liquid medium conducive to toxin production." Anything injected will produce antibodies: it sounds as though the vaccine would produce antibodies to that strain of diphtheria AND to the toxins it produces. There is a lot of other information in that chapter as to why they believe that it has been shown to be very effective in preventing serious cases of diphtheria, but I've got to get ready for an SSI doctor's appointment to determine if my daughter will get SSI. I know that vaccines cause autism. I wish to God she had never gotten the hep-B vaccine at birth which I had said I didn't want her to get as I had read it often caused autism. And they did it anyway and she reacted with encephalitis and autism. The DTaP at 18 months old erased her only words, encephalitis again. I believe that if she had only gotten the DT after two years old and no others, that she would be normal and healthy today and preparing to go to college next year. I am not pro-vax. But it is also true that I don't want my daughter to be disabled or killed by a contagious or infectious disease. I think you have to research it and try to find a path which you have reason to believe will very likely protect against both eventualities.


Greg and that's what makes me different.

I never had this feeling. In 30 seconds I went from "vaccines are good because germ theory is good" to "vaccines are bad because germ theory is wrong".

The moment I put 30 seconds thought into it I was instantly 100% certain no vaccine could possibly work.

Which is why people like Cia frustrate me. Vaccines never had any emotional sway over me. But clearly they do over so many - including people often labelled as anti vaxers.

Sophie Scholl

Fahrenheit 451 (Infowars)
2018 ‧ Drama/Science fiction film ‧ 1h 41m

In a future society where books are banned and burned, a fireman begins to read in secret and discovers an underground rebellion committed to protecting literature.
Initial release: 19 May 2018 (USA)

Sophie Scholl

Pharma is plotting and planning the whole time.

The ringleaders know the magnitude of their crime (Plotkin-Offit).

Their plans involve various strategies driven by the education of the masses on vaccination.

1. Force vaccination through law on everyone and exterminate the 95% (Turnbulls - now Israel too)
2. Plan an exit strategy in the event the resistance becomes too strong (a soft landing) - it never happened that way, it was all a tragic accident, manage the narrative.
3. African clearances & the theft of the land\resources (& everyone else too by the looks of it)
4. Lockdown of the internet (to stop the spread of the education - burning of the books 1939-45)

And then there is my plan

1. A hard landing, where those responsible for this CAH are held accountable in their lifetimes (not in history books) - and where their families name is sullied for their crimes.
2. Show trials , Nuremberg style but nobody gets off lightly this time.

Laura Hayes - please try to go into politics. Please find a way.



"don't agree with your premises. The vaccine used prevents the toxin-producing strain of diphtheria."

Does it protect you from the toxin or does it prevent the toxin-producing strain?
There is a difference between these two.


Thanks everyone for making your positions clear on vaccine mandates. I am heartened that the consensus at a minium is the attitude that it's an abomination for government to dictate what medicine we can or cannot put in our or our kids' bodies. Yes, I fully agree that governments should get out of the business of recommending vaccines. David, I agree wholeheartedly wth you -- let vaccines prove their mettle in a free market system, where just like any other product they're not shielded by any special liability waivers. Let's face it, if vaccines cannot survive in a free market system, this is the ultimate measure of their worth, and not any personal endearment that may be held for them.

Laura, your position that there should be a moratorium on vaccines, and take that no other product would be permitted to cause such carnage has caused me some unsettledness. The truth is, I fully agree with you, but I am still tepid about calling for an outright ban on vaccines. Even worse - I dont"t know why!

I remember attending a screening of Vaxxed in my city, and listening to the discussion after as Andrew Wakefield went over the demands they were making of the Government and CDC. As he spoke, Andrew rather chagrimly stopped himself and asked why does it feel weird, even sacrilegious to question vaccines in such ways. The audience would acknowledge his feelings. It was quite a revealing experience that taught me even Andy is swayed by the power of the vaccination faith.

cia parker


don't agree with your premises. The vaccine used prevents the toxin-producing strain of diphtheria. No case of diphtheria has been reported in the US for many years because nearly everyone has received many doses of the vaccine, and it has been enough to keep the disease from reappearing. There is disagreement about whether the epidemic in Russia was caused by the vaccine which everyone had gotten wearing off or not. Clearly the hunger, cold, and social breakdown were contributing factors. But a massive vaccination campaign stopped the occurrence of diphtheria there.

Wendy Lydall's charts on disease incidence from the UK government tables show that in 1900 there were 9,000 deaths from diphtheria in the UK. 1870 was the peak for pertussis, 18,000 deaths from it in the UK that year. The peak for scarlet fever deaths was also in 1870, 32,000 deaths. She doesn't have a chart for measles. It was Jamie Murphy in What Every Parent Should Know About Childhood Vaccines who said that diphtheria, pertussis, scarlet fever, and measles were the leading contagious diseases which killed children. I'll find the quotation later. But looking at figures like 32,000 deaths a year, 18,000 deaths a year, you can see why parents welcomed vaccines when they were introduced. (They tried a scarlet fever vaccine, several I think, but they were very dangerous and never routinely given.)



"The diphtheria germs are ubiquitous, but there is close to no clinical diphtheria in First World countries because the vaccine blocks the effects of the toxin produced when it is contracted. If no one vaxxed, the disease would come back in the First World. "

From my understanding this is not true. We all are exposed to Diphtheria germs or carry them but they are not disease causing strains that produce toxins. The toxins strains are very rare today. So I doubt that the fact that Diphtheria is rare today is just because of the toxin blocking effect of the vaccine which probably doesn't always work.

I don't think there is much credible evidence that the vaccine keeps the toxins strains in check?

"But does anyone think that it's all right for poor children to die of diphtheria who would not have died if they lived in better socio-economic conditions?"

Who says this? This is what vaccine promoters would say. If diphtheria is endemic and the disease is worse than the vaccine why not vaccinate? We are talking about the western world here?

"It's easy to google the diphtheria epidemic in the ex-Soviet Union for further details. There is no doubt that it happened, nor that it was really diphtheria, and it killed 5,000 people."

There is no doubt that it happened but how do you know that it was caused by not vaccinating?
Seems like an assertion that one can't prove?
Many different things changed at that time. (Socio-economic breakdown)

Most of the population and many people who got it were vaccinated? How could non-vaccinating of children could have made them ill? It does not even make any sense?

" The four leading causes of deaths from contagious disease in the First World in 1900, were diphtheria, pertussis, scarlet fever, and measles."

As far as I know the leading causes were pneumonia, tuberculosis and intestinal infections which were all eliminated without vaccines.

David Weiner

I am less familiar with the situation for pet vaccines. I know that they are being harmed from vaccines, but perhaps there is justification for, say, infrequent rabies vaccination. I can't say for sure. But here too, there should be openness to other ways to protect pets. We need to make a habit of thinking outside the vaccine box, because that is the prison that we are stuck in.

cia parker

David Burd,

I don't think it's fair to say that J.B. is half-hearted. I think that, like me, he is aware of the dangers of the diseases, and in the case of a disease that is possible to get in a certain area and very dangerous, then you have to consider the vaccines available to prevent it. Of course taking into consideration how effective the vaccine usually is and how dangerous, but even after you do that, you may still reasonably believe that the vaccine is less dangerous than the disease in your particular case. I don't think it's reasonable to take an all-or-nothing approach.


It's not that I'm somewhat warm toward vaccines, but I'm looking at both sides. I'm completely against the MMR, Prevnar, meningococcal vaccines, hep-A, varicella, rotavirus, HPV, hep-B for healthy children, the pertussis vaccine, and the flu vaccine. And I recognize that there are a certain number of people, even many, people, who get and die of these diseases. Doesn't that make me somewhat cold toward vaccines? I have given my reasons for being cautiously in favor of the DT series after two, the Hib vaccine for babies between four and eighteen months old who are in daycare, and the polio vaccine only if it comes back. I think it would be irresponsible to not consider in the case of those very dangerous diseases that vaccines are a usually effective way to prevent them, even though they do have dangers.

David Weiner


I would say that most if not all vaccination in the current environment IS a crime, because there is no real informed consent. Under these circumstances, it should be considered fraudulent and medical assault, both of which are crimes.

If there were true informed consent, then I do not think that vaccination would be a criminal act, but I think that there would be little compliance either. I don't think we will ever get reliable and complete information on vaccines as long as governments consider it their job to promote vaccination.

cia parker

I'm still troubled about vaccine mandates for daycare. I'm against mandates. But what happens if a year-old baby is in daycare, unvaxxed, comes down with Hib disease, and three other children in his group get Hib disease the following week, and two of them die of it? I'm still thinking about what my position is or should be. What if it were proven by the time frame and the analysis of the bacterium involved that Unvaxxed Child A definitely gave Hib disease to the other children because he was unvaxxed? What if the children who got it and died were only six weeks old and couldn't have gotten the vaccine, even if it might have protected them at that young age? I'm not sure it could, but I'm sure you can see my point. I'm conflicted. Again, I'm against mandates, but what happens when parental choice causes the death of others? You might say That's life, and Parents should do everything possible to keep their children out of daycare, and if daycare causes illness, then that was only to be expected. I'm still thinking about it. Would different rooms for young babies, vaxxed children, and for unvaxxed children be appropriate? Masks and gloves when advisable?

Laura Hayes

Below is a comment I just posted elsewhere. Seems relevant to the discussion here:

"Questions to consider and ask oneself:

How many more billions of people must be injured and killed by vaccines until you are willing to say no more vaccines (or at a bare minimum, to demand no more vaccine mandates)?

How many more years do you want to be fighting for unfettered medical choice freedom, a battle which will always exist in the presence of vaccine mandates?

How many of your children and grandchildren, not to mention yourselves, do you want to be excluded from participation in society, detained, imprisoned, and have children removed from your/their care (then vaccinated) for vaccine refusal before you are ready to demand a forever ban on vaccine mandates, followed by a moratorium on vaccines, since not one has ever been approved properly or ethically?

If this were anything other than vaccines (e.g. tainted food, faulty tires, carcinogenic herbicide, dangerous crib, sex trafficker, child molester, serial killer, etc.), would your stance be guarded to the point of not eliminating the danger, and/or to not banning the mandate that you be subject to the danger?


cia parker

David Weiner,

I agree that government should not be involved in mandating vaccines. And I'm in favor of independent testing of vaccine safety. But the problem would still remain that vaccines are by their very nature dangerous, and that problem could never be completely overcome. But I think parents should be able to get them if they want them. I'm not sure what to say if the parent wants a vaccine that some feel could be made safer than it is, if reasonable people could differ in their opinion. I, for instance, would take the DT vaccine which is on offer if I were raising a young child. I think it is safe enough for me, even though it has aluminum, etc. I would just be careful to not get the whole range of recommended vaccines. I do recognize that aluminum in vaccines is dangerous, but, in my opinion, diphtheria and tetanus are usually MORE dangerous.

As far as I know, the only preventives are vaccines and homeopathic nosodes, which ARE very effective, and this persecution of homeopathy should stop and its merits publicized. I am completely in favor of herbs, vitamins, and homeopathic remedies being used as treatment, and antibiotics in the case of a serious bacterial infection.

I don't think we are even speaking the same language. I'll just have to say that I don't think that a rash behind the elbows or knees obviously means that the child wants someone to hug him.

Laura Hayes


To clarify my position, I am vehemently opposed to vaccine mandates. They violate fundamental human rights, they violate parental rights, they cannot exist in a free society, they destroy the corrective actions of a free market, they make informed consent and the practice of ethical medicine impossible, and they ensure bribery and corruption. Most importantly, the banning of vaccine mandates is the only sure way an individual can protect oneself, and one's children, from the known, and unknown, dangers of vaccines.

In addition to the banning of vaccine mandates (and all medical mandates), I support the immediate and full return of individual and parental rights with regard to medical decision making, without government interference, coercion, cost, or penalty. I also support the immediate repeal of the 1986 Act, and an immediate return of liability to its rightful owners, i.e. those who manufacture and administer vaccines (and we might be wise to add those who regulate them).

Lastly, I support an immediate moratorium on each and every vaccine as not one has come to market properly or ethically. As I have said before, permitting vaccines to remain on the market and in use is no different than it would be to continue to permit:

- Pintos that explode upon impact 
- Thalidomide for pregnant women which causes severe birth defects and miscarriages 
- Lead-laden water in Flint, MI which causes brain damage to those who consume it

At this point in time, vaccines have no right to be on the menu of choices. Period. Until a moratorium on vaccines is instituted, an immediate, and forever, ban on vaccine mandates is the only way one can maintain the ability to protect oneself and one's children from vaccine-induced harm and death.

cia parker


I am against forced vaccination. Regarding babies over four months old in daycare who have not gotten the Hib vaccine, I guess there are several options. The first and mandatory requirement would be educating parents on the facts about Hib disease and the vaccine, with information as complete and up-to-date as possible. And then require separate facilities, maybe just separate rooms, for babies in daycare between four and eighteen months old whose parents refused one or more vaccines recommended for daycare. Certainly separate facilities or temporarily barring from daycare children with any symptoms of respiratory disease. That would be fine with me, as long as everyone were aware of all the facts known. For older children I'm against all mandates. Tetanus is not contagious, so lack of vaccination would only affect that person.

I'll be interested in seeing whether or not Laura and David would be in favor of making all vaccination a crime. Even if polio or diphtheria, or Hib disease, comes back? For pets as well? No more rabies or distemper vaccines? Yes, overvaccination of pets is a serious and deadly problem, but minimal vaccination of puppies and kittens I think is a good idea. Rabies and distemper (and parvo) are extremely serious diseases, and they are nearly always successfully prevented by vaccines.


I said the other day that diphtheria came back in the collapse of the Soviet Union largely because of the poverty and misery at that time: hunger, cold, homelessness, and alcoholism are what I mentioned. So I certainly recognize that socio-economic factors were significant. Doubtless in the Indian tribe which had every male baby under two years old die of diphtheria that I mentioned: I was shocked at the poverty on the Indian reservations which I visited with my father. But does anyone think that it's all right for poor children to die of diphtheria who would not have died if they lived in better socio-economic conditions? Will the time ever come when no one has a baby anywhere in the world unless they are well-off financially?

One of my favorite authors on vaccines, Wendy Lydall, in Raising a Vaccine-Free Child, on p. 69 gives a chart with deaths in the UK from diphtheria from 1866 to 1954, with a mark showing where the diphtheria vaccine was introduced in 1940 (it was introduced in the US in the '20s). There were 3,000 deaths from diphtheria in 1866, going up rapidly to peak at 9,000 a year between 1890 and 1902. And then it plummeted, even though there was no vaccine yet. About 3,500 a year in the late '30s. 2,500 a year in 1940 (2,480 deaths reported in the UK in 1940), when the diphtheria vaccine was introduced. Then plummeting to close to zero by 1954, by which time the universal use of the DPT almost wiped it out.

Lydall believes that the drop was due to the natural life cycle of the pathogen more than to the vaccine. She says, p. 69,: "The idea that nutrition and hygiene made diphtheria decline is also without foundation. A look at the history of infectious diseases shows that nutrition and hygiene are irrelevant to the coming and going of germs. A hygienic lifestyle protects from waterborne diseases like cholera and typhoid, but it offers no protection against an airborne disease like diphtheria. Being malnourished does make a person more susceptible to a germ if the germ comes along, but what a person eats and how much each person eats, does not make germs enter or leave the environment.

"If the hygienists are correct, then the rise of diphtheria in Britain during the last century would have been caused by poverty and unsanitary living conditions. Living conditions in the cities had been very bad from the time of the industrial revolution, and the importation of wheat from North America caused more country folk to become destitute and to head for the cities. So there was a rise in the number of severely malnourished and poorly housed people during the last part of the 19th century. Before declaring that this was the reason why the incidence of diphtheria rose at that time, we should ask ourselves why deaths from whooping cough (pertussis) and from scarlet fever were dropping sharply at the same time. Sometimes there is a coincidental correlation between the rise and fall of airborne infectious diseases and the worsening or improvement of human living conditions, but overall there is no correlation."

I agree with Wendy partially, but not entirely. Pertussis cases peak worldwide about every three and a half years, give or take. It's just the nature of the disease. Interesting that deaths from scarlet fever and pertussis were plummeting at the same time that diphtheria deaths were increasing. But it's also true that mortality is much more common when poorly-housed, malnourished people contract the disease when it's in the environment. And Wendy recognized that malnutrition plays a role in the outcome. The diphtheria germs are ubiquitous, but there is close to no clinical diphtheria in First World countries because the vaccine blocks the effects of the toxin produced when it is contracted. If no one vaxxed, the disease would come back in the First World. Parents should be free to take or reject the DT series (after two years old, unless there is a diphtheria outbreak in the area). They might say that their child is so well-nourished and healthy that they're sure he could come through a case of diphtheria all right, and they might or might not be right. Their choice, but they own the outcome, whichever it is.


I just googled the history of diphtheria as a disease, and found this: " Diphtheria was first described by Hippocrates in the fifth century BC, and throughout history diphtheria has been a leading cause of death, primarily among children. The diphtheria bacterium was first identified in the 1880s by F. Loeffler, and the antitoxin against diphtheria was later developed in the 1890s. The development of the first diphtheria toxoid vaccine occurred in the 1920s, and its subsequent widespread use led to a dramatic decrease of diphtheria worldwide.
Though the implementation of vaccination programs has significantly decreased the incidence of diphtheria, serious outbreaks may still occur when vaccination rates wane. One such outbreak occurred in the 1990s in the Russian Federation and the Newly Independent States of the former Soviet Union, in which the World Health Organization (WHO) reported more than 157,000 cases and 5,000 deaths. Though still endemic in many parts of the world, respiratory diphtheria in the United States is currently a rare disease that has largely been eliminated through effective vaccination programs. "

Diphtheria was a leading cause of death, especially among children, for at least 2,500 years. While toxins in the environment are not good for anyone, I don't think they are the cause of diphtheria outbreaks. The four leading causes of deaths from contagious disease in the First World in 1900, were diphtheria, pertussis, scarlet fever, and measles. Pertussis and measles evolved independently to become a lot less contagious. Scarlet fever also became attenuated, the related disease strep throat is still common, but scarlet fever is not in the US at this time. It has reappeared in the UK, though, and Mike Stevens son had it last year. Diphtheria has been controlled, largely by the vaccine. Again, parents should be free to take or refuse the vaccine, but they should be aware of what a dangerous, often disabling or fatal, disease it is even now.

David Burd,

Eindeker was right when he said that at its peak in the '80s, Hib disease killed 900 people a year. I had read about 1,000 a year. Are you saying that you believe that aluminum in the Hib and other vaccines is causing comparable rates of death and disability, so that the deaths of 900 babies a year is acceptable? I agree that it is very dangerous, and we are drinking Fiji water and taking magnesium malate and glycine to try to chelate it out. I'm not saying that aluminum in vaccines is safe. But I also believe that if a baby in daycare got only the Hib vaccine series after four months old (not needed after eighteen months old), that in most cases he could handle the vaccine all right and also not contract a clinical case of Hib disease. I don't recommend any other vaccines for infants, only the DT series after two years old, and the polio series only if it comes back here.

Dr. Thomas said: "In 2014 there were 28,000 cases of invasive pneumococcal disease a year in the US, with just under 2,000 of them in children under five." He adds that when babies and small children get a serious case of this disease, it's often done severe damage by the time the parent gets them to a doctor.
"Before routine use of pneumococcal conjugate vaccine, the burden of pneumococcal disease among children younger than 5 years of age was significant. An estimated 17,000 cases of invasive disease occurred each year, of which 13,000 were bacteremia without a known site of infection and about 700 were meningitis. An estimated 200 children died every year as a result of invasive pneumococcal disease. Although not considered invasive disease, an estimated 5 million cases of acute otitis media occured each year among children younger than 5 years of age."

So yes, pneumococcal disease can be severe, even deadly. But it has not replaced Hib disease in terms of deadliness: in 2014 there were about 200 deaths a year from it, in contrast to 1,000 deaths from Hib disease. In my opinion, that might warrant the Hib vaccine, but not Prevnar, but that's just my personal judgment.

Same with meningococcal disease: " It is estimated that, annually, there are between 150 and 300 meningococcal deaths in the U.S.,7 with an average of 16 babies under age 12 months dying from the disease8 Children under age two are less likely to die from meningococcal infection compared to older age groups.9"

It's easy to google the diphtheria epidemic in the ex-Soviet Union for further details. There is no doubt that it happened, nor that it was really diphtheria, and it killed 5,000 people.

David Weiner


My position is that our governments should not play any role whatsoever in relation to vaccines, other than allowing plaintiffs to sue for liability in the court system.

Just because I say, for example, that there should be no vaccine schedule, does not necessarily mean that no vaccines should be on the market. If one or more of them can obtain private certification and can be safe enough that their liability insurance is not so expensive as to make the vaccine cost prohibitive, then they should be available for use. Needless to say, FDA licensing has been completely inadequate and should not have any bearing on the availability of vaccines.

There should be a free market in approaches for protecting against serious harm from infectious diseases. ALL (current and future) approaches should be allowed to openly compete with one another. More than anything, we need to rid of ourselves of the numerous government monopolies here which have wreaked so much havoc.

I have laid out my position in more detail in this article.


Cia, rtp, Laura, David, and others, if I could assist this discussion, I think what needs to be clarifiedis not how effective or useless we feel vaccines are, but our stance on their recommendation. We might find that we disagree on how safe and effective they are, but agree on how they should be pushed or not pushed.

Cia, as an antivaxxer who is still somewhat warm to vaccines, are you still open to government commendation programs, but with the choice of opting out via obtaining exemptions? For antivaxxers who see vaccines for the most part as dangerous and ineffective, but, nevertheless, entertain the possibility than on occasions they may serve a purpose, are you calling for the maintenance of a vaccination program, but one that you opt into to? Finally, for the true harcores such as David and Laura, are you in favour of abolishing the vaccination program entirely , to the extent we make it a crime to take vaccines, much like illicit drugs?


cia, I am not against protecting children from infectious diseases using vaccinations but I wonder how reliable the statistics that you present are?

Vaccination statistics are often very deceptive and misleading.

Virtually no one dies from Tetanus anymore and there must be a significant number of people that are not vaccinated against it so that must mean that today Tetanus is very rare even among the unvaccinated. Tetanus cases must have declined for reasons that are not just related to the vaccine.

Your diphtheria example in the soviet union does not make any sense to me. It was not a controlled experiment. How do we know that no other factors (socio-economic breakdown) caused it?

You said that many middle-aged were affected, that should have been vaccinated so that does not make any sense that it was just due to not vaccinating.

You said that the Polio vaccine wiped out Polio but they tried to repeat that experiment in India and it appears that the number of children getting paralyzed from a disease identical to Polio and dying is now higher than ever. It seems more like they have renamed paralysis cases they have certainly not wiped out anything.

Regarding the Hib, did the total number of cases dying due to Meningitis(of any cause) decline more than you would expect from improved medical care?

One thing to keep in mind is that doctors always introduce bias because they refuse to diagnose disease in the vaccinated and will always assume that it is caused by the disease a person was not vaccinated for. This leads to diseases being renamed while the health outcomes remain the same and you get very misleading statistics.


we have the same number of meningitis cases as before. Doesn't look like the vaccines saved us from meningitis?

Any thoughts on this?

Hans Litten

Posted by: cia parker | August 14, 2018 at 04:21 PM

On the latest Bigtree episode there was a discussion on food additives classified as GRAS
Generally Recognised As Safe

I propose a new acronym for vaccines.
Vaccines are G.R.E.A.T

Generally Recognised Everywhere As TOXIC


CIA Parker, I know you think you are thinking this through; Lordy knows it took me long enough to come around to what I think and by the time I did it was a staggering 27 years.

First of all it is all about the environment and not so much about the pathogen.
Is that a fair statement?

We had a virus infect the diphtheria bacteria and gave it extra genes to produce the toxin that causes the leathery covering over the wind pipe of humans in spades, making it far more deadly than it was normally. Where did that virus come from? When did this disease become such a killer? Was it during a time when horses and manure filled the streets?

Are you living in some slum, with trash heaped up in the near by river that is used for bathing, sewer, drinking and washing laundry, or in the suburbs with hydrogen peroxide, and antibiotics.

The main point; The point that you all miss, all the time; drum roll here: that vaccines are being manufactured by companies that don't have to worry one bit about the safety of their product. You think they care? You think they wouldn't throw in as much aluminum to set your immune system and brain on fire and destroy your life. Who do you think made the flu shot a yearly - that is every year mandated for little kids and it has mercury in it?

My gosh they can't even be trusted to make motrin and Tylenol.


"Before the introduction of the Hib vaccine, about 20,000 children in the United States under 5 years old contracted Hib disease each year, and about 3%–6% of them died. Since the use of the Hib vaccine began, the number of cases of invasive Hib disease has decreased by more than 99%."

That's because doctors stopped blaming Hib and instead blamed meningococcal and pneumococcal.

In fact, rates of invasive diseases in Australia have almost doubled since the Hib vaccine.

The vaccine is useless and dangerous.

Like all vaccines.


“Every virus is different. The immune system knows how to best expel the particular one from the body.”

This gets better and better.

“Cold and flu germs are mainly expelled in mucus and coughed out or blown out of the nose.”

Oh are they now?

“Other viruses are expelled through vomiting or diarrhea. Others pushed out through the skin in a rash. Many by several of these routes. Rashes are caused by the mind? Your evidence for that?”

I already told you. If they were caused by your processes then rashes would be distributed randomly (evenly) around the body. Why would a rash present behind the knees and inside the elbows (as they do for some patients)?

Clearly the issue is that the child misses embracing the loved one (probably a parent).

“Stress in itself doesn't cause rashes, but it weakens the immune system so that different pathogens can become active and cause symptoms such as rashes.”

Oh yes thanks for bringing this up.

You see, the germ theory is a mathematical impossibility. Let’s say that most of the time our immune system is powerful enough to hold all the outside pathogens at bay, well what happens when one pathogen is able to evade the immune system enough to make us sick?

Well clearly that means that our immune system is already weakened and the number of pathogens in our body is greater.

As the number of pathogens continues to increase, the immune system is increasingly exhausted.

But it wasn’t strong enough to prevent the initial infection (when the no of pathogens was less and the immune system was at full capacity) so clearly it has no hope of fighting off the infection now – when there are more pathogens and less immune system capability.

Therefore, recovery is literally impossible. And that is just from that pathogen alone – of course in reality our immune system would be susceptible to all the other pathogens that it had been keeping at bay.

So again, germ theory is a mathematical impossibility.

“I got eczema for the first time in 2009 when I was under stress, an itchy red patch on my wrist. Eczema can be an autoimmune disease, often triggered by vaccines, but it involves a mistaken identification by the immune system of its own systems as a foreign pathogen. Not caused by the mind, but the stress involved weakens the immune system so that it can appear.”

You’ve convinced me. Rashes are definitely not caused by trauma because you once had a rash that was definitely caused by trauma.

“The vast majority of children now do not get either chickenpox or impetigo”

Impetigo is not a notifiable disease so I have no idea how you think you know it hardly ever happens. We literally have zero data on it.

“With chickenpox the entire body is covered with bumps for at least a week, in my daughter's case two.”

No it isn’t.

It is very different for different people.

“And it's nearly always only once in life.”

Even if that were remotely true and not just a self-fulfilling prophecy it still wouldn’t provide evidence of immunity. Most people don’t break their femurs more than once – it doesn’t follow they have immunity.

“Shingled is more localized. My friend had classic shingles, a line of lesions around half of her waist, herpes zoster (zoster means belt).”

Yes. More proof that rashes are caused by the mind. How on earth does your shingles virus know right from left?

It doesn’t of course. Viruses cannot possibly cause such a thing.

Do you know something that does have a right and left?

The human mind.

“I had impetigo when I was nine, a large lesion on my face that lasted several weeks. It was nothing at all like chickenpox.”

I love how you think that every single chickenpox diagnosis in history has presented exactly the same way as every other.

Hint: they don’t. Not even close.

“They have identified the chickenpox virus,”

You seem to think that peering down a microscope and seeing some piece of biological detritus is the equivalent of proving that the virus causes the disease.

It isn’t.

“and they know that once contracted it stays in the body for life, usually stored at the base of the spinal column.”

You do realise that this simply proves that there is no such thing as immunity don’t you? If viruses “infect” us persistently then we clearly never fight them off and we therefore never learn how to fight them off. Indeed, the whole idea of immunity becomes obsolete (and infection too for that matter).

“I simply don't agree with you.”

I can see that.

“Your explanations do not make sense to me, while germ theory does.”

No. One is consistent with what everybody around you has always told you. It’s amazing what nonsense we can believe in when everybody else around you is doing likewise.

If germ theory actually made sense to you then you would *never* visit a doctor office.

“Is your theory for bubonic plague the same, that the fleas on rats didn't really carry it and disseminate it, that millions of people in Europe all got it around the same time as it spread from town to town, killing thousands everywhere it went?”

People were scared of contagious disease (it was a military trick). There was no contagious disease but the fear was very real. They whipped people, they starved people, they gave them glass to eat, they rubbed faeces into their wounds, they lived in sewers, they burnt people.

The sum total of all that was tens of millions of dead people.

The sum total of people who died from a bacteria was zero.

The characteristic symptoms of bubonic plague were nothing more than leprosy which had always been around (and became smallpox) and, as I said, there was a military strategy to get people to believe it was contagious.

It worked.

Too well.

All of this was exacerbated because at the same time there was a mini Ice Age and many people would have died from famine anyway.

Did people have sores? Sure. Some. Not all. Did any of them die because of bacteria? No. Well, other than people who died from sepsis from having faeces smeared into their wounds.

“During the Spanish flu many towns put up signs preventing ANYONE from entering the town, and doing that kept the flu from infecting anyone in those communities.”

If the isolation included being away from doctors and their vaccines and treatments it would have been an excellent way of avoiding the disease.


I'm shocked Eindecker!

Shocked I tells ya that your entire post was either appeals to authority or poisoning the well.

Sorry. My mistake. You also said this:

"Oh yes doctors’ surgeries can be dangerous places for the unvaccinated as the unfortunate parents of a German baby who contracted measles (too young to have been vaccinated) from an unvaccinated child taken to the clinic with measles, tragically the baby died of measles."

What a remarkable comment. Unvaccinated babies are supposed to visit doctors all the time to get their shots. So here you are admitting that such a behaviour is extremely dangerous and should never be done!

At any rate, you have no evidence that the child a) caught measles from the unvaxed child; or b) died from measles.

Wild guess don't count as evidence by the way.

Now, do you have any *actual* arguments as to why your precious germ theory is valid?

In particular, please provide an explanation as to why anybody would visit - let alone become - a doctor if germs were so dangerous.

cia parker

Eindeker is right. It is important to not turn our backs on those who were disabled or killed by the diseases: they were precious human lives as much as our vaccine-damaged children are. Even though it makes the choice harder, justice and wisdom demand that we give credit where credit is due. Hib disease wasn't a big problem before the DPT vaccine suppressed immune function from 1948 on. Antibiotics were successful in treating it when it occurred with increasing frequency until it had quadrupled in incidence in 1968 from what it had been in 1940. Then antibiotics became less effective, until by the mid-'80s, Hib disease (not just meningitis) had become a very great problem, and one in a thousand babies was dying of it, many of the others with Hib disease "only" getting deafness or mental disability on recovering from the disease. Then the vaccine came into general use, and the disease almost completely disappeared in just a few years. It was a triumph of modern medicine. And YES it has caused the modern peanut allergy epidemic, but when I looked it up, it was a tiny number dying of peanut allergy compared to the number who used to die from Hib disease. Of COURSE parents should be able to take it or refuse it, but I think it's reasonable to require it for daycare under the circumstances. I would NOT get it for my daughter if I had it to do over again (as it was I allowed three, but refused the fourth), but she was breastfed and cared for at home, not in daycare.

Dr. Sears says in the second edition of The Vaccine Book, p. 5: "Before the vaccine came into use in the mid-1980s, there were about 20,000 cases of serious Hib infections each year in the US. Now we have only about 25 cases each year, almost all occurring in children under age five and most in the first two years." That's a LOT of serious cases of a very serious disease, with 10% fatality, 25% deafness and 25% mental disability. In the book Whole Child, Healthy Child, Dr. Russ Greenfield says, p. 25: "As a young doctor training in the ER, Dr. Russ used to see many cases of bacterial meningitis, an inflammation of the brain and spinal cord, caused by Haemophilus influenza. He was shocked by how quickly this form of meningitis attacked; it could lay previously healthy children so low so fast that they suffered terrible consequences if antibiotics were not administered immediately. Thanks to the vaccine, it's now uncommon for an emergency department doctor to see Hib meningitis." Aviva Jill Romm says in Vaccinations, p. 81: "In 1984, at least 20,000 cases of invasive disease occurred in the US, with approximately 12,000 of those resulting in meningitis. (NB: the other types of Hib disease are also very serious and often fatal). These rates are the highest ever recorded. It is important to note that the disease has increased at least fourfold since 1946. This is primarily attributed to the organism's having become antibiotic-resistant. ..Neurological complications include hearing loss, language delay or problems, learning disabilities, retardation, seizure disorders, and vision problems. Other complications include pneumonia, pericarditis, abscesses, septic arthritis, cellulitis, bacteremia, and epiglottitis. Dr. Randall Neustaedter in The Vaccine Guide, p. 186, says: "The estimated incidence of Hib meningitis was about 12,000 cases per year prior to licensing of Hib vaccines., plus an additional 7,500 cases of invasive disease (heart, lungs, etc.). ..In 1995, five years after the vaccine became available for all infants, the total reported incidence of invasive disease was 1,300 cases. This 98% drop (NB: in only five years after the vaccine) has been attributed to the vaccine campaign. ..Children under six months are protected by maternal antibodies (NB: that's why I recommend the vaccine only after four months old for babies in daycare), and breastfeeding reduces incidence rates... The longer the duration of breastfeeding, the lower the risk of meningitis. The risk decreases for each additional week of breastfeeding. (Silverdal)

Dr. Thomas says in his book The Vaccine-Friendly Plan," p. 126: "Postvaccine follow-up studies have shown a 71% decrease in Hib disease in under-five-year olds from 1989 to 1991, and an 82% decrease in HIb meningitis between 1985 and 1991. The vaccine alone is believed to have prevented more than ten thousand cases of meningitis. In 2011 in the US, there were only fourteen cases of serious Hib disease s a year, and fewer than 250 non-type B or unknown types of Haemophilus influenza invasive disease respectively.

As I mentioned in the introduction, this vaccine was introduced in my training in the late 1980s, and we saw an immediate significant drop in the numbers of children with meningitis and serious Haemophilus infections like epiglottitis and sepsis. A child with suspected epiglottitis who was often drooling and unable to swallow would be rushed to the OR, where X-rays were taken and the airway stabilized by intubation. Once a weekly occurrence, epiglottitis is a condition basically unfamiliar to younger doctors who have trained since the vaccine was introduced. Had you walked the floors of Valley Medical Center or Fresno Children's Hospital before then, you would have seen several young children with severe meningitis, many of whom would not be neurologically normal if they survived the infection. These are infections of the past, a testament to a successful vaccine."

For these reasons, I think those who are against all vaccines ever, for anyone, should not deny the very high numbers of children who used to suffer and often die or be disabled by the Hib diseases. The first vaccine was introduced in the mid-'80s, but only for children over two, who were not the group most in danger. The vaccine series for infants was introduced in 1990, and it IMMEDIATELY started drastically reducing the incidence of invasive Hib disease, until in just a few years, Hib disease almost disappeared. On Dr. Sears' chart on p. 192 of numbers of those hospitalized each year as of 2010 for all the VPDs, only 25 were hospitalized with Hib disease. That is astounding.

Again, I KNOW how dangerous vaccines often are, I totally agree. But again, I think the danger is primarily from the hep-B vaccine, especially for newborns, the pertussis vaccine, the flu and MMR vaccines, and the sheer number of vaccines routinely given. Several doctors have reported NO autism in those who followed their reduced schedules. I AGREE that as few vaccines as possible should be given. But SURELY no one would want to go back to the many thousands of babies killed or disabled by Hib disease every year before the vaccine. And to avoid that, the only choices are caring for babies at home and nurse them until self-weaning, or at least 18 months at any rate, or the vaccine for those who have to be in daycare. Or the nosode, but I haven't read anything about its success rate in preventing Hib, so I can't swear to it.

david m burd


You claim before the Hib vaccine 4 1/2% (3 to 6 %) of 20,000 toddlers/kids having Hib disease die (from an age cohort of 20 million kids, the age group you cite, comprising birth to 5 years old) -- that comes to 900 deaths per year. Are you aware that the most used Hib vaccine called PedvaxHIB having neurotoxic Aluminum (Aluminum hydroxphosphate Sulfate) has most certainly caused irreparable damage to these 20 million? Clearly, you have no comprehension about the damage caused by such as the Hib vaccine.


I wouldn't be too quick to view as a credible source of information, given the above article's info. (and others I have found online). I REALLY tire of folks listing Snopes as some sort of holy grail re fact checking.

Lengthy article, above, but well worth the read...


Pharmster I suggest you read a slightly more critical view of Tetyana Obukhanych's speculation it doesn't hold up to the actual evidence

but non-type-B outbreaks primarily affect older adult populations and have limited relevance to a schoolyard scenario. What is clear is that vaccination against type-B influenzae has greatly affected “the safety of public spaces.” Before the introduction of the Hib vaccine, about 20,000 children in the United States under 5 years old contracted Hib disease each year, and about 3%–6% of them died. Since the use of the Hib vaccine began, the number of cases of invasive Hib disease has decreased by more than 99%.

cia parker


I read the description of the book you recommended on Amazon. And I agree that every vaccine does at least some harm, often major harm, even kills or disables. Agree that the drug companies are greedy and often dishonest. BUT it's also true that most vaccines do prevent the diseases vaccinated for. BOTH are true. So the parent (or adult) has to study both sides carefully before getting any vaccine, and realize that there are no guarantees either way, but he or she still has to choose. Many thousands of people are alive today because they got the tetanus, diphtheria, Hib, or polio vaccines, which PREVENTED them from getting diseases which otherwise would have disabled or killed them. And in those cases, minor vaccine damage was worth the price of survival. It is not in my power to say whether or not different disabilities are so bad that death from VPDs would have been preferable. And I don't think many parents even think "I'd rather he DIED than develop ***." Of course you can't put your finger on them individually in most cases; you have to look at the rates of disease incidence and sequelae statistically before and after the vaccines were introduced. There are other factors to consider which we have already discussed, but that's the bottom line.

BOTH are true. Parents have to realize that and do the best they can to get the fewest number of vaccines, while trying to protect their children from the most viable threats to their life and health. But I'm not going to say that because every vaccine is dangerous to some degree (usually slight: look at everyone around you at any moment), I don't care if my child gets TETANUS or HIB DISEASE or DIPHTHERIA!, even THAT is better than getting even a single vaccine!

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)