IACC Deaf on Critical Vaccine Research as Request for Public Comment is Issued
IACC Conference Call Today to Discuss Autism Research Strategic Plan

CDC Media Plan Shocker - We Don’t Have the Science - “Some claims against vaccine cannot be disproved.”

Can't By Jim Moody, Esq.

An internal draft CDC Media Strategy, made public HERE for the first time, concedes that CDC does not have sound science supporting vaccine safety and must therefore resort to a program of misinformation and propaganda, referring to critical parents and “safety first” advocacy organizations as “anti-vaccine.”  If this is how CDC wants to conduct a meaningful debate about vaccine safety and science, then I can only imagine that we all will be holding the next major autism conference at GITMO.  Rather than a “safety first” program of sound science, CDC’s solution to quelling the coming vaccine rebellion is an aggressive public/private media war: “vaccinate or die.”

CDC Brands Safety Advocates As “Anti-Vaccine.”

In addition to conceding that fear-based propaganda will have to substitute for basic science, the memo reveals how completely CDC has descended into a military them-against-us mind set.  Critics of vaccine safety are labeled “anti-vaccine,”  as “hostile parents,” or as “adversaries of vaccination,” with no acknowledgment that criticism and inquiries can be in good faith, can sincerely be interested in promoting vaccine safety as a sensible, indeed necessary, scheme to protect the benefits to public health of mass immunization.  For example, CDC complains that “assaults against routine vaccination are occurring in the United States and in many developed nations worldwide,” “the voice against vaccination is becoming more organized,” and “routine childhood vaccination is increasingly under fire.” (emphasis added).   The “critics of vaccination” fall into a few “predictable” categories:

 - Religious Objectors
 - Hostile parents and non-professionals who envision vaccines as more harmful to individual children than good or believe in conspiracy theories related to vaccination programs
 - Proponents of alternative medicine and naturalists
 - Health care professionals and scientists who doubt the benefits of immunization and fear long-term effects of vaccination

It’s just plain bizarre to brand as “hostile” parents and “non-professionals” (i.e. those who are not members of the white-coated and Nanny State elites) who are simply curious whether vaccines injured their children or whether vaccines and the schedule are sufficiently safe to use in an exercise of their ethical right to informed consent.  As for scientists who “fear effects of vaccination,” give them a gold star for being prescient.  As the National Vaccine Advisory Committee has now conceded, there is a crucial gap in safety science, fatal to any claim that “vaccines are safe.”  NVAC unanimously approved HERE  the report of the Vaccine Safety Working Group on June 3, highlighting (see recommendation 7 (HERE) ) the lack of baseline data on the health of unvaccinated children developed in a comprehensive program of retrospective and prospective research.

Barbara Loe Fisher once said of the false labeling of vaccine safety advocates as “anti-vaccine:” “This article is a sophomoric attempt to label the vaccine safety and informed consent movement as "anti-vaccine" in order to deflect attention from the very real gaps in scientific knowledge about the biological mechanisms of adverse responses to vaccination. Should the Institute of Medicine be labeled anti-vaccine for repeatedly publishing reports over the past decade calling for increased scientific research into outstanding questions about vaccine safety?”

The “Problem” According to CDC - Vaccine Rebellion.

 CDC actually correctly identifies the “threat” faced by its mass vaccination program is that: “[T]he number of reported adverse events associated with vaccination was greater than the number of reported cases of vaccine-preventible disease.  With the disappearance of a perceived threat in the United States from these diseases, the safety of routine childhood vaccination is increasingly under fire.”  What would be the rational response to growing concerns over vaccine safety? Research to make them safer? What CDC really fears is change, especially people asking too many questions and a parent rebellion: “[W]ith the increase [sic] use of media advocacy by small organized special interest groups to promote societal change, the possibility of critics against vaccination gaining strength and voice in public health policy decisions at local, state and national levels warrants serious consideration.  For example, in Japan and Sweden, the anti-vaccine movement’s message diffused from small organized groups to mainstream popular acceptance, which led to changes in vaccination policy and severe drops in vaccination levels and increased morbidity and mortality from vaccine-preventable diseases.”

So, Where’s the Safety Science?

 CDC makes a stunning admissions: “Some claims against vaccine cannot be disproved.”  And: “CDC does not have complete adverse event surveillance data on which to base health messages.”  But where can this little bit of honesty be found on the Vaccine Information Statements [Your Baby’s First Vaccines: What You Need to Know, (HERE)] required by law to be given to parents, which claim with all the earnest certainty of a government bureaucrat. “Getting several vaccines at the same time will not harm your baby,” “More severe reactions can also occur, but this happens much less often.  Some of these reactions are so uncommon that experts can’t tell whether they are caused by vaccines or not,” and “The risk of any vaccine causing serious harm, or death, is extremely small. Getting a disease is much more likely to harm a child than getting a vaccine.”  And, in a sample flyer (HERE), CDC claims:

Vaccination is safe and effective. All vaccines are only given to children after a long and careful review by scientists, doctors, and healthcare professionals. Vaccines will involve some discomfort and may cause pain, redness, or tenderness at the site of injection but this is minimal compared to the pain, discomfort, and trauma of the diseases these vaccines prevent. The most comprehensive scientific studies and reviews have not found a link between vaccines and autism. Groups of experts, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Institute of Medicine (IOM), the National Institute of Health (NIH), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and other federal agencies also agree that vaccines are not responsible for the number of children now recognized to have autism.

No honesty here about CDC’s real doubts about vaccine safety.  The CDC media plan also concedes: “Issues of contamination (e.g. SV-40, stealth virus) are compelling and our research is not complete enough to state with all certainty that there is no risk.”  Yet, despite all this doubt, CDC still links (HERE) (without disclosing his financial conflict of interest) to Paul Offit’s 2003 book, Vaccines: What You Should Know in the “Myths Busted” section (HERE) of its vaccine safety webpage.  And CDC claims on its “Some Common Misconceptions” page (HERE): “Most vaccine adverse events are minor and temporary, such as a sore arm or mild fever.  These can often be controlled by taking acetaminophen before or after vaccination. More serious adverse events occur rarely (on the order of one per thousands to one per millions of doses), and some are so rare that risk cannot be accurately assessed.”  How “rarely” do these “more serious adverse events” occur.  Nobody knows, especially CDC.

So the CDC’s mantra “vaccines are safer than the diseases they prevent” is a lie until all of the risks from vaccines can be determined by comparison to the health status of unvaccinated children.  Regarding this comparison, CDC says (HERE):

Even one serious adverse event in a million doses of vaccine cannot be justified if there is no benefit from the vaccination. If there were no vaccines, there would be many more cases of disease, and along with the more disease, there would be serious sequelae and more deaths. But looking at risk alone is not enough - you must always look at both risks and benefits. Comparing the risk from disease with the risk from the vaccines can give us an idea of the benefits we get from vaccinating our children. . . . The fact is that a child is far more likely to be seriously injured by one of these diseases than by any vaccine. While any serious injury or death caused by vaccines is too many, it is also clear that the benefits of vaccination greatly outweigh the slight risk, and that many, many more injuries and deaths would occur without vaccinations. In fact, to have a medical intervention as effective as vaccination in preventing disease and not use it would be unconscionable.

This comparison is a bald faced lie because the risks of vaccination, especially for chronic adverse events, are unknown.  Even if they were known with some precision, the choice demanded by principles of ethics and informed consent, must remain with the parents.  And, this gets us back to the real fear underlying the Government’s policy of “deliberate ignorance,” i.e. that any significant risk of chronic vaccine injury could induce a vaccine rebellion so that their children are not sacrificed on an alter made of herd immunity.  Not surprisingly, Parents of Kids With Infectious Diseases (HERE) merits a weblink from CDC’s “What Risks Are Parents Taking in Their Child’s Healthcare” section, but groups such as Safeminds [safeminds.org] and NVIC [nvic.org] are ignored.

CDC’s media plan claims the “[f]ederal government has a critical role in disease prevention through routine vaccination,” but there’s no commitment to a “critical role” for a “safety first” agenda.  CDC also states a commitment to new vaccines: “The rapid pace in which new vaccines and new combinations of vaccines are being introduced in the United States for routine childhood vaccination will continue, increasing the anti-vaccine rhetoric.”  But again, no commitment to understanding, much less improving, safety.

 DC admits: “Risk communication messages regarding vaccine adverse reactions are difficult to develop.”  Yes, exactly, because they just don’t know the risks.  How, then, can CDC claim as a “strength” of their media plan that the “[b]enefits of vaccination far outweigh the risks?” This is, as J.B. Handley would say so eloquently  (see Paul Offit, Dr. Nancy Snyderman, Alison Singer, and the Italian Study), is a “hungry lie.”  As the National Vaccine Advisory Committee finally admitted with a unanimous vote on June 3, one of the key gaps in our safety science (HERE) is baseline data on the chronic health of unvaccinated kids.  Perhaps what CDC really means is that all chronic vaccine-caused injuries, including autism, are acceptable collateral damage in the war against infectious disease?  This is an even bigger lie because it presupposes that such “collateral damage” cannot be minimized or even eliminated by, e.g., screening, schedule changes, eliminating known nasties such as heavy metals, re-designed vaccines, greater reliance on anti-virals, etc. 

Another CDC lie: “Parents today, overwhelmingly, want to vaccinate their children against disease.”  No!  Parents want healthy children.  As doubts grow about vaccine-caused disease, and the apparent threat from infectious diseases is all but gone, the “healthy” choice is to avoid unknown vaccine risks and rely on others’ herd immunity.

CDC’s Solution - a public/private propaganda campaign.

Instead of actually doing the science to accurately ascertain the risks of vaccination, and make appropriate changes to the schedule, screening, etc., CDC proposes an aggressive public/private media campaign: “[C]ommunity acceptance of vaccination demands that we take a stand to not only explain the risks of complication due to natural disease, but also toward unfounded arguments or [sic] adversaries of vaccination.” [emphasis added]. 

CDC intends to rely in part on surrogates to carry its message: “Any communications strategy must be supported by and employ our immunization partners.”  Yet, ironically, CDC complains: “Some members of the anti-vaccine movement are making a profit with their message of fear and will not be dissuaded through debate and inclusion in the process.”  CDC’s Partners website lists eighteen partners and 19 immunization-related websites.  Most of these, doctors, nurses, industry “fronts” such as Families Fighting Flu, make a profit from selling or injecting vaccines.  And, isn’t Paul “Profit” making oodles of money from his interest in Rotateq and at least expecting to profit from his unsupported yet unbridled message of fear in Autism’s False Prophets?  (Amazon rank: Offit, 18,473; Jepsen/Johnson/Wright, 10,305.)  CDC claims that the “federal government [is] not in position to discuss hidden motives for behaviors of anti-vaccine groups.”  “Hidden” motives, come on!  Advocacy for safer vaccines and infrastructure reform is hardly a “hidden” motive, nor are such groups in any way “anti-vaccine.”

What Does CDC See as Threats?

Although CDC’s admited lack of key safety science is deadly serious, the humor in the media plan lies in the “threats” section.  CDC begins; “Detractors resort to incomplete reference, misquotes, and distortions to promote their positions, making debate difficult at best.”  Let’s see what CDC says: About MMR (HERE): “In 2004, a report by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) concluded that there is no link between autism and MMR vaccine, and that there is no link between autism and vaccines that contain thimerosal as a preservative.”  But actually, IOM covered its vulnerable ass by conceding: “Absent biomarkers, well-defined risk factors, or large effect sizes, the committee cannot rule out, based on the epidemiological evidence, the possibility that vaccines contribute to autism in some small subset or very unusual circumstances.”  That the IOM ISR Committee’s “cannot rule out” a finding simply cannot be reconciled with CDC’s “no link” version of the “truth.”

 CDC’s claim on its “Thimerosal” webpage (HERE) is another example of its “distortion:” “There is no convincing scientific evidence of harm caused by the low doses of thimerosal in vaccines, except for minor reactions like redness and swelling at the injection site.”  After the revalations about CDC’s infamous VSD-based study of thimerosal were unearthed by Safeminds via FOIA and extensively discussed in David Kirby’s Evidence of Harm, the lead author, Thomas Verstraeten, was forced to retract the “thimerosal is safe” interpretation CDC sought from the 2003 publication in Pediatrics: “The article does not state that we found evidence against an association, as a negative study would. It does state, on the contrary, that additional study is recommended, which is the conclusion to which a neutral study must come. . . . A neutral study carries a very distinct message: the investigators could neither confirm nor exclude an association, and therefore more study is required. . . .  The bottom line is and has always been the same: an association between thimerosal and neurological outcomes could neither be confirmed nor refuted, and therefore, more study is required.”  The article itself amounted to scientific fraud because all the data manipulation to conceal the “generation zero” results (which did show statistically significant associations between thimerosal exposure and neurodevelopmental delays) were not disclosed. 

CDC ends its media plan by honestly identifying one threat to their “vaccinate or die” media campaign: “We have close relationships and involvement with vaccine manufacturers that can be distorted in counter communication – we’re supporting the drug manufacturers’ business interests at the expense of children.”

Jim Moody chairs the government affairs committee of SafeMinds. He is the founder of Citizens for a Competitive Economy. Jim is a practicing attorney and is active in cause-related advocacy for children with autism.




This is one of the most incredible quotes of all: "The rapid pace in which new vaccines and new combinations of vaccines are being introduced in the United States for routine childhood vaccination will continue, increasing the anti-vaccine rhetoric.”

CDC, are you not listening to the many accounts of vaccine reactions? Not even thinking of slowing down or cutting back on the schedule? Still full spead ahead?

What current diseases will justify this continuing "rapid pace" of introducing new vaccines?? Readers, remember how many kids you know are ill with inconsequential fleeting illnesses, so that in five years when they say, "You don't remember how bad it used to be," you can say, "Yes, I do remember! It was not so bad! Not bad enough to justify more life-long vaccine injuries!"

Another remarkable quote -- "hidden motives for behaviors of anti-vaccine groups". HIDDEN motives? Like concern about vaccine injured children? Concern about rising rates of autism, ADD, asthma, allergies, bipolar, and diabetes? Those are the primary motives, and they are not hidden!!

Thank you very much, Jim Moody, for bringing this to our attention and writing about it.

María Luján

This supposed attitude has been presented as “online-autism-parents” communnity attitude
a) Ask for studies to be done
b) Studies are done
c) Disagree with the data
d) try to slime the authors

This is simply twisting the history- even when there are a wide range of kind of reactions to how these studies are done. Both recent studies on GI issues and ASD have serious flaws that made them practically useless.
The situation such as I see it in many aspects and valid criticisms done to the research in ASD
a) PArents Ask for studies to be done
b) Studies are done with serious problems in design, methodology and conclussions and with completely out of order analysisis and extrapolations
c) Disagree no with the data but with the value of them, how they have been obtained, the meaning and how they include confounders that are critical
d) There are serious interest conflicts of interest that are not properly declared many times, When this is pointed out - and the paper is criticised this is reported as "try to slime the authors"
e) The parental concerns are not taken into account, the questions are not answered , the methodological flaws are not considered
f) the media report that " Autistic children have no GI issues more than normal"
g) Average peditrician uses this to dismiss completely parental concerns on the issue
h) Parents of children who found other kind of doctors and who tested properly and found CMPs by dozens are considered inexistent or irrelevant or anecdotic or useless for autism research-beyond all the situations related to tests and labs and interpretations that almost no doctor seems interested to do properly but extraordinary exceptions you must fight and contact near 50-70 to find...
i) The search for the genes continue and the history is repeated.....

Julie Obradovic

Dreamer! Brilliant! Outstanding! Needs to be a post of it's own...sent to everyone in a position to change this nightmare. Bravo!


Dreamer: brilliant! make sure you send it on to the CDC somehow! they gotta be ashamed of themselves!


dear dreamer,
thank you for doing what i don't have time to do. i have thought of this process consistently since the CDC document was revealed.
your document is so much more relevant and logical than theirs, it is shocking and amazing. thank you.
my dream, dreamer, is that they will somehow see your revision and respect it. it deserves so much more respect than they ever have.
it's almost like we live in an alternate universe...the fact that this document doesn't come from the CDC itself. don't you guys think? i can't even share the latest from the government with my family, who pay for my son's recovery, because it's so otherworldly that no one can believe it. thank you for presenting the reality of how it should be. it's so hard to face this bizarreness. i feel crazy...until i read your post. thanks again.


Can the comment from "Dreamer" be the comment of the week? That was the best thing I've read in a while--although obviously it was way too optimistic about the situation ...


Somehow this CDC document begged for a rewrite--
tongue in cheek, sarcastic, or serious? All apply
in places. : )
DRAFT Brief SWOT Analysis & Vaccine Safety Communication/Media Strategy



In the United States, vaccination against childhood diseases are at all time highs, while most cases of vaccine preventable diseases are at or near all-time lows. No actual data proves that this correlation is proof of causation, but many official scientists and most of the public have never taken the time to actually investigate the available data or question the validity of this correlation.

Immunization against disease is widely recognized as one of the most effective techniques of preventive medicine, though proof of this is actually lacking. On top of this, last year in the United States, the number of reported adverse events associated with vaccination was greater than the number of reported cases of presumably vaccine-preventable disease.

With the disappearance of a perceived threat in the United States from these diseases, and skyrocketing numbers of children with neurological problems, asthma, diabetes, arthritis, autoimmune problems, depression, and cancer, the safety of routine childhood vaccination is increasingly questioned. Serious questions are being raised about the safety of both individual and multiple routine vaccinations, particularly since vaccines are currently administered largely without regard to the health, weight, genetics, or previous reactions of the individual children receiving them.

Serious concerns are being raised in the United States and in many developed nations worldwide (e.g., United Kingdom, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Netherlands, France, and states of the former Soviet Union). In the United States, the questions about vaccinae safety appear to be increasing in numbers and velocity (e.g., Money, La Times, New Yorker, Today Show, Cleveland Plain Dealer). In addition, the voices urging more caution and greater research into vaccine safety are becoming more organized and more strenuously demanding better research and more genuine investigation into vaccine efficacy and safety. More parents are questioning state school-entry immunization laws, which some experts think are the only way that public health can trick most of the population into subjecting their children to the unknown risks of vaccination.

In the United States, as elsewhere, the critics of vaccination fall into a few predictable categories:

Religious objectors

Concerned parents and grandparents who HAVE already seen their children’s health and behaviors deteriorate following vaccine administration.

Concerned parents and grandparents who haven't seen a reaction but also don't want to see their children's heath and behavior deteriorate following a future vaccine.

Individuals who have looked into the controversy and think there is inadequate research to determine if vaccines are more helpful or harmful to most or any individual children, or if there are certain combinations of vaccines that are particularly dangerous, or if certain circumstances, or unknown combinations of factors, increase the risk of serious, adverse reactions in all or certain children.

Concerned individuals who can not figure out why the government agencies set up to protect public health are more concerned about promoting more and more new vaccines than in putting top priority on being sure that current vaccines are safe, and administered in the safest way possible.

Individuals who have discovered that alternative medicine can prevent and/or cure many illnesses and conditions that mainstream medical providers consider untreatable, and have thus become unenamored and more critical of all mainstream approaches to health, including vaccines.

Naturalists who understand the complexity of interconnections among living things and are aware of the limits of current understanding of human “ecosystems,” immune system functioning, and the gravely serious effects that extremely low levels (ppm, ppb and even ppt) of certain natural elements (like mercury and aluminum) as well as many manmade chemicals (some of which are in vaccines) can have on living organisms.

Health care professionals and scientists who doubt the benefits of immunization and fear long-term effects of vaccination based on their firsthand observations of the adverse effects of immunizations on some of their patients, the healthy condition of most patients who have refused vaccines, and/or a careful examination of the questionable information that is generally referenced as evidence of vaccine efficacy (like the temporal but potentially spurious correlation between disease incidence and vaccine use).

Concerns range from questions about vaccine efficacy to concerns that vaccines are in fact causing measurable immediate harm to some recipients, and long term harm to the health of many.

Although these arguments may develop from divergent perspectives, these groups tend to share and reinforce each other’s concerns and motivations. And, with the increase use of media advocacy by thousands of concerned individuals and the non-profit groups they organize to promote societal change, concerns about vaccination are becoming more widespread and more people are demanding a voice in public health policy decisions at local, state and national levels. For example, in Japan and Sweden, the safe-vaccine movement’s message diffused from small organized groups to mainstream popular acceptance, which led to changes in vaccination policy and impressive drops in sudden infant death syndrome and improved infant survival rates.

Some of the concerns put forth by critics of routine vaccination include:

Complications of immunization (e.g., VAPP, seizures, encephalopathy, possible chronic sequela)

Multiple and concurrent vaccinations may suppress or confound a child’s developing immune system

Immunizations may trigger other chronic immune and metabolic diseases (e.g., diabetes, cancer, asthma, rheumatism and multiple sclerosis)

Immunizations may cause behavior problems (e.g., ADD, autism, speech delays, tics, oppositional defiant disorder, bipolar, non-verbal learning disorder, and hyperkinesis)

C Immunizations may transmit animal viruses to man

Viral and bacterial genes contained in vaccines may be transferred into the genomes of naturally occurring microflora or invasive microbes in the body of a vaccine recipient, resulting in an alteration in their behavior or function

Vaccines Introduce harmful adjuvants (e.g., aluminum hydroxide, formaldehyde, mercury, and phenol) which interfere with immune function, have toxic effects on the nervous system and potentially cause toxic illnesses. Children are known to be thousands of times more sensitive to many chemicals than adults, so they are potentially far more vulnerable to even minute traces of these toxins.

Vaccination coincides with the appearance of AIDS

Vaccinations are suspected as a possible cause of SIDS since SIDS deaths have been shown to spike periodically and predictably during the days immediately following infant vaccines in contrast to lower incidence rates on other days.

To date, no federal or international public health organizations have put forth a coordinated, effective research program to honestly investigate how the longterm heatlh outcomes of never vaccinated children compare to fully or partially vaccinated children, or have even bothered to do such a comparison using laboratory monkeys. Indeed, the primary communication strategy to counter these concerns has been to downplay the possible dangers of vaccines, lie about the available information regarding vaccine safety and the safety of certain vaccine ingrediants, cover up and deny adverse vaccine reactions when they happen, pay for poorly designed epidemiological studies (which any halfway intelligent scientist could tell were not sufficient to detect any effect on less than 1% of the population or on any specific subgroup of children in the study population), and to cast negative aspersions on the intelligence of all those raising questions.

In the past, public health authorities have often acted paternalistically and incautiously while making public health immunization policies. We have failed to err on the side of caution and made decisions that greatly benefit vaccine companies and supported policies and laws that severely limit the ability of individuals to sue vaccine manufacturers for damages and/or investigate potential malfeasance on the part of vaccine manufacturers.

Continued community acceptance of immunization demands that public health immediately start to take the questions raised by safe vaccine advocates seriously, and begin acting in good faith to discover and report the true short-term and longterm risks of vaccination, admit that complications due to natural disease are not as frequent or serious for most children as has often been stated, and immediately start erring on the side of caution when developing vaccine recommendations--as those truly concerned about the health of chilldren are demanding.

The following must be clearly recognized if public health is to develop an effective strategy to ensure that, going forward, vaccine policy is developed based entirely upon facts and to re-establish public trust:

The coordinated communication and education effort of the safe-vaccine movement in the United States will have a positive impact on state immunization laws, practices of providers, and opinions of parents, such that in the future, vaccine administration will be approached with greater caution to ensure that all vaccine ingrediants are safe and proven to be so through rigorous laboratory testing, that vaccines are safely administered with adequate attention to the health, genetics, and environment of each recipient, and that an effective and honest assessment of the short and longterm benefits and risks of all these medical interventions is completed so that medical care providers, prospective recipients, and/or their guardians will have up-to-date, honest science upon which to base critical treatment decisions.

The federal government has a critical role in disease prevention and should be committed to finding the safest, most cost effective methods of ensuring public health rather than hyperfocusing on vaccine promotion as the most important, or only method available. A comparison of health outcomes of fullly vaccinated versus never -vaccinated individuals is immediately needed to determine whether the current strategy of mass vaccinations is providing the benefits some believe, or contributing to many health problems, as others contend.

Public health must recognize that due to its past history of disingenous PR campaigns, secretive meetings, lost data, and fudged studies, research conducted by these same individuals and organizations will not yield trust-worthy science that policy makers, providers, and parents could believe.

Rather replicative research must be conducted by multiple institutions and scientists who are free of conflict of interest biases and income, and the data must be made freely available to all interested parties. The Federal government cannot afford to appear paternalistic in its attitude toward vaccination policy or vaccination safety research.

Local and state public health officials look to the federal government for leadership on issues of vaccine safety, and up to now, the federal government has failed miserably. This has got to change.

The rapid pace in which new vaccines and new combinations of vaccines are being introduced in the United States for routine childhood vaccination must be slowed to ensure that safety concerns are first very carefully assessed. To do otherwise will increase public distrust and lead to greater resistance to all vaccines.

Many members of the public health and pro-vaccine movements are making a huge profit with their message promoting fear of communicable diseases, down-playing concerns about escalating rates of chronic diseases, and condemnation of alternative medical approaches. Many entrenched scientists, doctors, and bureaucrats have such a huge investment, professionally and intellectually, in the value of vaccines that they are unable to even consider the questions or intellectually understand the concerns of the safe vaccine movement. These individuals will not be persuaded to put vaccine safety first through debate and/or inclusion in the process. Hence their continued participation in the process may be counterproductive.

To be effective, any communication strategy must be communicated directly to the public, and there should be an end to the employment of all our privately-funded pro-immunization pseudo-non-profit partners as these groups are seen as little more than spokesgroups for vaccine manufacturers and feed concerns that we are primarily interested in spreading propaganda rather than actually addressing the many sincere and valid concerns regarding vaccines.

The following analysis provides some of the many strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and dangers facing the implementation of joint federal/private partner vaccine safety communication plan.

The assumption that the benefits of vaccination far outweigh the risks has not actually been demonstrated--the vaccinated versus never vaccinated study could determine if this asumption is or is not valid relative to the current vaccine schedule. Actually doing such a study would help to ensure that, in the future, we can make sound decisions regarding the true relative risks versus benefits of the current vaccine schedule.

CDC is linked to a network of local and state immunization programs that can support this plan, because most health professionals actually do care about the truth and want to do everything possible to ensure that our children and grandchildren are kept as safe as possible.

Parents today, overwhelmingly, want to keep their children healthy and ensure that their brains remain intact so that they can grow up to be healthy and happy adults. Parents want good science upon which to base decisions, not the current head-patting and dismissal of their concerns with the use of poorly designed epidemiological studies, non-existent safety studies, and misquided attempts to deny and ignore the valid concerns that have been raised regarding vaccine efficacy and safety.

The Media are interested in this issue and would cover it more if they did not rely so heavily on funding from pharmaceutical companies and were not being misled by a government-funded disinformation campaign.

CDC has community-based and provider partners that can be mobilized to communicate our new commitment to put safety and the health of children first, should we choose to change course.

One of this administration’s first priorities was childhood immunization, but upon closer examination of the questions surrounding the current program, it is apparent that simply making vaccines more widely available and setting up programs to provide them at reduced cost is not the best direction to head at this time.

While we should be concerned about the possible re-emergence of diseases that we think have been reduced by vaccines, we should not panic or exagerate the dangers. Persons with first-hand experience enduring and surviving many of the diseases that vaccines are thought to prevent are available to educate new generations of parents and providers who have no experience with these diseases. These older individuals can let people know that in most cases, these diseases are not serious, and that with proper care and nutrition, most children will be able to fight these diseases off should there be any resurgence. Additionally quarantine, improved nutrition, better hygiene and possible use of Vitamin A , D and other supplements can be used to minimize the risks of disease complications. Further, if there is a resurgence of disease, voluntary use and acceptance of vaccines is likely to rebound.

Risk communication messages regarding vaccine adverse reactions are difficult to develop because we don’t actually have any good data to base the risk assessments on. People do not perceive a huge threat from the diseases we think vaccines reduce partly because of low disease incidence today, and also because many baby boomers actually had many of the diseases we now vaccinate against when they were children and can report that they survived in good health.

Some claims against vaccines cannot be disproved because we don’t have the research. Failing to do a never-vaccinated versus fully vaccinated study is unethical since it is entirely possible that the longterm health of vaccinated children is actually not as good as that of never vaccinated children. If so, the truth must be learned. In addition, it is possible that this research could actually show that vaccines are beneficial in the long run, which could improve acceptance of them. If carefuly record-keeping and data collection were done, and IF those in the study whose health worsened following vaccines were identified and the circumstances immediately investigated, we might also be able to determine how to administer vaccines more safely, and/or learn more about how to identify individuals who should not receive vaccines, and/or identify factors that increase the risks of adverse reactions.
Issues of contamination (e.g., SV 40, stealth virus) are compelling and our research is not complete enough to state with all certainty that there is no risk , and it doesn’t help that there are books out there like "The Virus and the Vaccine," "Vaccine A," "Doubt is Their Product," and many others that clearly show that science and many scientists are influenced by political pressures, funding sources, in-fighting, turf wars, data fudging and loss, lab closures, and many other factors, and that all these pressures ultimately have a great deal to do with what paradigms are accepted or rejected as a the "prevailing science". Given the history of questions surrounding vaccine development and safety, it is reasonable to question many of the assumptions and paradigms upon which current vaccine development and use are based.
Religious groups oppose use of human cell lines to produce vaccine, which would eliminate the theoretical risk of animal retrovirus contamination, but would not solve the possibility of transfer of cancer cells, or the potential triggering of immune responses against human cells or proteins, as well as other possible dangers.

A comprehensive communication strategy will be costly and could in itself be attacked. So it makes more sense to actually fund the needed research and prioritize vaccine safety, rather than try to run a spin campaign of disinformation based on a paternalistic “we know best” attitude.

CDC does not have complete adverse events surveillance data on which to base health messages and medical professionals have an inherent self-interest in down-playing or denying adverse events that do happen. In addition, though a government program to compensate those who are adversely affected by vaccines is in place, in practice it is highly adversarial and few individuals whose lives or children's lives disintegrate following a vaccine ever receive compensation of any amount. Increasing awareness and knowledge of this system makes it clear to all individuals that it is up to them to look out for their own best interests, and their children’s best interests, because the government is clearly not going to help them if an adverse vaccine event occurs.

Individual rights outweigh societal needs for most Americans, and indeed scientists who have looked for “group selection” in populations of wild animals have found that it does not occur. Natural selection favors the genes of individuals, not groups. Given the potential detrimental effects of vaccines on fertility, and the potential viability and development of offspring, it is clear that from an evolutionary perspective, individuals who choose to avoid vaccines and instead develop and pass along natural immunity to diseases to their offspring are most likely going to be favored overtime by natural selection.

General mistrust of government, particularly among some population groups, has developed due to many past egregious acts of various government agencies and personnel, as well as the mainstream medical profession. Approval of dangerous drugs by the FDA, presentation of false data by the CDC, and publication in major peer-reviewed journals of falsified and/or ghostwritten research has led to a serious erosion of public trust in government health agencies and mainstream medicine. Denial and cover-ups of serious problems will not lead to greater trust. The only way through this mess is to start searching for and uncovering the truth, and to immediately begin putting safety over profits and egos, and individual health and safety over the real or imagined benefits of “herd immunity.”.

Little current research exists regarding provider and parent attitudes about vaccine safety, but it is clear that more and more people are questioning whether or not so many vaccines are needed by anyone, especially fragile young children, and whether the growing number of health and behavior problems seen in so many children might well be due in part or wholly to mass vaccination programs that subject children to many more vaccines today than ever before in history.

Federal government and current vaccine scientists are not in a position to really understand that the primary motive for the behaviors of safe vaccine groups is precisely what these people have been through--what they have seen happen to their own children and grandchildren following vaccine administration, how they have been treated by mainstream medical providers when seeking help, and the benefits they have gained by accepting different paradigms for health maintenance and restoration that do not have vaccines as the centerpiece of health. Government must understand that the safe vaccine movement is motivated by a desire to prevent other children and families, now and in the future, from suffering what many of them have been through or are still enduring.


To develop increased media skepticism and reporting among providers and parents on this health issue and others. A free press is an important component of democracy and efforts should be made to support and encourage investigative reporting of this issue so that people can make their own decisions.

To develop a comprehensive, renewable system to actually investigate the true benefits and risks of vaccines, both short term and long term

To compel vaccine policy decision makers to honestly address vaccine safety issues today that may affect policies for the future.

Take a leadership position in developing safer vaccine policies based on honest science, and looking more carefully at additional and alternative methods of protecting public health, such as improved and intensified efforts to ensure all citizens have clean, pollutant and pesticide-free air, water, and food, and healthy living and work environments.

Build awareness about how sickness and disease are less problematic in populations that live in a healthy environment with few toxins and pollutants which reduce immune system function. Build awareness of the benefits of nutrition, exercise, and sleep, and place vaccines where they belong--as a valuable tool that must be used with caution and clear attention to the health, genetics, and environment of the individual receiving them.

Fighting the safe vaccine movement will ultimately be counter-productive. While vaccines may be effective in some situations, it is clear that we can not give vaccines for every disease that might be vaccine-preventable. It is neither economically nor biologically feasible. Ultimately, more children can be saved from disease and death by taking a multi-pronged approach to public health, with emphasis on minimizing toxic exposures, and improving the availabiltiy of clean water and air, and high quality food, rather than relying primarily or entirely on vaccines. Vaccine use should be immediately limited to those vaccines, situations, and individuals where there is clear evidence of safety, efficiacy, and value, and efforts should be made to ensure that all ingredients in these vaccines are immediately subjected to rigorous testing to ensure they do not cause short or long term harm when injected alone or in combination with other vaccine ingredients.


Those who wish to maintain the status quo often resort to incomplete references, misquotes, name-calling, eye-rolling, and exagerations and distortions to promote their pro-vaccine positions, making debate and honest discourse difficult at best, and often causing anger and increasing distrust, rather than helping to create a situation where trust might eventually be restored.

Elevating these issues rather than honestly addressing them will only escalate anger and frustration levels, and reduce public willingness to accept or trust any sort of public health information.

If vaccine safety continues to be ignored or given less attention than vaccine promotion, it could become a cornerstone for some anti-government activists, leaving behind the health debate for a debate on the intrusion of government in everyday life. Many Individuals who currently support the government could become disenchanted and angry, if they feel that their concerns about vaccines are being ignored or if they feel the government is trampling on their right to self-determination, which inherently includes health freedoms. Mandating vaccine administration given the current number of serious questions about safety and efficacy is guaranteed to lead to increasing distrust of government and wholesale vaccine rejection by the populace.

Claims that lower vaccination rates will result in disease and death may not come true until some time passes, or possibly not at all since the declines in disease and mortality from these diseases up to now coincide not only with vaccine use, but also much of the decline predates vaccine development and use and instead coincides with many other changes in lifestyles, nourishment, hygiene, etc. that could well be the most important reason several diseases have all but disappeared in some areas.

The protective “herd” effect of widespread vaccination is a cornerstone of public health, but it has never been proven, leaving open the possibility that the pro-vaccine movement may actually be crying wolf when we warn of widespread disease if vaccination rates go down. It does not make sense to people to tell them that vaccines only work if almost everyone is vaccinated, and then turn around and tell them that they need a vaccine if they are going somewhere in the world where most people are not vaccinated. Either vaccines work, or they don’t.

Outbreaks of theoretically vaccine preventable diseases in populations of heavily vaccinated individuals brings into question the true value and efficacy of the limited immune response generated by vaccines. It is clear the immune response activated by vaccines is not as long-lasting, nor as complete, as immunity gained from having and fighting off a disease. This raises the possibility that long-term, widespread use of vaccines may ultimately make populations more vulnerable to the spread of communicable diseases as fewer and fewer people will have true, disease-induced immunity, and more will only have the poorer quality temporary vaccine-induced immune reaction, which seems to diminish overtime, or is not actually sufficient to prevent infection. Thisi could become a particularlly concerning situation should there be any disruption in vaccine use or availability and thus a greater need for reliance on natural immunity.

We have close relationships and involvement with vaccine manufacturers that not only appear to be conflicts, but actually are conflicts of interest. The safe-vaccine movement is correct when they argue that we’re supporting the drug manufacturers’ business interests at the expense of children when we put more energy and resources into promoting and approving vaccines than we do into actually researching their safety, and never actually sincerely and carefully investigate, quickly, firsthand and with honest concern, every claim of a vaccine adverse event.

The current situation must dramatically change if we are ever again to regain public trust.

Donna Kincanon

The tetanus/diptheria vaccine creates a false sense of security. The tetanus vaccine provokes an immune response aimed only and specifically at producing antibodies against the TOXIN, NOT the actual bacteria or spores, of the tetanus bacteria. So while these antibodies are intercepting the toxins, you are at the mercy of the body's innate ability to fight off and kill the actual bacteria. Worrisome is the immune suppression that mercury induces just when, comprehensively, your immune system most needs to be robust. The bacteria's ability to reproduce and release more and more toxins is not kept in-check by high antibodies against the toxins. Search PUBMED and you will find published medical literature revealing patients dying from tetanus infection even though they were current on their vaccinations and their immunoglobulin levels were at measurably "protective" levels. Thorough wound cleaning and an antibiotic would still be necessary to prevent tetanus infection.

Furthermore, though tetanus is not a communicable disease, diptheria is. Just how vaccines, directed at the diptheria toxin, have supposeably been able to inhibit the spread of this disease when it does not target the immune system at the actual bacteria, seems a mystery.

Dr. Stphen L'Hommedieu

An uninformed public is the key to successfully pushing potentially harmful and life threatening vaccines onto an unsuspecting public. However, the problem for the CDC is public awareness is growing fast and this reality is biting them in the butt. However, just like crazed killer fighting out of desperation, we are witnessing the CDC aggressively striking back with verbal abuse and threats; consistent with today’s new Mafioso style scientific methods; our science says so… or else! Well, let’s face it, they’ve got to do something to pull it together fairly quickly to win public acceptance in order to push vaccinations for the up and coming contrived (and bio-engineered) flying pig flu pandemic debacle.

You tell me: when someone is telling the truth do they really need to verbally threaten or coerce you? Here we have critics of vaccine safety being labeled “anti-vaccine,” as “hostile parents,” or as “adversaries of vaccination.” Hey, how about “domestic health care terrorists!” Before you know it those labeled “terrorists” will be on the inside of a FEMA camp in quarantine.

This is similar to Obama’s intimidation tactics attempting to plunder the U.S. health care system. Today’s U.S Observer headline read: White House: People opposed to health reform should be reported; [Obama] Asks public to report e-mails, and those in 'casual conversation' to the gov't. Frankly, I’m getting hard-pressed to distinguish whether I’m living in Russia, Nazi Germany, or the United States.

Jim’s article stated: “CDC actually correctly identifies the “threat” faced by its mass vaccination program is that: “[T]he number of reported adverse events associated with vaccination was greater than the number of reported cases of vaccine-preventible disease.” You can be sure that if the adverse events were due to an alternative therapy those responsible would be doing 30 years of hard-time.

Jim, thanks for this excellent article.

Benedetta Stilwell

I am sorry Lynn. I know, I know! We raise beef cattle and I too worry too about the manure and puncture wounds. We try to think it out what is best and it is hard. My husband had panic attacks,and extreme muscle weakness. Maybe your son's balance is something else, maybe allergy or something in his ear that will pass. We all seem to have allergies, I have allergies that go straight for my ears.


I got the same survey phone call. Coincidentally coinciding with our completion for exemption from future vaccines. I didn't partake in the survey and was sent cash money multiple times with a letter stating that I would receive another phone call. I did, and they state over and over again that this a survey that I was chosen randomly for...blah, blah, blah....The final notice I received was sent prioroty mail (at a cost of over 4$) with either 10 or 15 dollars cash enclosed. I finally asked them, to randomly chose someone else.
Yep, we are all on the "list" lol (rolling eyes)


"The only reason I agreed to the tetnus was my son is at risk since he goes barefoot most of the time and plays in creeks and mud. Doc assured me there was NO thimerosal in any of their vaccines. My son got ONE shot June 19, now today Aug 5 he tells me he is having trouble keeping his balance and falling over."

From my research on this issue there is NO currently available tetanus-only shot that is completely thimerosal-free. All tetanus shots contain mercury (in the form of thimerosal) ranging from .3 mcgs to 25 mcgs. per dose.

This is the only disease that I worry about--too bad they still haven't removed the mercury from it (not to mention the aluminum,etc.).

Benedetta Stilwell

CDC scares me! Just a couple of years ago, in a doctor's office was a medical magazine that said there was no link between autism and MMR. Of course I wrote them. A week later I got a call from CDC saying they were taking a survey on how many children under a certain age lived in my house.

I am just a ordinary citizen. A call acting like it was an ordinary survey! I do not think I am reading too much into this

Benedetta Stilwell

MB my husband reacted to his last two tetanus shots. He at times has slurred speech, can't get out the words! His oxygen levels goes way down at times too. I opted out of my son's tetanus shot.


Hi Michael,

yeah I'm getting that...I have a five year old and have been only at this for two years so I'm still somewhat of a newbie. Looks like the gov't made a deal with the devil long ago..you're right it is criminal. No doubt about it.

michael framson

Sarah, The boat sailed a long time ago on, "we just want to be heard." Barbara Loe Fisher has been shouting for almost 3 decades, to be heard. They ain't listening, don't care, and don't want anyone messing with their game, their scam, their religion and as Gods can do no wrong.

They pay no price for their behavior; criminal, negligence or both.

Carolyn M

"Persons with first-hand experience with these diseases are available to educate new generations of parents and providers who have no experience with these diseases."

This is listed under "strengths", but with a slight change in wording it becomes a weakness for them instead:

"Persons with first-hand experience with (regressive) AUTISM are available to educate new generations of parents and providers who have no experience with AUTISM."


Still poking my head around, and discovered on ORISE, managed for the U.S. Department of Energy by Oak Ridge Associated Universities, something about RotaTeq® (remember Oak Ridge has a connection to the CDC's cdcynergy development which released the Brief SWOT Analysis & Vaccine Safety Communication/Media Strategy)


It seems this government organization did a little damage control for RotaTeq (Paul Offit's vaccine/money-maker).

From the website:

Identifying Barriers to Rotavirus Vaccine Adoption

Rotavirus is a leading cause of diarrhea in infants and young children, resulting in up to 400,000 outpatient office visits and 70,000 hospitalizations annually. Almost all children in the U.S. are likely to be infected with the easily transmissible rotavirus before their fifth birthday.

In 2006, a new rotavirus vaccine, RotaTeq®, was licensed in the U.S. and recommended for routine immunization of all infants. Because a previously licensed vaccine, Rotashield®, was withdrawn from the U.S. for safety concerns, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and its National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Disease asked ORISE to identify barriers to RotaTeq® uptake. This data would aid their vaccine policy and development of strategies to broaden vaccine coverage.

In March 2006, ORISE explored beliefs and attitudes of parents and providers toward the rotavirus disease and vaccines using focus groups and in-depth interviews. The assessment suggested that physicians and parents are likely to adopt the newly licensed rotavirus vaccine, but there were concerns. Parental awareness of the rotavirus disease burden, professional organization and physician recommendation of the vaccine, and timely post-marketing data regarding the vaccine’s safety appeared to be linked to vaccine uptake.

Following early 2007 media coverage about the possible correlation between RotaTeq® and a type of bowel obstruction, the CDC asked ORISE to investigate (through pediatrician interviews) whether vaccine commitment was compromised. All pediatricians valued RotaTeq® and their experience in administering the vaccine helped lessen their reaction to the media coverage. Escalating costs and the rapid pace of new recommendations were mentioned as potential barriers to general vaccine administration.

Research results regarding factors influencing acceptance of the new rotavirus vaccine were published in the October 18, 2007 issue of BMC Pediatrics. Findings were also presented to the national Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices as evidence of vaccine acceptance.



That page was last modified on Thurs. Feb.22, 2007 9:34AM

Referring URL: http://www.cdc.gov/dhdsp/CDCynergy_training/

CDCynergy is an interactive training and decision-support tool. It is designed to help Centers for Disease Control and Prevention staff and public health professionals systematically plan communication programs within a health context. It allows users to assemble the pieces of a health communication plan systematically by answering questions in a specific sequence.

One of the CDC's priorities is to build proficiency in health communication throughout CDC. CDC communication staff assist CDC program managers to develop health communication programs and research. When resources allow, CDC works with external organizations to diffuse its best practices in health communication through CDCynergy training workshops. Often this is done in partnership with specific CDC program areas, for example, CDC's Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention Program.

Send questions and comments about this application to:

Linda J. Redman, MPH, MA
Acting Team Lead, Program Services Team
Division for Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention, NCCDPHP
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
4770 Buford Hwy NE Mailstop K-47
Atlanta, GA 30341-3717
Telephone: 770-488-8056
Fax: 770-488-8158
E-mail: [email protected]


n office for communication in the Office of the Director was suggested and became a reality in 1996. The new office combined a newly organized division concerning health communication with a pre-existing office of public affairs creating the Division of Health Communication and the Media Relations Division within the new Office of Communication. It was hoped that this central office of communication would serve as a model for emerging communication offices across the agency and help build health communication capacity through training, research, and program development activities.

The first two employees assigned to the Division of Health Communication were Fred Kroger and Dr. Galen Cole, previously of the National AIDS Information and Education Program, the unit responsible for the "America Responds to AIDS" and "Business Responds to AIDS" campaigns. Kroger became the director of the new Division of Health Communication.

One of the first projects taken on by the new division was to identify a model that could be used to plan communication activities within the newly emerging agency-wide health communication infrastructure. Finding no pre-existing prototype that fulfilled all the required needs, it was determined that a new model for communication planning must be created. Dr. Cole, assisted by Dr. Susan Kirby and Dr. Christine Prue, was assigned to lead this initiative.
go to Video Segment: The Planning Model

The three-year [1995-1998] development process entailed contracting with WESTAT, Inc., a research firm with information technology capabilities. The team leader at WESTAT was Dr. Tim Edgar. The combined CDC/WESTAT team then implemented an exhaustive inductive process designed to determine what experts believed were the steps required to plan and integrate health communication within a larger public health framework. It was decided that the plan must be designed to use terms and principles that were familiar to both communicators and public health professionals. It must also include resources and examples that corresponded with each step in the planning process. After extensive testing and scrutiny by experts from a variety of disciplines within public health, the beta version of the planning model was released for training and planning purposes on June 17, 1998.

About Westat

Westat is an employee-owned corporation providing research services to agencies of the U.S. Government, as well as businesses, foundations, and state and local governments. In addition to our capabilities as a leading statistical survey research organization, Westat has developed skills and experience in custom research and program evaluation studies across a broad range of subject areas. Westat also has the technical expertise in survey and analytical methods, computer systems technology, biomedical science, and clinical trials to sustain a leadership position in all our research endeavors.

Westat's research, technical, and administrative staff of more than 2,000 is located at our headquarters in Rockville, Maryland, near Washington, DC. Depending on the number of active projects at any time, up to several thousand data collection and processing staff work at Westat's survey processing facilities, at our Telephone Research Center facilities, and at data collection sites throughout the nation. Westat also maintains research offices near our clients in Bethesda, Maryland; Raleigh, North Carolina; Atlanta, Georgia; and Houston, Texas.

Demonstrating technical and managerial excellence since 1963, Westat has emerged as one of the foremost contract research organizations in the United States.


The page to find the download was last updated on Fri, Dec 19, 2008 9:51:25 AM

No telling when SWOT was put on there. There are many other documents on that page.

SWOT stands for Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats.

You can also find this document here: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/1009308/federal-swot-analysis


My 14 year old autie that is mostly recovered now, came due for his tetnus booster. The doc tried to sell him 4 vaccinations. I said no to chicken pox booster, meningitis, and Hep A. The only reason I agreed to the tetnus was my son is at risk since he goes barefoot most of the time and plays in creeks and mud. Doc assured me there was NO thimerosal in any of their vaccines. My son got ONE shot June 19, now today Aug 5 he tells me he is having trouble keeping his balance and falling over. He thinks maybe because he is tall now. He's been 5'9" for a year. So that is not the problem. I think that shot had something in it to cause this balance issue. I had the same thing happen at my booster 1998. Balance, tripping and general clumsiness as well as depth perception problems, slurred speech and other speaking problems. The CDC flat out are lying. And I believe the vials not labelled with the true contents.

Dannys Voice

Why don't they just do the actual research on the effects of multiple vaccine injections on a young childs immune system instead of paying someone to come up with this dribble? Once again...government spending at its best!


@bensmyson - the draft is on the CDC website for now. No date or name tied to it but it's there.


Julie Obradovic

I'd love to know who the head of PR is for the CDC. Really? This is what they came up with? Belittling, denial, name-calling, fear-tactics, ignoring....seems eerily similar to an abusive boyfriend, no?

Here's an idea, PR guy or gal. Just a few thoughtful suggestions before you completely ruin the vaccination program with your dishonesty and bullying.

1. Realize that anyone who believes all vaccine reactions are worth preventing infectious disease isn't exactly objective and pass on the science to someone without a position on the subject.

2. Advocate for independent science to be immediately done on the unitended consequences of vaccines so that people who you know, have that "weakness" of believing in their individual rights, can decide for themselves what is more of a risk for them.

3. Actively support an independent study of the vaccinated versus never vaccinated for accurate health outcome differences.

4. Acknowledge the pathetic excuse for science you have done thus far on thimerosal and its limitations and demand better.

5. Treat parental concerns and reports of adverse events with respect, and hey, err on the side of caution! You know, like when a baby develops the symptoms of mercury poisoning after they are injected with it, actually test the child instead of relying on epidemiology? Just a thought.

Well, good luck with your tactics. They're working great for you, eh?

randy (yes I know that name's kinda funny to the UK folks :-)

Those of us on the Canadian side probably recall the recent Maple Leaf Food tragedy (several people died from contaminated meat products).

Their CEO Michael McCain went on national television soon after the fact. Apparently against the advice of the company lawyers, he did 3 things very publicly: (1) he acknowledged the fact that his products had harmed (killed) people, and he apologized profusely (I recall those spots, and he was obviously shaken to the core, IMHO...), (2) he continued to go on camera, to explain to the public what was happening - keeping them informed as to what his company was doing to "make it right", and (3) he took steps to fix the problem (safety improvement), and to make restitution, working with the victim's families to settle with them to the tune of something like $25 million.

"According to data collected by the company, consumers’ intent to purchase Maple Leaf brand products dipped as low as 64 per cent immediately following the recall, but had rebounded to 91 per cent by early December."


"David Dunne, a marketing professor at the University of Toronto’s Rotman School of Management, said it was McCain’s candour in addressing the outbreak and the steps he has taken since to underscore the company’s commitment to food safety — including the appointment of a chief food safety officer — that helped Maple Leaf win consumers back so quickly.

“A lot of what they did was technically perfect,” Dunne said.

“I think they’ve done as much as could be done, and it’s a real example to other companies that face crises. Most companies are way too slow to deal with these things and tend to hide and they’re afraid of admitting responsibility and so on, so this is a real example of how to do it right.”

“His candour at a time when his contemporaries would have scurried behind spin doctors and legal eagles was a refreshing way to address a potentially devastating mistake. I actually trust the man!” said Peter Lapinskie of the Daily Observer in Pembroke, Ont.

“It’s so rare to see a white-collar executive descend from the ivory tower, apologize and reach out to the public in such plain language,” agreed Ruth Davenport of CJNI radio in Halifax.

I will buy Maple Leaf Food products today - I will not get another vaccine for my child. I'm not alone. And the CDC still can't figure it out...

Cherry Sperlin Misra

This draft will go nowhere. Soon it will be said that it never existed. How do I know this? By observing the behavior of public health employees and their pediatrician friends for the last 9 years, one thing is clear-Public Health/Pediatricians do sense that what they have done could be considered a crime by some people, and they have worked out a very effective strategy- Prevent genuine research and never enter into discussion with those people who criticize vaccine ingredients, even if they are respected academics such as Dr. Boyd Haley.Ignore the ten feet high stack of research papers that say that mercury destroys the human body very efficiently. And when confronted (which rarely happens) keep repeating the same semi-lies, which are easily believed by the masses who believe that vaccines sit at the right hand of the Lord.(Who can forget that years ago we used to belong to that club) So now I ask you- Where is our strategy? We need to be more united,focused and effective- and by the way-isnt that precisely what the draft says they fear about us?

Benedetta Stilwell

This is the federal government! These ABC's acronyms are all parts of the federal government! And now the federal government wants to control all of medicine. Universal healthcare, owned by the federal government and paid by your tax dollars! The young babies protect the herd to thier very death, and the elderly will not get medical care, but end of life counseling!


LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!! "the critics of vaccination fall into a few "predictable" categories"(like almost everyone!)
Like Gatogorra said, if Japan and Sweden have opted out of many of the vaccinations and their infant mortality is way below the U.S.'s, then the CDC can suck it!


Here's an article about how drug companies tamper with medical literature:


"...For example, in Japan and Sweden, the anti-vaccine movement’s message diffused from small organized groups to mainstream popular acceptance, which led to changes in vaccination policy and severe drops in vaccination levels and increased morbidity and mortality from vaccine-preventable diseases.”

It would be interesting to substantiate the statement that these countries saw increased morbidity and mortality from vaccine preventable diseases as a result of vaccine concerns. Sweden and Japan are numbers 3 and 4 respectively for lowest infant mortality rate according to the CIA World Facts Book. It seems child health in these countries didn't suffer from the "mainstreaming" of vaccine safety concerns. Maybe if the U.S. vaccine safety movement continues to get organized, our ranking might improve from where it currently stands below Guam at #46.

Kent Heckenlively


This is one of the scariest articles I've ever read. Scary because of the focused attack which is being planned against us, but also scary because this is what the CDC's thinks is the best plan of attack. If we're wrong, do the science like a vaccinated/unvaccinated study, or biological testing showing thimerosal, aluminum, and the assorted weakened viruses have no affect on living human cells, or in research animals. Do the same sort of research that has been performed for decades on other potentially harmful agents. Instead, they choose to rely on epidemiological evidence after which they hide the original data sets, making it impossible for independent researchers to follow their work.

Thanks for all you do, Jim.

All the best,
Kent Heckenlively

Teresa Conrick- (CBS) Sheryl Attkisson: Here ya go!

Thanks, Jim for posting this information. What a bunch of bullshit. I wonder if Sheryl Attkisson would be interested in presenting this?

Some possible highlights for that show could be right here - these are gems that Jim mentioned or the CDC themselves divulged:

-"Rather than a “safety first” program of sound science, CDC’s solution to quelling the coming vaccine rebellion is an aggressive public/private media war: “vaccinate or die.”

-“[T]he number of reported adverse events associated with vaccination was greater than the number of reported cases of vaccine-preventible disease."

-"CDC does not have sound science supporting vaccine safety and must therefore resort to a program of misinformation and propaganda, referring to critical parents and “safety first” advocacy organizations as “anti-vaccine.”

-"Should the Institute of Medicine be labeled anti-vaccine for repeatedly publishing reports over the past decade calling for increased scientific research into outstanding questions about vaccine safety?”

-"As the National Vaccine Advisory Committee has now conceded, there is a crucial gap in safety science, fatal to any claim that “vaccines are safe. NVAC unanimously approved the report of the Vaccine Safety Working Group on June 3, highlighting the lack of baseline data on the health of unvaccinated children developed in a comprehensive program of retrospective and prospective research."

-"CDC makes a stunning admissions: “Some claims against vaccine cannot be disproved.”

-"“CDC does not have complete adverse event surveillance data on which to base health messages.”

-"“Issues of contamination (e.g. SV-40, stealth virus) are compelling and our research is not complete enough to state with all certainty that there is no risk.”

-Thomas Verstraeten-"The bottom line is and has always been the same: an association between thimerosal and neurological outcomes could neither be confirmed nor refuted, and therefore, more study is required.”

-"“Risk communication messages regarding vaccine adverse reactions are difficult to develop.”

Harry H.

I realized a while back that in the eyes of the CDC, the FDA, the AAP, and the vaccine fanatics such as Offit and Snyderman, our children are Collateral Damage. Their sole concern is in advancing the misguided belief that vaccines are the only path to public health.


Would it not be great for every reader to print this article and place a copy in every mailbox in their neighborhood? If the media won't publish the poisoning our children in order to cause benefit to their partners, maybe we should. Far and wide, folks!


So the CDC is threatened by hostile parents, religious objectors, natural and alternative practioners and scientist who disagree with them on the vaccine issue... gee, a regular jihad!

So threatened are they by this rebellion that they feel a need to launch a media campaign to quell the uprising.

please.. like Obama did with Professor Gates and the Cambridge policeman, why don't we all just get together over a nice cold beer and talk it out. Find common ground.

Maybe, just maybe, if these docs listened and reached out instead of stonewalling, they might learn something. Talk to us,meet our kids don't just circling the wagons. It just creates more frustration. We just want to be heard!

Holly M.

The CDC doesn't want to disclose the "anti-vaccine" groups underlying motivation. It's no secret, as Jenny said in DC, "We don't want anyone else to join our group." Autism sucks.

Tanners Dad

So stunning I printed it out in triplicate. One went to England. One copy went to Japan. The other is buried in a cornfield... I bet this will be off the internet before the week is out. Are they that brazen to say...

"Weaknesses... Individual rights outweigh societal needs for most Americans."

Is this not treason to question the founding fathers right to health wealth happiness and freedom. We have let this argument fight go on long enough. Adversaries this stupid should be shut down now and our children helped.

Bob Moffitt

If anything, this "draft" provides clear and convincing evidence the CDC has no intentions of "conducting a meaningful debate about vaccine safety and science". After all, it much easier to control the debate by demonizing anyone who dares question either the "science..or...safety" of vaccines.

Indeed, what is especially damning is their public recognition of prevailing concerns...which include:

Complications of immunization (e.g. VAPP, seizure, encephalopathy, possible chronic sequela)
Multiple and concurrent vaccinations may suppress a child's developing immune system
Immunizations may cause behavior problems (e.g. ADD, autism and hyperkinesis)
Immunizations may transmit animal viruses to man C Introduces harmful adjuvant
(e.g. alluminum hydroxide, formaldehyde, mercury and phenol) which may cause toxic illnesses
Vaccination coincides with the appearance of AIDS
It may cause SIDS

Incredibly, immediately following this list of concerns...the "draft" states:

"To date, no federal or international public health organizations have put forth a coordinated, effective communication strategy to counter" these concerns."

The obvious question is: WHY HAVEN'T THEY?

After all, these are VALID concerns and it is the CDC's responsibility, along with other federal or international public health organiztions, to provide "scientific data" that will satisfy those "hostile parents" who dare raise them.

Robin Nemeth

CDC complains: “Some members of the anti-vaccine movement are making a profit with their message of fear and will not be dissuaded through debate and inclusion in the process.”

Inclusion in the process???

I’ve spent untold hours over the last five years writing letters, making flyers, printing bumper stickers, painting tee shirts, making posters, attending walkathons and meetings. I’ve not made a single dime, ever, of profit from my attempts to raise public awareness of vaccine safety, or rather I should say the lack of it.

What have I gotten, instead, for my efforts? I’ve been banned repeatedly and for longer and longer periods of time from internet political chatrooms where I’d chatted amiable for well on a decade prior to learning of the vaccine/autism issue. I’ve been laughed at or dismissed as crazy. I’ve been threatened with arrest simply for standing on a public sidewalk politely asking people if they would like information about vaccine safety. “Can’t you just take her home?” said the police officer to my husband, as if I were a tiny child or a pesky animal pet. I’ve been told by leaders of various support organizations that my words must be censored (“We only speak of positive things here. Speaking of arrest attempts isn’t positive—please tell us what you’ve done of a positive nature to help children with autism!”) and that “I’m not going to stop promoting a whole group of people simply because YOU have issues with them” (this in response to my disconcertion following an arrest attempt, false accusations, and censorship).

It’s only been since last fall that I was allowed, grudgingly, a seat at a walkathon table at which to disseminate information about thimerosal. And I know that I should be grateful for that and I will be and thankful too. But to see my efforts painted as greedy and exploitive profit taking when in reality it’s felt more like getting kicked in the teeth over and over again, well now that really pisses me off a lot. Especially when it’s being painted that way by people with their own agenda. An agenda which I’ve good reason to believe has a great deal more to do with their own profits and reputations than it does the safety of children.


What is the date of this draft and where is the "official" document that came from this draft? Anyone got a FOIA out on this smoking gun?

Good job bringing this to light! Hopefully, as there was in the tobacco industry undoing, there are hounds chasing this and will uncover evidence that there is a conspiracy by our federal governmental agency (and others) to hide the cause of our children's brain injuries.

Children didn't choose to be vaccinated, adults chose to smoke. The tobacco industry got off by paying a fine, these people should pay with their lives, they poisoned our kids.

You give a baby a beer and you will go to jail. You give a baby cocaine and you will go to jail. You give a baby rat poison and you will go to jail. You give a baby an unsafe vaccine that has the potential to cause harm and you should go to jail, forever if they did it to my son. Lock'm up!

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.)