Win 101 Tips for Parents of Girls With Autism By Kim Stagliano
Dachel Media Update: Vaccine Crackdowns

Maine National Town Hall Debate on Vaccines

Ginger Main Debate

By Ginger Taylor

Last week in Maine an unprecedented event occurred. A mainstream media outlet hosted an extended, live debate on vaccines, invited a balanced panel and a balanced audience, let the audience questions drive the debate, and in no way biased or edited the final product. This bold media outlet, CBS affiliate WGME in Portland, Maine, along with their media partner the Bangor Daily News, hosted this as a part of a national Town Hall event series.

The panelists were former pediatrician and current Medical Director for MaineCare Kevin Flanigan, MD, MBA, former pediatrician and Vice President for Clinical Affairs for the University of New England Dora Anne Mills M.D., M.P.H., F.A.A.P., authority on the anthrax vaccine Meryl Nass, M.D., and myself, Ginger Taylor, MS, BA, AM (autism mom). Turns out there is a good reason that public health officials and vaccine program defenders don't participate in fair, open, unedited, extended debates with critics of the vaccine program... they have dramatically different outcomes than the biased, prepackaged media pieces we are used to seeing.

Public health loses control of the narrative quickly. WGME has placed the entire debate on their web site and on YouTube. We at the Maine Coalition for Vaccine Choice encourage you to take an evening to watch this unique debate, and to share it widely with those who are interested in more in depth discussions on vaccine matters.

In preparation for this article, I contacted my fellow panelists to tell them that we would be writing a follow up to the event and asked them to send any citations that might apply to the topics that they discussed so that those interested could continue to research the material.

Below the videos you will find each of their notes. Currently there are five vaccine bills in the Maine Legislature. Two that restrict and remove vaccine exemption rights, one that adds more vaccines to the list of those mandated for school entry, one that prevents discrimination against those who are unvaccinated, and another, written by me, to create a vaccine safety office at the Maine CDC to prevent vaccine injury, and to get vaccine injuries properly assessed, diagnosed, treated and compensated via the federal Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. These bills will be heard in the Joint Committee on Health and Human Services on May 11th. We will be holding an all day advocacy push that day which includes a scheduled visit from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. who will be educating legislators on what he has learned about vaccine safety after investigating parental vaccine injury claims.

We encourage Mainers who want to retain their right to vaccinate as they choose, and who want to work to prevent vaccine injury, to join our mailing list on, join our group on Facebook at Maine Coalition for Vaccine Choice, and to join us in Augusta on May 11th as we educate the legislators on what is really going on in the vaccine program and why parental rights must be respected. 

On behalf of myself, The Maine Coalition for Vaccine Choice, The Canary Party,, and the thousands of families we represent, we thank CBS 13/WGME and the Bangor Daily News for holding such an unbiased and in depth town hall discussion on vaccines. We hope that this will be a shining example of how mainstream media can restore their reputation with the public on this topic, and that it will be the first of many such events in the US.

Notes By Dr. Meryl Nass:

The Pertussis Discussion

Pertussis vaccine may not protect, and may enhance spread of pertussis if exposed after vaccination.   This was written up in Science, Scientific American, NY Times, yet ignored and disputed during our debate.  Science has a better article than Scientific American on the FDA findings on pertussis vaccine.  ‎ Here the FDA responds to those who dispute the validity of the baboon model.

The Swine Flu/GBS Discussion

 The former head of CDC who led the 1976 swine flu vaccine program admits there was Guillain Barre Syndrome as a result.  A review this month acknowledges GBS due to the 1976 program.  NYT: Fear of a Swine Flu Epidemic in 1976 Offers Some Lessons, and Concerns, Today.

Book by National Academy of Sciences' Institute of Medicine about the program:
The Swine Flu Affair: Decision-Making on a Slippery Disease
Richard E. Neustadt, Professor of Government, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University
Harvey V. Fineberg, M.D., Assistant Professor of Health Services, School of Public Health, Harvard University
With an introduction by Joseph A. Califano, Jr., Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare Published by the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare 1978 

CDC slide show that says the relative risk was 7.6 based on 8 studies, and "several reanalyses with same conclusions" (slide 4):  A 2012 paper that notes the risk of GBS increased more than 6 times in vaccinees: The CDC's admission on the matter: J Infect Dis. 2008 Jul 15;198(2):226-33. doi: 10.1086/589624. Anti-ganglioside antibody induction by swine (A/NJ/1976/H1N1) and other influenza vaccines: insights into vaccine-associated Guillain-Barré syndrome. Nachamkin I1, Shadomy SV, Moran AP, Cox N, Fitzgerald C, Ung H, Corcoran AT, Iskander JK, Schonberger LB, Chen RT. Abstract

BACKGROUND: Receipt of an A/NJ/1976/H1N1 "swine flu" vaccine in 1976, unlike receipt of influenza vaccines used in subsequent years, was strongly associated with the development of the neurologic disorder Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS). Anti-ganglioside antibodies (e.g., anti-GM(1)) are associated with the development of GBS, and we hypothesized that the swine flu vaccine contained contaminating moieties (such as Campylobacter jejuni antigens that mimic human gangliosides or other vaccine components) that elicited an anti-GM(1) antibody response in susceptible recipients. METHODS: Surviving samples of monovalent and bivalent 1976 vaccine, comprising those from 3 manufacturers and 11 lot numbers, along with several contemporary vaccines were tested for hemagglutinin (HA) activity, the presence of Campylobacter DNA, and the ability to induce anti-Campylobacter and anti-GM(1) antibodies after inoculation into C3H/HeN mice.

RESULTS: We found that, although C. jejuni was not detected in 1976 swine flu vaccines, these vaccines induced anti-GM(1) antibodies in mice, as did vaccines from 1991-1992 and 2004-2005. Preliminary studies suggest that the influenza HA induces anti-GM(1) antibodies.

CONCLUSIONS: Influenza vaccines contain structures that can induce anti-GM(1) antibodies after inoculation into mice. Further research intoinfluenza vaccine components that elicit anti-ganglioside responses and the role played by these antibodies (if any) in vaccine-associated GBS is warranted. A sample of six vaccine and injectable medication disasters in the US during the past 60 years All have been due to failures of testing or failures in manufacturing processes. Meryl Nass, M.D. March 21, 2015 1. 1955: (Improperly inactivated) live polio vaccine caused polio in thousands of children Cutter (now part of Bayer) incident 1955–This early US Salk polio vaccine contained live polio virus, which had not been inactivated in the factory. It caused 40,000 polio cases in the US due to inadequate inactivation of live virus. Cutter was the major company involved, but other companies also had problems with viral inactivation. The NIH director and others lost their jobs in the aftermath, since Bernice Eddy, an NIH scientist, had earlier found the vaccines paralyzed monkeys, but her findings were suppressed in the rush to vaccinate.

 (Simian Virus 40, a cancer-causing virus) contaminated polio vaccines given to tens of millions of Americans. SV-40 causes cancer in animals and has been found in human cancers, though its relationship to human cancers remains uncertain, as the research has been contradictory. 3. 1970s-1985: Factor 8 Concentrate. a pooled blood product used to prevent bleeding in hemophiliacs, was contaminated with HIV and Hepatitis C, but continued to be sold worldwide, even after manufacturers became aware of the contamination. Its manufacturers knew it was contaminated with HIV (and Hepatitis C), which spread through the injectable blood products used by hemophiliacs.

About 8,000 US hemophiliacs at the time developed HIV infections this way, and an estimated 150,000 developed Hepatitis C, which frequently results in chronic liver disease, cirrhosis or death. The practice of distributing contaminated blood was widespread internationally, with many companies involved, and continued even after the problem was identified. It led to suits against pharmaceutical companies in a number of countries. It led to thousands of deaths. Doctors went to jail. Cutter/ Bayer knowingly sold HIV-contaminated products in the US and overseas, seemingly having learned nothing from its polio-contaminated vaccine disaster 25 years earlier. 4. 1976-1977:

Swine flu vaccine given to 45 million Americans for a non-existent disease, causing hundreds of cases of paralysis A new flu virus was discovered in a soldier who died at Fort Dix, NJ. Concern that the virus might cause a 1918-like influenza pandemic led to a huge federal program to develop a vaccine and vaccinate every American against the virus. But the epidemic never occurred. And the affected soldier, despite having an acute infection, had undertaken a forced march, and then died. No one knew if the flu had killed him. The vaccine manufacturers, meanwhile, were given a waiver of liability. After 45 million inoculations of the newly developed vaccine, about 400 people developed paralysis from the vaccine (Guillain Barre syndrome, at a rate 6-8 times expected during the six weeks post-inoculation) and about 30 died. The program was then ended.

The Secretary of HEW, Joseph Califano, asked that a thorough investigation be done of the science, the policy and the processes involved. The result is a bird’s eye view of how personal and political agendas came together to supercede considerations of the public health: (unfortunately now behind a paywall) 5. 1999:

Rhesus rotavirus vaccine (Rotashield) caused intestinal tract damage. This oral vaccine was designed to prevent a usually mild form of gastroenteritis that kills (via dehydration) an estimated 30 US babies per year. However, it caused 22 times the expected number of cases of intussusception of the bowel, and many affected babies required surgery to repair “telescoping” of the guy. Several died. Four months after being licensed, the vaccine was taken off the market. 6. 2009-10 Pandemrix swine flu vaccine, used in Europe, caused about 900 cases of narcolepsy. Children aged 5-19 were about 15 times more likely to develop narcolepsy if they received the Pandemrix brand of swine flu vaccine in Europe.

Other age groups were also at an increased risk or narcolepsy due to the vaccine, but to a lesser degree. Narcolepsy is caused by autoimmune destruction of cells in the locus ceruleus of the brain. It is a newly recognized vaccine adverse reaction. The narcolepsy cases were quite severe and generally associated with cataplexy.

The adverse effect profile of drugs and vaccines is generally not well known until millions of people have received the drug or vaccine. This occurred in each of the cases above. New federal legislation, removing manufacturer liability for (even unlicensed) products developed for emergencies, increases the speed at which these products are manufactured and tested, increasing their potential risk. citize For these reasons, citizens deserve to retain the right to choose for themselves and their children whether or not to receive medical products and procedures. State Legislators Organization (NCSL) Targets Vaccine Exemptions and Supports Meningitis Vaccines

How might state legislators be influenced/manipulated by pharmaceutical companies to remove vaccine exemptions and mandate more vaccines? Through their non-partisan national organization, which appears to provide “value-free” information on many subjects of interest to legislators. The NCSL (national conference of state legislatures) sponsor list includes many Pharma companies

This organization (NCSL) appears to target vaccine exemptions at this site This organization highlighted vaccinations in the February issue of their magazine For example: “Between 2009 and 2012, lawmakers in 18 states introduced 36 bills involving vaccine exemptions, 31 of which would have made opting out of shots easier. None of the 31 passed, largely because of strong evidence that withholding vaccinations leads to outbreaks of measles, whooping cough and other diseases. States with easier exemption policies were “associated with a 90 percent higher incidence of whooping cough in 2011,” according to a 2013 Institute of Medicine report. (This does not make sense, since the main driver in whooping cough epidemics is the waning of vaccine immunity, not lack of vaccinations—Nass) Children who are vaccinated against preventable diseases such as influenza and whooping cough also have fewer doctors’ visits, hospitalizations and premature deaths, say the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. California, Vermont and Washington now require parents who want exemptions to get a doctor’s signature.

In Oregon, parents must get a doctor’s signature or watch a video about the risks and benefits of vaccines. In Colorado, where whooping cough cases have topped a 60-year high, lawmakers passed HB 1288 in 2013 requiring schools to collect and make publicly available information about their vaccination and exemption rates.” With a date of 1/12/2015, this organization has a page titled “Immunizations Policy Issues Overview” This organization has especially highlighted meningitis vaccine legislation and HPV vaccine legislation, even though neither vaccine is associated with herd immunity; your child will not “catch” either of these infections through casual contact with other children.

Notes by Ginger Taylor:

99 Research papers supporting the vaccine/autism link.

CDC recommended childhood vaccine schedule from 1973 to 1988 as compared to the current schedule following the liability protection put in place in 1986:

The CDC adult vaccine schedule:

The National Adult Immunization Plan Draft:

HHS has become a vaccine patent holder while approving, regulating and recommending vaccines, and while and adjudicating vaccine injuries, without disclosing its serious conflicts of interests to consumers.

The current Congressional investigation into the #CDCwhistleblower scandal, triggered when senior CDC vaccine scientist William Thompson admitted publicly that he and his research team had actively hidden vaccine autism links from the public.

The DOJ indictment of CDC vaccine safety researcher Poul Thorsen on 21 counts of fraud and money laundering for embezzling more than a million dollars from CDC and his university, whose research CDC is still using to support vaccine safety claims.

The US Government Accounting Office, Associated Press/NYT and American University/George Washington School of Law investigations into the failures of the VICP to properly compensate families of vaccine victims.

NYT/Pace University Environmental Law Review research showing that, although the federal government will not officially establish the vaccine/autism link, the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program has been quietly paying autism cases since 1991.

Full information on the proposed Maine Vaccine Consumer Protection Act.

Our opposition to the bills in Maine proposed to restrict and remove vaccine choice rights.

Johns Hopkins database of vaccine package inserts:

Vaccine Injury Compensation Table:

All research into vaccine uptake shows that it is the mostly highly educated parents who are the ones choosing to opt out of vaccination.

Notes by Kevin Flanigan

Dr. Flanigan wrote very gracious notes to both myself and Dr. Nass about our participation in the debate. He thanked us for the offer to add notes, but shared that the state of Maine believes that the debate as aired speaks for itself.

Notes by Dora Anne Mills

As of this publishing Dr. Mills has not responded to our offer to include her notes. We will amend should she forward any comments to us.

Ginger Taylor holds an MS in Clinical Counseling from Johns Hopkins University, is a co-founder of the Canary Party, and serves on the leadership of Health Choice.  She has a 13 year old son who regressed into autism following his 18 month vaccines.  She reciently authored legislation under consideration in Maine to create a state vaccine safety program.



I thought this was a brilliant debate. How unfortunate that we are not able to debate the issue in Australia. Dr Sherry Tenpenny was not allowed to speak on vaccines and in the end decided not to come to this country because of bomb threats etc from pro vaccination people. Our media will not debate the issue at all. We are now being told that the government will take away benefits from parents unless they vaccinate. What really upsets me is that the whole argument for this heavy handed measure is herd immunity when clearly it is totally false.

UNSW have found that 80% of cases of whooping cough are strains that do not respond to the vaccine - so why blame the unvaccinated?
"So far, it has been bad news as experts have found out the bacteria causing whooping cough have evolved.

The most likely culprit in the mutation of the Bordertella pertussis, the bacterium causing whooping cough, is the vaccine used to protect humans against it. The vaccine has been effective by zeroing in on pertactin, a protein that plays a major role in the development of the illness.

"It's like a game of hide and seek. It is harder for the antibodies made by the body's immune system in response to vaccination to 'search and destroy' the whooping cough bacteria which lack pertactin. This could mean that these pertactin-free strains have gained a selective advantage over bacterial strains with the pertactin protein," said Ruiting Lan, senior author of the latest study on whooping cough and associate professor at School of Biotechnology and Biomolecular Sciences at the University of New South Wales."

he team of experts, led by UNSW PhD candidate Connie Lam, have looked into cases of whooping cough from across Australia and have found out that roughly 80 percent of the cases in 2012 were due to strains of the bacterium that do not have pertactin.

"The fact that they have arisen independently in different countries suggests this is in response to the vaccine.

Also people who have been vaccinated against pertussis can still cary the disease.

The FDA published a study they had conducted on the pertussis vaccine, admitting that cases of whooping cough were increasing among a highly vaccinated public. They studied the effect of the vaccine on baboons, and found out that vaccinated baboons still carried around whooping cough in their throats, spreading it to others. The N.Y. Times actually reported on this in their “Health Section”.

a report was published by the Financial Post titled Vaccines Cannot Prevent Measles Outbreaks. Its author, Lawrence Solomon, reported on a paper written by Professor of Medicine and founder and leader of the Mayo Clinic’s Vaccine Research Group, Professor Gregory A. Poland, titled The Re-emergence of Measles in Developed Countries, which was published two years ago.

“Thus, while an excellent vaccine, a dilemma remains. As previously mentioned, measles is extraordinarily transmissible. At the same time, measles vaccine has a failure rate measured in a variety of studies at 2 –10%, and modeling studies suggest that herd immunity to measles requires approximately 95% or better of the population to be immune.”

Therefore blaming unvaccinated people for not creating herd immunity is a myth - both vaccinated and unvaccinated spread the disease and will continue to do so. The best defence is a health immune system, high vitamin d levels, good diet, avoiding stress.


I just watched most of this and a big thank you to Maine's WGME for sponsoring this!
My thoughts: Ginger was amazing. Dr Nass was beyond credible. She, by a mile, came across as the most educated doctor on the panel. She had a quality of integrity that the other doctors did not and she clearly didn't mind being asked about her qualifications and her trustworthiness. I felt that she and Ginger caught Dr. Flanagan in a lie and politely called him on it when a woman from the audience asked if doctors are educated about contraindications to vaccinating. Dr. Nass explained that she had received about one half hour's education on vaccine's.
The question of contamination was interesting and obviously, Dr.s Flanagan and Mills did not want to go there except to babble on about safety always improving. Mycoplasma was mentioned by Dr. Nass and of course SV40 but Dr. Offit's porcine virus contamination in Rotateq wasn't even brought up.
Basically, Dr. Nass seemed very knowledgable and credible, willing to discuss any details. Dr. Mills was obviously a talking head, very general in her comments. In fact, what seems to be happening is that we are seeing that any of these people on the pro-vaccine side, and at least I commend these doctors for appearing, do not want o go into any detail. They can't, they do not have science or truth in their side. People like Dr. Offit know this and they are simply unwilling to "debate." their position gets weaker every day with whistleblowers and more and more researchers and doctors willing to speak to the truth.

Truth is hard to come by

for rtp--You state:

"4c) The purpose of measles vaccine was to reduce the *total* number of people with encephalitis. There was no significant reduction (in the US it increased).

The purpose of rubella vaccine was to reduce the *total* number of kids with congenital defects. There was no significant reduction (it increased).

The purpose of the polio vaccine was to reduce the *total* number of crippled children, etc. There was no significant reduction (it has increased).

The purpose of the diphtheria/pertussis vaccine was to dramatically reduce the number of kids hospitalised with respiratory infections. There was no such reduction.

The purpose of the Hep B vaccine was to reduce the *total* number of people with liver cancer. Rates in the US have tripled since the introduction of the vaccine.

The purpose of the Hib vaccine was to reduce the total number of cases of meningitis/pneumonia/sepsis. It did no such thing."

The potential that mainstream medicine has confused everyone and themselves by changing diagnostic criteria and renaming afflictions is certainly a strong possibility--so I am very interested in any references that substantiate this has indeed happened.

However, a comparison of "the total number of cases" is not the right kind of comparison. Since the human population has grown considerably in the last 50 years, the total number of cases of anything could be expected to be larger now than in the past. What we actually need to know is the percentage of babies/children/adults within a particular geographic/political area suffering the various afflictions characterized by a set of symptoms before and after the widespread use of a particular vaccine.

Can you direct readers to any references that offer that sort of more meaningful comparison for any of the disease states (encephalitis, congenital defects, crippled children, respiratory infections, liver cancer, meningitis)? If so, please post. Thanks.

Georg Elser

Msg to Ginger Taylor .

I have to tell you this is likely the last TV interview you will ever do on this subject .Pharma cannot possibly let you appear again - personally I would like to see you in a head to head with the Proffit Scoundrel.
Please please try to do all the TV interviews representing us - I couldnt do them because it would surely end in a brawl.

And the reason for that is that you were excellent .
You were properly prepared .You were calm & precise .
You interjected in an superb way .
You had all the facts readily to hand .
You put down Mr Flanigan is the most superb manner .
The opposition looked pathetic to anyone with an extensive exhaustive knowledge on the subject .

We need more of your ilk . Tipping my hat to you .


It's worth repeating, Ginger - you and Dr. Nass were fantastic. Am SO heartened to see this sort of debate; kudos to that television station for providing the venue for this debate.

Denise Ferraro

Ginger, As my 19 and 23 year old daughters would say " Girl, You Rocked It"!!!!!! Thanks so much for all you do!!
@David Taylor Well said


I have only watched one segment so far. It amazes me how the question about how much money the vaccine industry makes is just glossed over by the pro-vaxxers... Completely missing the point that these things are sold for PROFIT (with no liablity, mind you)



4c) The purpose of measles vaccine was to reduce the *total* number of people with encephalitis. There was no significant reduction (in the US it increased).

The purpose of rubella vaccine was to reduce the *total* number of kids with congenital defects. There was no significant reduction (it increased).

The purpose of the polio vaccine was to reduce the *total* number of crippled children, etc. There was no significant reduction (it has increased).

The purpose of the diphtheria/pertussis vaccine was to dramatically reduce the number of kids hospitalised with respiratory infections. There was no such reduction.

The purpose of the Hep B vaccine was to reduce the *total* number of people with liver cancer. Rates in the US have tripled since the introduction of the vaccine.

The purpose of the Hib vaccine was to reduce the total number of cases of meningitis/pneumonia/sepsis. It did no such thing.

And so on and so forth. When you try and marry up the vaccine against the *real world problem* it was supposed to address (as opposed to the number of germs found in the patient's body) it is always an abject failure.

I will give this one non-government site as a link - (all of the data comes from government mortality data) which shows that even if you ignore the pro-treatment bias of doctors and trust the government data, there is no way you can claim that vaccines have saved millions of lives.


4b) So as I say above, the so-called success of measles vaccine is nothing more than a self-fulfilling prophecy - a circularity. Same for polio, smallpox, diphtheria etc. None of them work. None of them could work. We have c100 trillion bacteria (and an order of magnitude more viruses) on and in us all the time. Trying to fight disease by fighting them is like dipping a bucket into the ocean and pouring the contents onto land to fight drowning. If you are going to be petrified of encountering germs you may as well be petrified of breathing nitrogen.

What is more, since the widespread use of vaccines, childhood disability rates have risen ten fold and healthcare expenditure has increased four fold as a per cent of GDP. and publications/sipp2010.html (Table A-4) (for disability rates).

Now at this point vaccine fanatics will respond that correlation doesn't prove causation but even if vaccines didn't *cause* this rise in disability rates it is nonetheless clear that they didn't provide any real world benefit.

The following provides data for healthcare expenditure in the US since the widespread use of vaccines - In the UK and Australia it has been a threefold increase in per GDP healthcare spending since the widespread use of vaccines. An utter catastrophe. The revenue of Merck rose 60 times in real terms since 1953 (granted there may have been a few mergers but clearly pharma companies have done very nicely since the advent of vaccines).

To give an idea of what the diseases have been relabelled as anybody can type in measles/pertussis/etc and 'differential diagnosis' into google. But as a start, measles has been renamed roseola, fifth disease, etc; polio has been renamed Guillain Barre, transverse myelitis, coxsackie (we actually use more respirators today than we ever did iron lungs by the way it is just that iron lungs were too expensive and dangerous to keep using) (further information on polio acute flaccid paralysis vs non-polio acute flaccid paralysis can be found from the WHO here; diphtheria/pertussis were renamed respiratory syncytial virus, croup, strep, tonsillitis etc; hepatitis was renamed Hep C, Hep D etc; meningitis/pneumonia/sepsis blamed on Hib was renamed meningitis/pneumonia/sepsis blamed on some other bacteria; smallpox was renamed monkey pox/severe chicken pox. Indeed the CDC actually admit that people have tested positive for smallpox virus since they declared it eradicated ( but they always declared that it must have been a false positive because - in a wonderful piece of circular reasoning - smallpox doesn't exist anymore.


4a) Relating to their efficacy. I will break this up into three posts because of its length:

Everybody loves government sources (because we all know there is no such thing as conspiracies (well except terrorists and organised crime and gangs and hostile foreign militaries and so on)) so the following provides nothing but these sacred sources. Of course, wiser people will understand that it is not just the credibility of the sources it is the logic you use to understand what the data actually mean.

Anyway, the entire so-called success of vaccines is nothing more than a self-fulfilling prophecy. There is no valid evidence that there has been a real fall in polio/measles/diphtheria/pertussis/rubella etc rather what has happened is that doctors just changed the labels of these diseases when they saw them in vaccinated patients.

This makes sense because once they introduce a vaccine doctors are prejudiced against diagnosing that condition based on their belief/hope that the vaccine will work (that is why the gold standard for testing is supposed to be a *double* blind placebo trial - the doctor is not supposed to know you received the treatment because it will bias their diagnoses but of course the data that is used to prove that vaccines work is not blinded).

And what is more, health bureaucracies will specifically encourage this

with the quote: " To minimize the problem of false positive laboratory results, it is important to restrict case investigation and laboratory tests to patients most likely to have measles (i.e., those who meet the clinical case definition, especially if they have risk factors for measles, such as being unvaccinated,[...]"

And this is for diphtheria: "Because diphtheria has occurred only rarely in the United States in recent years, many clinicians may not include diphtheria in their differential diagnoses. Clinicians are reminded to consider the diagnosis of respiratory diphtheria in patients with membranous pharyngitis and who are not up-to-date with vaccination against diphtheria."

In addition to the above, (as you can see from the above links) once a vaccine is introduced, generally speaking the diagnostic criteria is strengthened such that all cases need to be confirmed with a laboratory test (whereas before practically all cases are diagnosed on symptoms alone). Along with the pro-treatment bias of the doctors this pretty much guarantees that the number of diagnosed cases will fall dramatically - irrespective of whether the vaccine did any good.


3) Relating to their dangers. This is the most effective and easiest argument you can use.

"If an 80kg adult were to get the equivalent dose of what an infant is expected to get then they would receive around 500 vaccines over 18 months. I would never get that many vaccines for myself so it is absurd to think that my babies should take them without any troubles"

Now, if one of the pro-vaxers offers to take such a dose to prove that they are safe, make sure you don't offer to pay for or organise it. They will just make increasingly ridiculous demands until you pull out and they will declare that they were happy to do it all along.

If they offer to do this the only thing you should accept to do is verify that they are actually vaccines (not saline) they take once they have organised the vaccines and the person to administer them.


2) How to deal with people saying we are a public menace. This is a good argument to use to politicians because it doesn't argue with the science per se - just the social consequences of our decisions.

a) The pertussis vaccine (DTaP) is a toxoid vaccine and it therefore cannot prevent transmission because it is not designed to prevent the bacteria itself;

b) The MMR and varicella vaccines are live virus vaccines and can therefore potentially shed (according to mainstream medicine) so just like with pertussis, the vaccinated can present just as big a risk as the unvaccinated (albeit for different reasons);

c) it makes no sense to be concerned by people who have not vaccinated for Hep B given that it is unlawful to discriminate against kids who actually *have* Hep B (as it should be). If you are going to worry about someone with a, say, 5 per cent chance of having Hep B then why on earth would you not be concerned with someone with a 100 per cent chance of having it?

d) if babies and the immunocompromised - who are supposedly the main beneficiaries of so-called herd immunity - can spend so much time in hospitals and doctors' waiting rooms surrounded by *actual* sick people then why on earth would they be in danger being surrounded by *potentially* sick unvaccinated kids?

e) if we are to be so concerned about unvaccinated children why not other groups of people who are supposedly more likely to spread disease to other people? Such as homosexuals, the promiscuous, IV drug users, people who visit the doctor when they are sick or show up for work not feeling 100 per cent? Maybe we should just realise that we are always going to be surrounded by people who aren't always perfectly healthy and accept that the vast majority of the time it has no impact on us.

As I say below, appeals to authority don't matter, but because this argument relies on the 'established science' it is worth linking people to the words of an immunologist


1) How to deal with people disqualifying you from an opinion.

You should never qualify or defend yourself. If you respond to bad faith arguments with good faith arguments it actually reinforces your opponent's belief that their approach is valid.

Pro-vaxer: "Dr Google!"

If someone says this ask them why it is that it is perfectly acceptable to use the internet for all kinds of information - some simple, some complex, and many many issues of great substance but for some reason medical information gets all jumbled the moment it is uploaded onto a computer. People even do degrees on the internet - presumably they aren't all illegitimate.

Pro-vaxer: “You aren’t an expert in immunology. How could you possibly know they are useless?”

Responses: “You aren’t an expert in homeopathy*. How do you know it is useless?”

*You can exchange homeopathy with any practice or belief that your opponent doesn’t agree with (astrology, naturopathy, faith healing, eugenics etc). It is irrelevant whether you agree with it or not.

Another good response (which can be provided along with or instead of): “Doctors don’t take any responsibility for damage done from the vaccines nor if they fail to provide immunity. Nor do pharma companies, health bureaucrats, politicians etc. What kind of a fool would blindly trust those who are “all care and no responsibility?”

Once you have shown the invalidity of their argument then you are welcome to say “oh and by the way, here are a bunch of immunologists who are opposed to vaccines”. But you can’t say that by itself because it simply reinforces the notion in your opponent’s mind that the opinions of immunologists are critical.

This works for many of their arguments. Appeals to popularity (you can mention religions), appeals to the longevity of vaccination “science” (again you can mention religion/astrology). Appeals to "peer-review" (you can ask them if they would blindly accept homeopaths peer-reviewing each others' work).

This forces them to explain why immunology is somehow fundamentally more “sciency” than all those other beliefs. They will be defending themselves. And that is where you want them to be.

“Are you an anti-vaxer?”.

Good response: “I take the position on each and every vaccine that is guided by the evidence at hand rather than a preconceived notion of what the outcome should be. Isn’t that what scientists are supposed to do? Or are you seriously telling me that I should ignore all the evidence and hold a pro-vaccine position regardless? That sounds pretty foolish to me. Are vaccines a science or a cult?”

Do not say “No I am not an anti-vaxer”. Even if you yourself think some vaccines are a good idea in some circumstances that is a very bad response. By saying that you are not an anti-vaxer you are effectively legitimizing their approach and by extension dismissing all people who don’t support vaccines in some ways. Never sell allies down the river in the hope of appeasing people. It is ok to be more moderate – we don’t all have to agree – but it is very dangerous to delegitimize the views of those who are your allies because they are more extreme. Even if you are successful in winning a reprieve it will only be temporary. And the next time you are attacked you won’t have as many allies to support you.

After you provide the first response then – if applicable - it would be ok to say “and by the way, my own position is that some vaccines are useful in some circumstances”.

Note that the first response puts them in the position of having to defend themselves.

"If you don't want to use vaccines then why do use other forms of medicine".

Good response: "If I think the Toyota Landcruiser is a great car does it logically follow that I must think the Yaris is too?"

Another response: "if I believe in a defence force does that mean I should be happy if it used to fight its own citizens?"

“Correlation doesn’t prove causation”

Good response: “Then how do you know vaccines work? Please don’t tell me that all the correlations that support your prejudices are proof positive of causation but all those that don’t are just coincidence? How convenient! And similarly, how do you know that deaths/injuries after measles/pertussis etc aren’t also just coincidences?”

You then follow this up by saying “and besides, challenge rechallenge is an accepted proof of causation in medicine and there are plenty of such cases regarding vaccines. Why is there one rule for all other medicines in terms of proof of causation and a completely different one for vaccines?”

“You are a baby killer”

I know this is awful and our instinct is to arc up in righteous indignation but you should resist the urge to do so.

You can ignore it or provide an off the cuff remark. That is fine.

Alternatively, you can say this:

“if I were to take the same schedule as my child is expected to get it would be the equivalent of me getting 500 vaccines over 18 months. As I believe that it is unconscionable to subject my children to something I wouldn’t subject myself to I think that my approach is, if anything, the more moral.”

“You’re a conspiracy theorist”.

Do not respond by saying “oh no no all my data comes from government sources.” Again, you are just reinforcing the idea that the opinions and output of politicians and bureaucrats are important.

The correct response is: “What about terrorism? Organised crime? Gangs? Hostile foreign militaries? All of those require conspiracies are you telling me they do not exist? That is quite a claim.”

You can then follow it by saying. “And by the way I never said nor implied there was a conspiracy here. Most of the agents no doubt believe what they do but they all have the same massive vested interest so their opinion is no more valid than if you surveyed every parent and asked them if their kids are beautiful."


Obviously we need to fight legislative efforts as they come up but ultimately we need to actually convince a significant proportion of the people of the validity of our position. A lot of you lack confidence in this because you often come up against people who are skilled in rhetoric and care not for truth. So I have compiled a series of posts to allow you all to respond in the best possibly way for every pro-vaxer argument. It will help you in your private life defending your decision to friends and family and also when you are debating people on public fora.

There are lots of people who are very nervous about vaccines and about taking away parental rights but equally nervous about the diseases they are supposed to protect us from. In fact, that would probably be more than 50 per cent of parents. So those are the ones you need to reach out to.

The first post will deal with those trying to disqualify you from having an opinion.

The second post will be how to respond to those who say we are a public menace.

The third will be how to broach the safety issue with the most impact.

And the last will be to show that they don't actually work. It is long and sometimes you will need to just provide snippets so make sure you understand it.

Basically, we need to destroy the idea that we have no right to an opinion, destroy the idea that we are a danger to other children, demonstrate in a way people easily understand that these things are not safe and then actually explain why they don't even work.


And here you go; it would seem the AMA deems ITSELF above and beyond those of us who may be stripped of our right to the use of exemptions:

Opinion 9.133 Routine Universal Immunization of Physicians

"As professionals committed to promoting the welfare of individual patients and the health of the public and to safeguarding their own and their colleagues’ well-being, physicians have an ethical responsibility to take appropriate measures to prevent the spread of infectious disease in health care settings. Conscientious participation in routine infection control practices, such as hand washing and respiratory precautions is a basic expectation of the profession. In some situations, however, routine infection control is not sufficient to protect the interests of patients, the public, and fellow health care workers.

In the context of a highly transmissible disease that poses significant medical risk for vulnerable patients or colleagues, or threatens the availability of the health care workforce, particularly a disease that has potential to become epidemic or pandemic, and for which there is an available, safe, and effective vaccine, physicians have an obligation to:

(a) Accept immunization absent a recognized medical, religious, or philosophic reason to not be immunized.

(b) Accept a decision of the medical staff leadership or health care institution, or other appropriate authority to adjust practice activities if not immunized (e.g., wear masks or refrain from direct patient care). It may be appropriate in some circumstances to inform patients about immunization status. (I, II)

Issued June 2011 based on the report "Routine Universal Immunization of Physicians for Vaccine-Preventable Disease,"PDF FIle adopted November 2010."


Jeannette Bishop

Thank you! Such a great and skillful effort to get in important educating points.

Here in California, in the Senate Health Hearing, Dr. Pan has referenced the IOM conclusions on vaccine concerns and a Cochrane Collaboration review on the MMR to leave the impression that there is no data linking vaccines to any harm. He's quoted in the press as being confident that the same "science" will win the day with the Education Committee. I wonder if he would be willing to debate in a format that allows challenges to such assertions and discussion of countering science and neglected research?

Bob Moffitt

I am extremely grateful for the rare opportunity to watch ...

"A mainstream media outlet host an extended, live debate on vaccines, invited a balanced panel and a balanced audience, let the audience questions drive the debate, and in no way biased or edited the final product."

This type of "open debate" on this critical issue should be conducted in every State of the Union .. and .. I suspect the reason it is not happening .. is because those tasked with promoting vaccines and the legislation to mandate them are unwilling to participate.

Odd considering THEY insist THEY have "science" on THEIR side .. but .. it does explain why THEY refuse to conduct the "vaccinated v. unvaccinated" study .. and .. it is not because it would be "unethical" .. it is because THEY are terrified of what a truly independent, scientific study would reveal.

Not surprised to hear Dr. Dora Anne Mills did not forward any "notes" to further explain her position .. but .. then again .. it was Dr. Mills who quoted Autism Speaks as one of the main sources she relies upon.

Really do wish those asked to participate in these types of debates are provided information that clearly explains what critical words mean .. such as .. "what qualifies someone to be labeled vaccinated or not"? The term "unvaccinated" is thrown about as if the term is clearly understood .. and .. obviously it is not.

Consider .. Dr. Flanigan stated a statistic of 4% children in Maine are unvaccinated .. and .. then we later learned those 4% were not totally unvaccinated .. having received at least some vaccines .. and .. only 0.6% of children in Maine are completely unvaccinated.

Admittedly, I am not as educated as Dr. Flanigan .. but .. listening to him explain .. paraphrasing here .. vaccines have evolved over the years .. were made more "safe and efficient" .. and .. in the future we can expect to look back at vaccines today and ask "Did we really do that?"

I think Dr. Flanigan was actually describing .. OJT .. on the job .. training. In other words .. he learns as he goes along his merry way .. and .. in the meantime .. YOUR children are his guinea pigs.

Classsic moment when audience was asked a simple yes or no answer regarding their opinion if the media covers vaccine issues "thoughtfully and fairly" .. and .. the audience was totally silent .. not ONE person answered in the affirmative. I thought it would be hard to find a "consensus" in that audience .. but .. there it was.

Please .. when someone like Dr. Flanigan asks an audience to "raise your hands if you have ever seen a child confined to an iron lung or cared for a child confined in an iron lung" ...

ask that very same audience to "raise your hands if you have ever seen a child "regress" after vaccinations, cared for a child on the lower end of the autism spectrum 24 - 7 .. or .. for that matter .. ask if ANYONE in the audience has someone in their family with a chronic autoimmune disorder .. asthma, juvenile type 1 diabetes, etc .. that was not as common when the polio vaccine was introduced?

Dr. Nass .. predictably ..didn't get an answer to her question regarding the AMA's "code of ethics" which provides DOCTORS exemptions for medical, religious and .. PHILOSOPHICAL reasons?

In fact .. most "questions" of Dr. Flanigan and Dr. Mills went "unanswered" .. instead .. both responded with long winded .. off topic .. shop-worn .. "talking points". Frustrating to watch.

Thanks to Ginger Taylor and Dr. Myrel Nass for stating their well-informed opinions on this subject .. they were GREAT .. as are the "notes" both provided to further substantiate their opinions.

On the other hand .. "Dr. Flanigan thanked us for the offer to add notes, but shared that the state of Maine believes that the debate (TALKING POINTS) as aired speaks for itself (themselves)

David Taylor

The pro-vaxers were never able to get past bromides ("vaccines are great!") and appeals to authority ("Trust our public health agencies!") Unless a viewer simply bought into their authority, those two were destroyed.

Two follow-up points I wish were made:

1. VAERS is a passive tracking system. The U.S. does not actively track vaccine injuries, despite the mandates. Current changes proposed by CDC (of course) would eliminate written vaccine adverse event reports to VAERS.

2. While talking about how disease-free the US is, the good doctor Flanagan committed the same logical fallacy that parents of vaccine-injured parents are accused of: post hoc fallacy ("after this, therefore because of this"). Dr. Flanagan, you authoritarian prick, just because childhood diseases waned during the years of vaccination shows a correlation, not causation. Go back to school.

Thanks for all you do, Ginger.


You made them move from safe and effective, to we could do better, to someday we're going to look back on this and say, 'we did that?'. They harped on the diseases without addressing the effects, except to imply that the effects don't matter as much as the diseases. Dr. Nass was cut off when presenting the FDA baboon study. They should not have gotten away with that because she was prevented from making her point - that the vaccine creates a silent carrier state. She did make the point, but the audience might not have understood as the doctor on the end interrupted with an irrelevant answer. I wish he didn't get away with that.

Great job to all, even the brave doctors who went on air to debate to Ginger Taylor and Meryl Nass - something that Paul Offit would never willingly do, because he knows he would lose.


Hi Ms. Taylor-

I watched the whole thing. Thank you for participating and posting.

The pro vax pediatricians came off as prevaricating, scare mongering, and ignorant. You proved their ignorance by posting the links to literature on Swine Flu shot.

No doc can answer the question," How much mercury is acceptable to inject into neonate day of birth, based on what science?"

You have them on the run. The more they talk, the less sense they make.

R's dad

Completely awesome; great job, everybody !


Ginger - Thank you so much for all your hard work. You have so much more patience than I will ever have! This is a big step forward and I hope other news outlets can follow up with the same format. Of course, I am an optimist! Praying that the vaccine bill to deny restrictions does not make it past the next two committees in California. Thank you again for representing my daughter and me. Jill in Michigan

mary w maxwell

Mother of God.

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.)