Laura Hayes: The Vaccine Myth An Issue of Trust
Dachel Wake Up: New America Reviews Vaxxed

Paul Offit’s 10,000 Vaccine Doctrine and Deception on Every Child By Two

Paul offit babyBy John Stone

The charity started by Rosalynn Carter and Betty Bumper and which has Dr Offit on both its Executive Board and Scientific Advisory Board continue to attack me for allegedly misrepresenting his views on vaccination overload. The explanation by resident “expert” Joel Harrison is that I am being naïve in my understanding of Dr Offit’s claim about 10,000 vaccines. Unfortunately, it was not me who made the extravagant and wild claims claims and this is very easy to document. So, it is very interesting if ECBT are now ashamed of them. For instance in 2005 Dr Offit’s institution Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, alarmingly known as CHOP proudly reproduced a feature from the magazine Babytalk in which the following Q&A appears:

Myth1: Getting so many vaccines will overwhelm my child's immune system

No doubt about it, the immunization schedule recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) can seem daunting. Your child can receive up to 23 shots by the time she's 2 years old and as many as six shots at a singledoctor visit. So it's not surprising that many parents have concerns about how vaccines might affect a child's developing immunity and often cite these as a reason to refuse a vaccine.

But it should be the least of your worries. "Children have an enormous capacity to respond safely to challenges to the immune system from vaccines," says Dr. Offit. "A baby's body is bombarded with immunologic challenges - from bacteria in food to the dust they breathe. Compared to what they typically encounter and manage during the day, vaccines are literally a drop in the ocean." In fact, Dr. Offit's studies show that in theory, healthy infants could safely get up to 100,000 vaccines at once.

The bottom line: It's safe to give your child simultaneous vaccines or vaccine combinations, such as the five-in-one vaccine called Pediarix, which protects against hepatitis B, polio, tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis (also known as whooping cough). Equally important, vaccines are as effective given in combination as they are given individually.

In a lecture from 2008 on youtube Dr Offit states:

I think conservatively, one could say that, based on their caveats, that one could probably respond to about 100,000 different vaccines at one time."... "I would say you probably could get 100,000 vaccines every day.

Dr Offit’s claims which originate in an article in PEDIATRICS in 2002 were immediately take up by the United Kingdom Department of Health and National Health Service. A leaflet from the MMR the Facts website from 2002 reads:

What about giving three live vaccines at once – it overloads the immune system? A baby’s immune system has an enormous capacity to fight the thousands of bacteria, viruses and other pathogens that it is bombarded with every day. A study from America shows quite clearly that even babies who are poorly can still produce protective immune responses to vaccines. This study also shows that a baby could, in theory, respond to around 10,000 vaccines at any one time. If, for example, 11 vaccines were given to a baby at one time, this might only use about a thousandth of the immune system. In providing protection vaccines prevent ‘weakening’ of the immune system.

In July 2004 I reported in a letter to BMJ Rapid Responses:

In an NHS leaflet …Sir Liam Donaldson, the Chief Medical Officer is asked: "Does MMR overload young bodies?" to which he replies: "Again, all the evidence refutes this. In fact, a child's immune system is designed to cope with many different viruses at the same time, so a combined vaccine is a natural choice.

I asked mmrthefacts: "Is the CMO entitled to present this as a medically established fact rather than a theoretical proposition? What is the experimental evidence that all children are equally able to sustain multiple exposure? What does the CMO mean by "designed?"

To which I had the reply (received 27 May 2004, 13.10):

“The CMO is entitled to present his statement about the immune system as a medically established fact rather than theoretical proposition. From the moment of birth a child's immune system is able to cope with the constant barrage of pathogens. As the CMO stated, this is what the..."immune system is designed cope tih (sic)..."As for example, the digestive system is "designed" to digest food and liver is "designed" to detoxify the blood. Part of the licensing process of any combination vaccine, such as MMR, has to show that the combination is safe and effective when administered to the age group for which it is intended.

“There is recent research from the US which supports this statement as it has specifically looked at the ability of children's immune systems, estimating that a child's immune system could cope with 10,000 vaccines any one time. Please see Offit PA et al (2002) Addressing parents'concerns: Do multiple vaccines overwhelm or weaken infant's immune system? Pediatics, 109 (1): 124-9


“Support Team”

Just the following month I had a further explanation from Dr David Salisbury, head of the UK vaccine program in an email (24 August 10.03am):

Turning to my comments on Newsnight - I suggest you read Paul Offit's paper - as I have done. On page 126, he states: "Current data suggest that the theoretical capacity determined by diversity of antibody variable gene regions would allow for as many as 109 (1,000,000,000) to 1011(100,000,000,000) different antibody specificities". And "... then each infant would have the theoretical capacity to respond to about 10,000 vaccines at any one time" - not antigens. I was speaking very specifically about the infant immune system's ability to respond, in the context of the ridiculous suggestion that the new vaccine combination, containing far fewer antigens than the one it will replace, would overload the immune system. My words were "The immune system of a baby has got huge spare capacity to deal with challenge. If we didn't, the human race wouldn't survive. But let's look specifically at vaccine. This has been studied carefully. A baby's immune system could actually tolerate perfectly well 1,000 vaccines". At no point did I suggest that 1,000 vaccines would not increase the probability of adverse reactions - a quite different matter.

Dr Harrison doubted the existence of this email. In fact, I tried to post it first on BMJ Rapid Responses. If I remember correctly Dr Salisbury refused permission but allowed a comment which must also have been checked with him:

I subsequently had the opportunity to ask Dr Salisbury about this statement, and while I cannot quote him directly he made a distinction between overload - which was the point that he was apparently making in the interview - and the enhanced risk of adverse reaction which he accepted would be the consequence of such an action.

More recently the NHS’s senior vaccine official Dr Elizabeth Miller has again been citing the Offit article:

Despite strong scientific arguments against the immune overload hypothesis and epidemiological studies showing no increased risk of infections after multiple vaccinations, this idea may seem plausible to parents who then hesitate to vaccinate their infant believing that deferral until an older age may be in their best interests.

One would have thought that over such an important issue something more than “strong arguments” ought be a basic requirement. Also, it is interesting than she remarks about “no increased risk of infection” but says nothing about disability or chronic disease. And it is only at an epidemiological level.

OK, so not only is it a preposterous claim it also involves basic bureaucratic doublethink.  The justification for vaccines is that, however wonderful the immune system is, some pathogens are harmful or deadly or can at least make you very ill. It by no means follows that all pathogens that the infant body are exposed to it responds to adequately and no reason to assume the pathogens received through vaccination never pose a threat. Moreover, the combinations of exposures involved in vaccination are all synthetic and previously unknown in human development. Also, of course, those products that are delivered by injection also evade the bodies normal systems for dealing with potentially harmful matter – the dust and unsterilised food mentioned by Offit in his lecture which enter the body through the digestive system and the lungs.

And apparently in 15 years no one has been able to think up a less fanciful story.


Susan Welch

John Manning

Obviously, if there IS good evidence, the larger medical community is sharing it.

I was surprised by this seemingly naive statement by you. If you are reader of this website, you would know that the 'larger medical community' never share information that show any dangers related to vaccines.

I wondered, therefore, if you could possibly be the John Manning who is an expert on Junin virus and who is involved in the design of a universal vaccine against multiple hemorrhagic fever virus?

John Stone

Mr Manning,

First of all you are putting the cart before the horse - it really would be for Prof Offit to conduct the studies to show that his extreme suggestion was true, otherwise he would be just whistling in the wind. In my submission to the House of Commons Health Committee I remarked:

"There were several obvious things wrong with Offit’s claim that 10,000 or 100,000 vaccines administered to an infant in one go might be safe. Offit was comparing routine exposure to environmental pathogens, with cocktails of serious disease derived pathogens; it took no account, for example, of the use of adjuvants to boost the antigens and the route of administration was nothing like routine exposure to pathogens in the environment i.e. in most cases injected when normally we have skin, the digestive system, the lungs which have evolved to protect us.."

In fact, Offit had adapted his ideas from a 1990 paper by Cohn & Langman "The protecton: the unit of humoral immunity selected by evolution" which anyway referred to very different circumstances - and of course if the infant immune system was so robust why would it need to be vaccinated against diseases? Moreover, on this basis if any product was so safe by virtue of being a vaccine, why would it have to be tested for entering the market? - you could just bung them in (which is more or less what happens anyway)..

And as I pointed after my attempts to call his bluff Offit started to have it put out that he'd never really meant it (although the evidence is otherwise). But if you are talking about an experimental base Offit provided none, and it was no more plausible than him declaring that he had fairies at the bottom of his garden.

Jeannette Bishop

@John Manning, my two cents...I don't represent this site:

If you are at least in part referencing the vaccine-autism link there is a research compilation of supportive science here:

The founding editor and reporter, the late Dan Olmsted compiled, with co-author Mark Blaxill, much of his investigative research into a book by the same name as this site, The Age of Autism: Mercury, Medicine, and a Man-made Epidemic.

The role of MMR as a factor in the epidemic is explored in the documentary Vaxxed, backed up by recordings of conversation with a CDC whistleblower and documents turned over to Congress:

If you want an understanding of why many here do not believe we have data to confirm the positive role asserted for vaccination, I recommend the following site and posts for pertinent info and sources:

John Manning

General question for users of this thread / website:

Can anyone share with me any well-conducted studies in support of any claims made here? .... specifically in support of the claims that the child's immune system "can't" handle an aggressive schedule of immunizations? Or that natural immunity is somehow being affected by vaccination?

I admit that this whole conversation about the Offit's "10,000 or 100,000" seems to miss the larger point entirely -- that vaccines save far more lives than they harm by protecting us against deadly diseases.

But I am here to ask questions. I am interested in supporting evidence for the claims made here, in this thread and on this website, or even in the antivaxing community at large. Obviously, if there IS good evidence, the larger medical community is sharing it.

Angus Files

The greatest of ALL PHARMA Dr Maurice Hilleman lest we forget...


Pharma For Prison


In Sickness and in Health . Ach ,for goodness sake John ,don't let these barra boys -abnoxious creatures sicken yer happiness. see Wee Cock Sparra Duncan MacRae youtube One of ma mum Donalda's cousins. Classic two Ronnies Fork handle sketch youtube John,you have pinpointed the problem ie basic bureocratic doublethink translated into fork-tongue medicalised doublespeak terninology.
MULTIPLE EXPOSURE -for "Stupid Days " and "silly sausages" Fact not Fable . March 9th 1957 a gathering of 10,000 people in George Square ,Glasgow ,supported by The Highland Light Infantry and The Glasgow Police Pipe Band .Dr Bill Thompson wrote the song "X-ray Rock" The raffle prize draw for an Austin A35,washing machine,tv ,gas fridge .reported concerns over people having multiple X-rays
to get raffle tickets these people were referred to as "Twicers" The then Chief Medical Officer for Health Dr William A Horn stated "That the end of Tuberculosis was in sight "
Slante mhath , To you very good health

John Stone


You appear not to have read the above article before commenting.


Except he never said what you claim and you have been called out on this lie for years.

John Stone


I believe by 1974 Maurice Hilleman had already bamboozled the CDC into taking MMR1. Interesting question whether by now it is only the mumps component which is failing - which, of course, was a known problem before they started.

Elizabeth Hart

John, I fear we are heading towards a disaster in future generations, with natural immunity being destroyed by the over-use of vaccine products.

Take for example mumps as mentioned previously. Back in 1974 it appears it was considered unnecessary to introduce a mumps vaccine because complications from the disease were rare. Yet subsequently a mumps vaccine was introduced in a combined product, i.e. the measles, mumps and rubella vaccines produced by GlaxoSmithKline and Merck.

Now we have the situation that mumps is appearing in individuals who have had the two dose schedule. This is put down to ‘waning’ immunity, although I’m not aware we have evidence that the vaccinated individuals affected were ever actually immunised in the first place because immunity is not generally verified, i.e. by antibody titre testing.

As you know, I have been campaigning for parents to have the option of antibody titre testing after the first dose of live measles, mumps and rubella vaccine, to check if their child is already immune after the first dose, but I have encountered fierce resistance to this evidence-based medicine option. It is bizarre. Are they trying to hide something here, i.e. that the MMR is not as effective as indicated by the manufacturers, i.e. that 95% of seronegative individuals should seroconvert after the first dose?

And now ‘the authorities’ are considering a THIRD dose of MMR because of problems with the mumps component?

I find it astonishing that alarm bells are not ringing about this, i.e. that mumps vaccination interfered with the natural progression of what was previously regarded as a disease in which complications were rare, and the implications this has for the implementation of other vaccine products, e.g. HPV vaccines and meningococcal B vaccines, and also pertussis (whooping cough) vaccination which may be causing new strains to develop, and spreading the disease via vaccinated individuals.


Thx Anonymous- good catch.

T/Shaw full paper link also at

I hadn't seen their paper before, and thought it helpful to the discussion here. Also, they provided one of the better 'immune response(s) as a result of vaccination' discussions than what I'd seen previously in Moskowitz' 1983 or so paper.

John Stone

It is also excellent that aluminium adjuvants and their safety figure in Nordic Cochrane's complaint to the European Ombudsman about the European Medicines Agency over HPV vaccines:


Working link to abstract of Dr Tomljenovic and Shaw 2011 paper on the safety of aluminum adjuvants within vaccines to be particularly impressive

Curr Med Chem. 2011;18(17):2630-7.
Aluminum vaccine adjuvants: are they safe?
Tomljenovic L1, Shaw CA.

In 2011 Tomljenovic and Shaw also authored
J Inorg Biochem. 2011 Nov;105(11):1489-99. doi: 10.1016/j.jinorgbio.2011.08.008. Epub 2011 Aug 23.
Do aluminum vaccine adjuvants contribute to the rising prevalence of autism?
Tomljenovic L1, Shaw CA.

John Stone

You have bear in mind that JCVI's basic terms of reference relate to the cost effectiveness of licensed products, so probably mumps did not make the grade when measles and rubella were already recommended, but the introduction of a three in one vaccine gets round that problem, as it were. In 1988 the PTB could just have pushed M&R harder if they were worried about uptake but probably they were looking forward to softening everyone up for the brave new world of dozens of infant vaccines.


It seems important to (re)point out that vaccines, their purported epitopes/antigens, and immune system-stimulating properties include not just a handful of proteins associated with the diverse disease-causing microbes, but an equally interesting mix of adjuvants (e.g., Aluminum, squalene, etc), preservatives (e.g., mercury, phenoxyethanol, etc), surfactants (e.g., Tween80, etc), and cellular debris (e.g., cell-line derived materials, nucleic acids, etc). There have been limited to no safety studies on any of these ‘extra materials’ and, while it might be convenient to ‘arm wave’ over the limited antigen or epitope burden provided by childhood vaccinations in our current domestic disease-control model, this willful ignorance seems to have been circumvented by a growing research base dedicated to examining the impact(s) of some non-pathogen derived vaccine components within each 0.5mL injection.

So while Offit and Jew’s peer-reviewed ‘theoretical exercise’ on the abilities of a young child’s developing immune system to ‘handle’ a multi-vaccine or antigen or epitope onslaught seems plausible and likely satisfies some hesitant parents or doctors to ‘get with the program’; the reality and growing body of evidence suggests that, with the current nearly 70-odd childhood vaccine series and virtual lockout on vaccine product liability, the pre-adult population (since the 1980’s) with an ever-growing array of chronic neurophysical issues and high infant mortality rates appear to be immunologically ill-equipped to handle the current vaccine regimen.
Thus, to add to a bit of the context between what’s theoretically possible with regard to immune system response to vaccination (advocated by Offit/Eineker/ndavis) and reality or evidence-based response based upon the current vaccine series’, I thought that Dr Tomljenovic and Shaw’s 2011 paper on the safety of aluminum adjuvants within vaccines to be particularly impressive. Rather than quote extensively from the paper, I will just provide the link.


Interestingly, Tomljenovic/Shaw take some points in Offit/Jew’s paper particularly to task and very succinctly describe the humoral/cellular immunity imbalance created by the current vaccine series. This imbalance and Al-adjuvant excess leads to a number of chronic, neurologically and immunologically significant conditions within the domestic population. Further, they actually did some calculation and body burden estimates of an adult population vaccinated with excessive Al-adjuvants as well as children undergoing vaccinations according to the then-current domestic schedule.

Additionally, I will post the link to BL Fisher’s paper on the use of live-attenuated, engineered vaccines against viral pathogens.


What seems important in this well-referenced paper is both a growing concern and research base that focus on diverse individual, population-wide, and long term environmental impacts of this type of disease control strategy. Again, it can be convenient to comment about the limited epitope burden posed immunologically within a particular vaccine, but this very willfully ignores what is occurring on scales far beyond an individual when this strategy is deployed on a population or countrywide basis.

Elizabeth Hart

John, re mumps, here's an extract from minutes dated 1974, from a meeting between Central Health Services Council, Scottish Health Services Planning Council and the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation:

From Section 10 re Mumps, page 6:">">


...In general discussion on the subject of reactions Brigadier Venreenen said that in the view of the Ministry of Defence mumps vaccine was unnecessary because complications from the disease were rare.

The Committee agreed that there was no need to introduce routine vaccination against mumps.


John Stone


This, of course, was always known to be the problem with the mumps component of MMR, and for instance before MMR was introduced in the UK the single mumps vaccine contra-indicated in the British National Formulary. It may also have been part of the debate between Jeryl Lyn and Urabe strain of mumps (which was held to be more reactogenic but also more immunogenic) and it is obviously the issue in the continuing whistleblower legal action against Merck over MMR 2. It looks as if the mumps vaccine was always more trouble than it was worth and that the reasons for the introduction of these products was always fundamentally commercial:

Elizabeth Hart

Soon after the Australian government implemented the coercive No Jab, No Pay law last year, another diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis jab was added to the schedule, for 18 month olds. That's six doses of diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis vaccines that children have now, at 2 months, 4 months, 6 months, 18 months, 4 years and between 10-15 years. With an aluminium-adjuvanted vaccine 'the authorities' know is defective, i.e. may actually be causing new strains of the disease to develop and spreading the disease via vaccinated individuals.

All up, children in Australia aged from birth to 15 years will have at least 46 doses of vaccine via combined vaccine products and revaccinations. This does not include the dubious flu vaccinations we are all being pressured to have every year.

Currently vaccine industry-associated members of the very powerful vaccination clique in this country are lobbying to have the GlaxoSmithKline Bexsero meningococcal B vaccine added to the schedule, even though it's already been rejected THREE times by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee due to 'multiple uncertainties' about this vaccine product for a rare disease.

According to the Murdoch media[1], now there's talk of a THIRD measles, mumps and rubella vaccine being added to the schedule here because "An entire generation of young adults could be at risk of catching the viral disease mumps despite being vaccinated decades ago, as waning immunity contributes to the largest outbreak in 20 years".

Apparently 804 cases of mumps were recorded last year - "But what is worrying health professionals is that 27 per cent of all mumps cases in Australia over the past five years were suffered by adults who had already received two doses of the vaccination, one at 12 months of age and another between the ages of four and six".

"The Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation has acknowledged that recent outbreaks of mumps have "predominantly involved young adults, nearly all of whom had a history of vaccination during childhood, most with the recommended two-dose schedule. "This evidence of waning immunity has led to suggestions that vaccination with a third dose during adolescence might be an effective measure to prevent outbreaks." Dr Bartley said a third vaccination to protect young adults with waning immunity is "under active consideration"...

What do you think about that John?

1. Young adults at risk of catching mumps despite being vaccinated. The Courier Mail, 14 March 2017:


Vitamins worse than Vioxx

Aluminum needed for the development of a healthy fetus

Dr. Proffit MD

John Stone

This could be like answering the question "Can a car run people over?" And the answer might be that if the parts have not been assembled and the driver hasn't got in it won't run anyone over. No risk folks!

This is the shifting ground which is already in the paper. Offit slips from the number of antigens to the number of vaccines:

"Of course, most vaccines contain far fewer than 100 antigens (for example, the hepatitis B, diphtheria, and tetanus vaccines each contain 1 antigen), so the estimated number of vaccines to which a child could respond is conservative. But using this estimate, we would predict that if 11 vaccines were given to infants at one time, then about 0.1% of the immune system would be “used up.”

And the obvious point is that the adjuvants are there to modify the effect of the antigens to stimulate a reaction, so it is not actually the number of antigens on their own which is critical. Equallly, a driver is unlikely to cause a car accident if they haven't got into the car.


Ndavis and Eindecker appear to be happy that Offit consistently deals in deliberate deception.

Either Offit wanted parents to believe huge numbers of vaccines at once couldn't possibly cause harm or he didn't.

If it was the former then he was being deceptive. If it was the latter then Offit is quite literally certifiable.


Who authorized that photo of him? Seriously. I've never seen anyone look more uncomfortable and evil holding a baby. The baby looks terrified. He should be.



It doesn't matter what Paul Offit wrote about antigens, epitopes, B-cell clones because most people won't see it, read it or understand it. What Offit said is what people hear - "I would say you probably could get 100,000 vaccines every day" - and being the go-to vaccine expert, how what he said is being used by other doctors and nurses, who most likely haven't read the Offit studies either, to persuade vaccine-reluctant parents who've heard people cry out, "Too many, too soon. Too many, too soon" to vaccinate their children.

Do you really imagine that doctors whose mission it is to persuade parents to vaccinate their children are going to explain in scientific detail what Offit actually meant by what he said and watch their eyes glaze over? Parents want to know if giving multiple vaccines at one time is safe for their babies and for them the take home message is that vaccines are always safe, no matter how many are given at once. It is used as a marketing ploy and I believe Offit knew that that is the way his words would be used.

angus files

Congressman Dan Burton on 10,000 vaccines

"He should be held accountable for that or, he should shut his mouth"

Pharma for Prison




'Theoretical capacity ' my ass. People here are anything but stupid, so stop treating them like they are.

Dr profit didn't make his statement because a parent inquired about injecting their child with 100,00 vaccines. No parent on earth is dumb enough to think they could. Or reckless enough to do it, even if they could!

Imo , Dr. profit made that ridiculous statement for 2 reasons:

1. To allay the fears of parents, who were rightfully concerned about injecting 9 vaccines at once into their child

2. To make sure that those parents would never consider vaccines as a possible cause, when injecting 9 at once suddenly produced a disabled child

John Stone

Eindeker and ndavis

You are really just trolling. The title of the article is:

"Addressing Parents’ Concerns: Do Multiple Vaccines Overwhelm or Weaken the Infant’s Immune System?"

Dr Offit's hospital reproduced an article from Babytalk magazine which makes the context clearer:

"But it should be the least of your worries. "Children have an enormous capacity to respond safely to challenges to the immune system from vaccines," says Dr. Offit. "A baby's body is bombarded with immunologic challenges - from bacteria in food to the dust they breathe. Compared to what they typically encounter and manage during the day, vaccines are literally a drop in the ocean." In fact, Dr. Offit's studies show that in theory, healthy infants could safely get up to 100,000 vaccines at once."

That is what this about. I remember once I tried to return a badly cut shelf which would not fit my bookshelving system to a DIY furnishing store. Instead of readily replacing it the shop assistant kept on sliding it half a centimeter so that it matched up against a properly cut example at both ends. I was surprised that he thought this was sensible thing to do - and that there was anything in it for them - but it went on for minutes, I was obviously being messed around, and I finally lost my temper. But this is exactly what you are both doing - it is shameful, untrustworthy and you both know perfectly well better than that.


John Stone,
I'm sorry, but I don't understand your comment. Offit made an extremely simple calculation with numbers derived from the scientific literature that he cited. Offit calculated that if vaccines contained on average 10^3 epitopes an infant would have the "theoretical capacity" to respond to 10,000 vaccines given at once. He then noted that, actually, "most vaccines contain far fewer than [10^3 epitopes]", so that his calculated result is in fact quite conservative.

susan welch

Eindeker and ndavis. What planet are you on? For the lay person, i.e. parents thinking about vaccinating, 100,000 (or 10,0000) vaccines is just that. Vaccines. They have probably never heard of antigens. Therefore, John is right: it is a marketing ploy to make sure parents feel safe vaccinating. All your scientific information is completely irrelevant to parents who believe that getting their children vaccinated according the the schedule is the right thing to do. Until is isn't!


Posted by: Hans Litten | March 14, 2017 at 11:56 AM

How about this one?

"There is no evidence to suggest that vaccines adversely affected my finances."

Dr. Paul Proffit MMR MRK MD


John: What is confusing you about the statement you quoted from Offit, seems clear enough to me as a theoretical proposition? I’ve been looking at the 2002 paper and the whole thrust of this is the capacity of the individual to respond to multiple antigenic challenges, as NDavis highlighted in his quote “the theoretical capacity TO RESPOND to 10000 vaccines” doesn’t mention safety, it’s all about the antibody response, as is stated in the summary in the 2002 paper:
1) the ontogeny of the active immune response and the ability of neonates and young infants to respond to vaccines; 2) the theoretic capacity of an infant’s immune system; 3) data that demonstrate that mild or moderate illness does not interfere with an infant’s ability to generate protective immune responses to vaccines; 4) how infants respond to vaccines given in combination compared with the same vaccines given separately; 5) data showing that vaccinated children are not more likely to develop infections with other pathogens than unvaccinated children; and 6) the fact that infants actually encounter fewer antigens in vaccines today than they did 40 or 100 years ago.

John Stone


And here is the next paragraph:

"Of course, most vaccines contain far fewer than 100 antigens (for example, the hepatitis B, diphtheria, and tetanus vaccines each contain 1 antigen), so the estimated number of vaccines to which a child could respond is conservative. But using this estimate, we would predict that if 11 vaccines were given to infants at one time, then about 0.1% of the immune system would be “used up.”

The most generous explanation is that he is confusing himself.


Here's what Offit wrote:

"Studies on the diversity of antigen receptors indicate that the immune system has the capacity to respond to extremely large numbers of antigens. . . . A more practical way to determine the diversity of the immune response would be to estimate the number of vaccines to which a child could respond at one time. If we assume that 1) approximately 10 ng/mL of antibody is likely to be an effective concentration of antibody per epitope (an immunologically distinct region of a protein or polysaccharide), 2) generation of 10 ng/mL requires approximately 10^3 B-cells per mL, 3) a single B-cell clone takes about 1 week to reach the 10^3 progeny B-cells required to secrete 10 ng/mL of antibody (therefore, vaccine-epitope-specific immune responses found about 1 week after immunization can be generated initially from a single B-cell clone per mL), 4) each vaccine contains approximately 100 antigens and 10 epitopes per antigen (ie, 10^3 epitopes), and 5) approximately 10^7 B cells are present per mL of circulating blood, then each infant would have the theoretical capacity to respond to about 10 000 vaccines at any one time (obtained by dividing 10^7 B cells per mL by 10^3 epitopes per vaccine)."

John Stone


That's right, Offit has framed an issue which can be answered in a re-assuring way, but it is not the problem - it is not the problem at all. All of these products are designed to cause inflammation, and can cause fevers, irrespective of the number of antigens. It is obvious that multiple adverse reactions could be harmful and Dr Salisbury says that this is "a quite different matter". It may be but realistically it is the matter which engages parental concern, and not some amusing irrelevant theory.



the concern that too many different antigens in vaccines “mopping up” the antibody producing capacity

Sometimes I wonder where the claim that "too many, too soon" was to be defined as "too many antigens, too soon". Is that really the parental concern regarding vaccines? How often do parents talk about the "toxic" overload of vaccines, yet scientists will gladly defer our attention to the number of antigens? Why not study whether it's "too much adjuvants, too soon"?

Our daily exposure to environmental antigens far exceeds any antigen exposure to vaccines, so I don't know why this needed to be addressed by the likes of Offit and DeStefano.

John Stone


"There was no attempt to “bamboozle”, he was just illustrating a point."

He was creating an advertising pitch as my article demonstrates. Of course, if it was used in actual advertisements it would be subject to advertising standards, but since it is used by health officials and journalists they can say anything they want. I note in point of fact that it is the British officials like Salisbury, Donaldson and Miller who have made use of it in apparent contrast to the US government.



If we are being honest here, I think the average person will not interpret Paul Offit's assertions to mean antigen exposure. Not many people will take the time to calculate the aluminum adjuvant load nor the liquid volume that would have been injected when listening to Offit's assertions that it's safe to take 100,000 vaccines a day.

I mean, if we can take 100,000 vaccines worth of antigens a day, how would the audience who is listening to Offit interpret that as being delivered? Through normal environmental exposures? Or through vaccines as he is suggesting?

It's like John Stone said, it's extremely misleading, and perhaps purposefully so, to convince the masses how safe vaccines really are.

When Offit is being called out on his absurd claim, not only do they make no apology NOR any real clarification NOR correction (except maybe the number that can be tolerated), but they (Offit and vaccine apologists like Joel Harrison and others who quote Offit) double down on their assertions by saying, "well, we didn't mean it that way", or "it wasn't meant to be all at once", etc.

They can't discredit Offit, because if they do, it would just be an embarrassing admission that relying on vaccine experts or infectious disease experts for vaccine information and recommendations is not justifiable.


@Elizabeth Hart,

In regards to aluminium adjuvants, which are included in multiple revaccinations now, e.g. HPV, dtap and meningococcal B, the 'experts' even admit they don't know how these work

It's becoming clear now that Offit isn't an "expert" in many areas, aluminum adjuvants being one of them. Scientists have a general idea of how it works now.

Immunologist Polly Matzinger superceded the self/non-self immunological theory with the danger model, which describes that the immune system generally response when it detects damage/danger associated molecular patterns (DAMP). When DAMP is detected, the immune system ramps up and seeks the antigen (typically a protein) that is associated to the damage being detected.

This explains why the immune system responds to diseases, because diseases cause damage within the body, whether it be cells being destroyed by viral infection/replication, or whether toxins are being released by bacteria, etc.

Vaccines leverage this phenomenon in order to make it respond to dead/inactivated antigens.

Vaccine antigens are absorbed, typically, onto aluminum adjuvants. The reason why aluminum adjuvants are used is because aluminum is cytotoxic. According to Nature:

DNA released from dying host cells mediates aluminum adjuvant activity

Aluminum-based adjuvants (aluminum salts or alum) are widely used in human vaccination, although their mechanisms of action are poorly understood. Here we report that, in mice, alum causes cell death and the subsequent release of host cell DNA, which acts as a potent endogenous immunostimulatory signal mediating alum adjuvant activity

Aluminum causes cell death. The general explanation that I've read is that dendritic cells sample the area of damage and will phagocytize the aluminum-antigen complex, and apparently will keep consuming them until they themselves will burst.... that cell death releases its intracellular DNA, similar to what was reported by Nature, and acts as the damage signal to the immune system that something is trying to kill the host.

This is the foundation in which adjuvant-based vaccines work. But unfortunately. it is also the vaccine's greatest pitfall: the immune system is indifferent in its response to the antigen source, whether it be the target disease antigens, or whether it's from vaccine contamination (such as egg protein, yeast, soy, dairy proteins, human albumins, etc), as they will also be absorbed onto aluminum adjuvants.

Scientists need to stop pretending that the immune system is smart enough to know the difference between a disease antigen and a non-disease antigen. The immune system doesn't know the difference, and can potentially respond to any and all vaccine contaminant antigens, depending on the amount. I am convinced that the significant rise in immunological disorders (food/environmental allergies and autoimmunity) are attributable to the vaccine onslaught.


John, no, NDavies is quite correct in his comment, Offit was referring solely to the potential number of different antigens that the immune system can respond to by producing specific antibodies, it is estimated the potential number is c 10^10 , as Offit stated. This was to answer the concern that too many different antigens in vaccines “mopping up” the antibody producing capacity, also in his articles/talks he does caveat that this is a theoretical consideration and he is not recommending giving 1000’s of vaccines in one visit, it just illustrates the tremendous diversity of potential antibodies that can be produced. There was no attempt to “bamboozle”, he was just illustrating a point.

John Stone


I am surprised at you and I make no apology. It is nothing better than an attempt to bamboozle. There is no direct relationship between the number of antigens and the potential toxic effect of the vaccines. And yet we get these references to the numbers of vaccines it is safe to have based of the number antigens, and it has nothing whatever to do with it.

Jeannette Bishop

Just to add a reminder from recent history with the discovery of pig viruses contaminating a couple of renditions of a certain vaccine ...we don't really know how many distinct antigens are in a vaccine (attenuated or not) and therefore we don't know overall antigen count per dose, and if I remember correctly, Dr. Humphries considers aluminum salts an antigenic exposure so that study comparing the older higher antigen containing vaccines to the newer schedule with more doses that could be 1) contaminated and 2) deliberately contain more aluminum should probably not be considered even testing what it limitedly reports to test (IMO) never mind what ever other concerns they try to stretch it over.

Hans Litten

Posted by: guti | March 14, 2017 at 09:05 AM

Best comment I've seen in a while ! Made me laugh .


John Stone,
Offit was using "vaccines" simply to indicate the number of antigens. He was apparently attempting to assuage common parental concerns that a child's immune system might be unable to respond to 'too many' vaccines given 'too soon.' In the context of his discussion of "the theoretic capacity of an infant’s immune system" in the section of his paper titled "Do Vaccines "Overwhelm" The Immune System" he clearly did not mean to suggest that a tiny infant could be injected with over 100 pounds of fluid during an office visit.


Vaccine and Science 101 with Dr. Paul Proffit MD:

Aluminum is good for our health and an essential nutrient.
You can receive 100,000 vaccines in one single day.
Vitamin C can cause cancer and make you die young.
Earning 50 millions from Big Pharma products is not a relevant conflict of interest.
Autism rates are not raising.
Jesus wants you to vaccinate.

and yes he really did make these claims.

Elizabeth Hart

In regards to aluminium adjuvants, which are included in multiple revaccinations now, e.g. HPV, dtap and meningococcal B, the 'experts' even admit they don't know how these work, for example:

"Offit says it's still unclear exactly how aluminium salts stimulate the body's immune response, making the vaccines more effective. "It appears to be several mechanisms," he tells WebMD".[1]

Paul Offit is a very careless and dangerous man. One day we might more fully understand the enormous damage he has done.

Reference: Aluminium in Vaccines Poses No Harm. WebMD. Jan 29, 2004:

John Stone


it looks to me as if Lucy Turnbull's company is marketing chemo treatments for cancer not vaccines. However, all vaccines have disclaimers about cancer risks, so potentially good for business.

John Stone


No, because even in the paper Offit et al slide from the number of antigens to the number vaccines missing out an awful lot in between. It is irrelevant, to cite an example given by them, that the Hep B, diptheria and tetanus vaccines only have one antigen each, because those are not the only active ingredients. That is only one objection of several but a reasonable place to start. And we have it from a CHOP pamphlet:

"But it should be the least of your worries. "Children have an enormous capacity to respond safely to challenges to the immune system from vaccines," says Dr. Offit. "A baby's body is bombarded with immunologic challenges - from bacteria in food to the dust they breathe. Compared to what they typically encounter and manage during the day, vaccines are literally a drop in the ocean." In fact, Dr. Offit's studies show that in theory, healthy infants could safely get up to 100,000 vaccines at once."

and from Dr Offit's 2008 lecture:

"I think conservatively, one could say that, based on their caveats, that one could probably respond to about 100,000 different vaccines at one time."... "I would say you probably could get 100,000 vaccines every day."

At best this unhelpful and misleading: to make it the scientific underpinning of an expanding schedule is absurd, irresponsible even fanatical.

It is like the sales pitch of an old door-step salesman - it may have some truth in somewhere but you know it is not actually true, and how you wish they would just go away.

Hans Litten

Posted by: Jane | March 13, 2017 at 07:21 AM

"If you look at this Wikipedia website, you will see that his wife is the Chairman of the biotechnology/ immunotherapy company Prima BioMed Limited headquartered in Sydney Australia and Berlin Germany.

"Commonly, this is called conflicting interests, or having the fox looking after the henhouse!"


whyser wrote: "
Didn't even think of the volume of liquid it would be. 10,000 vaccines would be 5L of vaccine. Absolutely ridiculous."

Yes, indeed. When Offit wrote, "Given that babies are constantly confronted with trillions of bacteria and that each bacterium contains thousands of epitopes, the notion that children could respond to a hundred thousand different vaccines [at one time] shouldn't be surprising" certainly didn't suggest that Offit believed that babies could sustain the simultaneous adminstration of one hundred thousand actual vaccines (and thus suddenly receive nearly 100 times their blood volume in vaccine-associated liquids) at once.

Jeannette Bishop

OT, but not good:

Nominee for head of FDA talking about measles booster for adults...totally "debunked" autism connection...may not push for a federal mandate because states do a good job, but who knows (sounds like RINO rhetoric)...

Jeannette Bishop

From The Greater Good outtakes:



"He made that clear in his 2002 Pediatrics paper. "
I disagree, it is anything but clear. If you read the text carefully, he talks specifically about antigens, and then he talks about vaccines. The next sentence he continues: "Of course, most vaccines contain far fewer than 100 antigens (for example, the hepatitis B, diphtheria, and tetanus vaccines each contain 1 antigen), so the estimated number of vaccines to which a child could respond is conservative." [emphasis mine] That reads anything but clear.

"Is Paul Offit speaking strictly in terms of antigen exposure?"
As you point out 10K vaccines is a preposterous argument, and one might claim he must have made a mistake (and all of the peer reviewers did too) and meant antigens. With a normal person, I might buy it, but then I read the whole paper. I am an engineer, and I work with complex systems. Never in a million years would I even dream of recommending a limit by looking at a single aspect of that system. That would be similar to determining the maximum load of the car by only checking the tire ratings. Don't bother me about axles and brakes, the tires can handle it.

So Offit has clearly demonstrated he is willing to make grand recommendations based on severely flawed logic. This is a peer reviewed paper so I should I assume all the words are chosen carefully and I can only conclude he very specifically used the imprecise word "vaccine" intentionally because it would be very quotable.

Frankly, anyone supporting his paper should be embarrassed. Such imprecise wording and reductionist reasoning speaks volumes about the diligence Offit puts into his arguments and should be a red flag for anyone listening to him. If I'm ever having a debate with anyone with a remotely scientific background, I bring up this paper because it disqualifies Offit from any further part in the honest discussion of science.



good point. Didn't even think of the volume of liquid it would be. 10,000 vaccines would be 5L of vaccine. Absolutely ridiculous.


John Stone,

Just took a look at what Ted Fogarty wrote, and I agree. I feel the discussion regarding our ability to deal with large antigen exposures is a completely irrelevant talking point about the safety of vaccines.

I mean, it pushes out garbage studies like these, of which I'm sure you're familiar with:

Increasing exposure to antibody-stimulating proteins and polysaccharides in vaccines is not associated with risk of autism.

Another winner from Frank DeStefano. Seriously, I don't even know why this study is even relevant, but the scientific community seems to enjoy citing this study as evidence that vaccines are safe. Ted Fogarty's analogy is spot on. Another obvious problem with this study is that it's only counting unique antigen counts/vaccine per visit (doesn't even factor the antigen AMOUNT per vaccine... doesn't the dose make the poison?).

Anyways, I took a look at Joel Harrison's article. Another thing that he said was

"Stone doesn’t seem to be aware that the profit margin for vaccines pales in comparison to other pharmaceuticals and that the amount doctors make on administering vaccines is, at best, marginal. In fact, some doctors take a loss on vaccinations. "

But looking at the Blue Cross Incentives last year (original link no longer up, whaleto has a backup)

On page 15, it shows the payout incentives for meeting immunization goals. Unless I'm reading it wrong, physicians receive "Payout: COMM $400 per Combo 10 completed for each eligible member" for meeting a target immunization rate (fully vaccinated) of 63%?

Dr Sears also indicated that insurance companies pay out incentives for immunization goals as well

If their office scores high enough on these reviews, the HMO plan gives them a several thousand dollar bonus. This bonus varies depending on the number of patients the doctor sees. One of the requirements for a patient’s chart to pass the test is that they are fully vaccinated

John Stone


It is not at all evident that he made that clear, particularly if you look at subsequent propagandistic claims based on the paper notably by Offit himself - which is the point of this article. It is obviously meaningless to say the body could tolerate that number of antigens when in order for the 10,000 vaccines to function they would mostly need an adjuvant. In fact true or not it does not really "address parents concerns", except to bamboozle - it is at best an irrelevant statement.



Vaccines is Offitspeak for antigens but he must have known that the vast majority of people would envisage 10,000 syringes and injections, and being the go-to vaccine expert, his words would be used as a marketing ploy. See the nursing school video that Brett Wilcox posted earlier:

"The immune system can handle 100,000 immunisations simultaneously,


whyser asked, "Is Paul Offit speaking strictly in terms of antigen exposure?"

Yes. Exactly.

Consider that blood volume in an infant or child can be estimated as about 80 mL/kg body weight, so ten thousand vaccines administered at one time would thus contain fluid equal to many times the blood volume of a 15 pound infant--and so would be fatal. Offit certainly never suggested that administration of so many actual vaccines in a day was safe--only that an infant could mount an effective immune response to the antigens contained in that many vaccines. He made that clear in his 2002 Pediatrics paper.

John Stone


Evidently part of doublethink science is to harp on about the low number of antigens while glossing over that they are dependent for any effect on adjuvants. But definitely at this stage the adjuvants have been left out.


Offit's assertion presumes a simple(-minded) model of the immune system. I bought _How the Immune System Works_ by Lauren Sompayrac to inform myself of the basics and, boy, the immune system cannot be described as simple.

Nor is it homogeneous. Surely throughout our evolution the exposure of a babe-in-arms to antigenic invaders has been primarily through the respiratory and digestive tracts and the type/quantity of antibodies is different in these systems than in the blood. The primary mucosal antibody, IgA, is good at gathering pathogens and sweeping them out of the body without triggering inflammation. By contrast, IgG, the most abundant antibody in the blood, is good at "fixing complement" which includes an inflammatory response. Cytokines generated by inflammatory response can up-regulate class I MHC expression on normal cells in the tissues, making these normal cells better targets for destruction.


Is Paul Offit speaking strictly in terms of antigen exposure? Surely he cannot be talking about the actual number of vaccines that could "theoretically" be tolerated, because that is a ridiculous notion.

Let's assume that, on average, there is approximately 250mcg of aluminum per shot (some have more, fewer have less/none, based off of Offit's article: If we multiple that by 100,000 vaccines, that would be an aluminum injection of 25g of aluminum!!

Let's take a look at what the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) says about the minimum risk level for aluminum:

ATSDR has derived an intermediate/chronic-duration oral minimal risk level (MRL) of 1 mg Al/kg/day for aluminum

This is an ORAL exposure. Medscape says the following regarding aluminum toxicology in regards to oral exposures:

In healthy subjects, only 0.3% of orally administered aluminum is absorbed via the gastrointestinal (GI) tract, and the kidneys effectively eliminate aluminum from the human body

So taken the MRL of aluminum with the bioavailability of orally consumed aluminum, the bioavailable exposure, as established by the ASTDR, is 3mcg Al/kg bodyweight per day.

But... injecting 25 GRAMS (100% bioavailable) of aluminum-containing vaccines is perfectly acceptable??? Am I missing something here?

angus files

You speak for millions John from the heart well done.

Pharma for Prison




It was the DPT which Japan stopped giving to infants in 1974, and as a result their SIDS rate plummeted. But they continued to give the DPT to two year olds. The pertussis vaccine has always been extremely dangerous, and I wouldn't recommend that anyone get it, but they must shelter newborns at home for the first several months for their protection.

I think parents who breastfeed and keep their babies at home could in most cases safely refuse all vaccines. Hib meningitis is a possibility for those who aren't breastfed and in daycare, and parents must read carefully about it before deciding, although if they put their babies in daycare they will have no choice, as every daycare requires vaccines, including the one for Hib meningitis.


What we inject into infants defines us as a humane race. So what did 21st century human beings reason was scientifically appropriate to inject into infants? In days to come, science will show these criminals for the inhuman buffoons they are.

Thank you John Stone and AoA for all you do!


I think that guy has blood on his hands.

I once read where Japan held off on vaccinations until the age of 2, for example, and SIDS virtually disappeared. When they started vaccinating infants again, SIDS made a comeback.

If any new mother asks me if she should vaccinate her baby, I flat-out say no. If I'd known then what I know now, I would never have let anyone within a mile of my son with a needle.

Christina Waldman

Excellent piece, John.

Jeannette Bishop

Add this to the finally published data starting to look at this vaccination's actual impact on mortality:

So if you survive your first few months under the influence of this vaccine, then it appears you get to keep on being vulnerable to whooping cough and its cousins for the rest of your life...but I'm sure Offit (if ever forced to acknowledge the existence of these data) will spew some bologna we're all supposed to buy because he was granted a medical degree, often wears a white coat, etc...

Dr. Offit once dismissed the lab work of Dr. Haley showing testosterone enhances thimerosal toxicity, estrogen reduces it, aluminum with thimerosal killed everything in little time, because in vitro research oftentimes doesn't transfer to what really goes on in vivo. But they can test the response of a part of immune response in a test tube or petri dish or whatever and then apply it to anything they want and fly to the moon. They're Vaccinators! And they often wear white!

And then Offit goes on to make out like aluminum is a nutrient, etc, etc, etc, nutritional supplements are probably risky though long as Dr. Offit retain license to practice and people like Dr. Wakefield are the ones taken to task for standing up for his patients and the truths that will protect and help all of us...the whole western medical system is full of worse than bunk!

Sandy Lunoe

I take the liberty of quoting a message to me from immunologist Dr Tetyana Obukhanych, PhD:

”The immune system has a theoretical capacity to respond to an unlimited number of antigens, but not all at the same time. Once immune reaction starts in the lymph nodes, there is strong competition between immune cells for antigen presentation, which means that some antigens would predominate over the others. And there is also limited physical space in the lymph node that restricts how much proliferation of the activated immune cells it can support”.

david m burd

Laura, thanks for the quotes from the Experiment in an Urban African Community, with the doctors' conclusion:

DTP was associated with increased mortality; OPV may modify the effect of DTP."

FIVE Times(!) increased mortality when reading the text - FIVE Times - but doctors only reading the conclusion would remember "associated with increased mortality" implying perhaps a modest increase.

Thus, typical busy doctors not having time to read the entire report are misled into thinking vaccines' benefits are more important than vaccines' profound risks that are kept under wraps by the pro-vaccine CDC Cabal. This Report - never aired by such as the NYTimes/WashingtonPost - is so typical of how the Mainstream News is totally in the pocket of the CDC Cabal, and how the public is kept ignorant, with now over two million American kids per year being vaccine-wrecked (or killed, with the U.S. having the worst infant mortality rate in the Modern World) now totaling over 5,500 EVERY DAY.

Brett Wilcox

That one propagandist would make such an absurd claim is not the problem, the problem is that no medical organization has countered Offit's statements, no one has called on Offit to correct his error. To the contrary, medical organizations and professionals use his statement to justify the poisoning of children with multiple vaccines at once. See this BYU Nursing school video:

The fact that a nationally ranked nursing program would post such an unscientific video on YouTube demonstrates the power of the vaccine paradigm over the medical establishment and over much of the public. Offit is but a tiny part of the diseased vaccine program.

John Stone

An eminent medical friend has been raising wth me the issue of whether Dr Offit should be holding an infant against his street clothing, and the potential seriousness of two paediatric infections together.

Laura Hayes

How about these recent findings to add to the mile-long list that easily disproves the 10,000 (sometimes 100,000) claim:

The Introduction of Diphtheria-Tetanus-Pertussis and Oral Polio Vaccine Among Young Infants in an Urban African Community: A Natural Experiment

The Introduction of Diphtheria-Tetanus-Pertussis and Oral Polio Vaccine Among Young Infants in an Urban African Community: A Natural Experiment
Søren Wengel Mogensen et al

Published Online: January 31, 2017
Open Access

...Children were therefore allocated by birthday to receive vaccines early or late between 3 and 5 months of age. In this natural experiment vaccinated children had 5-fold higher mortality than not-yet-DTP-vaccinated children. DTP-only vaccinations were associated with higher mortality than DTP + OPV vaccinations. Hence, DTP may be associated with a negative effect on child survival.
We examined the introduction of diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis (DTP) and oral polio vaccine (OPV) in an urban community in Guinea-Bissau in the early 1980s.

The child population had been followed with 3-monthly nutritional weighing sessions since 1978. From June 1981 DTP and OPV were offered from 3 months of age at these sessions. Due to the 3-monthly intervals between sessions, the children were allocated by birthday in a ‘natural experiment’ to receive vaccinations early or late between 3 and 5 months of age. We included children who were <6 months of age when vaccinations started and children born until the end of December 1983. We compared mortality between 3 and 5 months of age of DTP-vaccinated and not-yet-DTP-vaccinated children in Cox proportional hazard models.

Among 3–5-month-old children, having received DTP (±OPV) was associated with a mortality hazard ratio (HR) of 5.00 (95% CI 1.53–16.3) compared with not-yet-DTP-vaccinated children. Differences in background factors did not explain the effect. The negative effect was particularly strong for children who had received DTP-only and no OPV (HR = 10.0 (2.61–38.6)). All-cause infant mortality after 3 months of age increased after the introduction of these vaccines (HR = 2.12 (1.07–4.19)).

DTP was associated with increased mortality; OPV may modify the effect of DTP.

Ted Fogarty, MD

These conflicted physicians have made the giant leap from tolerable antigen exposures to vaccine exposures. It's absolutely ridiculous. It's like a radiologist saying every child can handle a billion photons a day. Hmm, really? At what spectrum or KvP? Certainly our eyes and bodies can handle a billion in the VISIBLE LIGHT SPECTRUM.....But as a radiologist if I were trying to sell X-RAY or GAMMA ray photons to you and your children and simple said "well Mr. Jones, your child at this moment has 10K photons bouncing off those cheeks per second so what's the difference in my CT photons? Same difference...would you like to buy some high phontonic land in Florida?"

WTFogarty?!! This guys are so full of themselves they don't even know what freak shows they are....ethics - get some.

Hans Litten

Posted by: Jane | March 13, 2017 at 07:21 AM

The developing situation in Aus"Jail"ia is so concerning but what I am hoping for and praying for is the back lash against this level of authoritarianism . Tell me its there ? please

"They said 140,000 have had their welfare payments cut for refusing to have their children vaccinated according to the schedule."

If 140,000 have really refused to budge then this is a marvellous level of resistance .
140,000 people who presumably would vote for anyone but Jill Hennessy .
I think the best resistance method is to attack the media for its collusion & complicity .
Everything about this global vaccine program is dependent on the media .
The media is the weak link .The BBC are chief ringleaders in all of this .

John Stone


That is what I was saying - I think.


If an infant's immune system has such "huge spare capacity to deal with challenge", why the hell do they "need" vaccines in the first place?

John Stone


I am appalled about what is happening in Australia. Offit often riffed with 100,000 (see below) whereas Dr Salisbury seems to have lost his nerve and only gone for 1,000. But the real problem is that this is apparently the scientific basis of the expanding schedule, and of course examined for a few seconds it is embarrassing rubbish. In might have been better if Jill Hennessy had gone on spouting it.

Bob Moffit


"A grand take away from history might be that social cohesion has most often depended on belief systems which were flawed - and the best way to avoid this - or mitigate it - is for modern societies to allow plenty of room for civilised argument."

Unfortunately .. we live in an age where our "modern society" has overwhelmed any "room for civilized argument" .. under the guise of "political correctness" .. which simply allows all disagreement to be reduced to calling people names ... such as .. Plato's .. "lunatic and fools".

Indeed .. in today's reigning "belief system".. HL Mencken's words ring true .. "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule"


Our Victorian State Minister for Health, Jill Hennessy, here in Australia also loved using the Paul Offit quote so much she put it in the health pamphlets here. Only difference is she multiplied it by ten and the pamphlet says it is safe to take 100,000 in one day
They have since removed it after complaints, but she is still going strong. Yesterday we woke to the news that the Federal government is going to pass a law to prevent the attendance of any unvaccinated children to kindergarten and day care centres. They have already passed the :No Jab No Pay" laws nationwide now they said they are extending it to "No Jab No Play". They said 140,000 have had their welfare payments cut for refusing to have their children vaccinated according to the schedule.

John Stone


A grand take away from history might be that social cohesion has most often depended on belief systems which were flawed - and the best way to avoid this - or mitigate it - is for modern societies to allow plenty of room for civilised argument. Reflecting on my experience I think I began with the illusion that this was a sphere in which government was trying to behave in a benign way rather than fostering poweful interests (in some case perhaps they even tried to convince themselves of this). In fact some of them may have thought that such were the overall benefits of the program that one must never allow for dissent at any cost. The trouble with this is that it means the belief system becomes ever less grounded in reality and ever more open to abuse. Everything now is wrong: a captive market, industrial producers without liability, ownership of the media, suppression of dissent. And at he middle of it complete, unreflecting, indefensible nonsense.

Bob Moffit

"OK, so not only is it a preposterous claim it also involves basic bureaucratic doublethink .... and apparently in 15 years no one has been able to think up a less fanciful story."

Some words of wisdom explaining why this preposterous claim continues ......

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it" GOEBELS

"Strange times are these in which we live when old and young are taught falsehoods in school and the person who dares tell the truth is called at once a lunatic and fool" .. PLATO

"It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled" .. MARK TWAIN

"Sometimes people don't want to hear the truth, because they don't want their illusions destroyed"

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.)