The End of Journalism: A Book Review of The Smear By Sharyl Attkisson
Another Rotavirus Vaccine Bites the Dust

World Mercury Project: Hiding Vaccine-Related Deaths With Semantic Sleight-of-Hand

WMPNote: You say potato, I say deadly poison....

We are pleased to share the latest article from Robert F. Kennedy Jr.,'s World Mercury Project. Mercury is a nefarious neurotoxin that does not belong in any human, let alone a fetus, pregnant woman, baby or child. There is no good mercury - the media push to convince you otherwise is a travesty.

By Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

Vaccine scientists and the public health community cautiously and occasionally will admit that vaccines can cause adverse reactions just like “any other medication or biological product.” Although experts are less willing to openly disclose the fact that adverse reactions can and do include death, one has only to look at reports to the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) to see that mortality is a possible outcome. From 1990 through 2010, for example, VAERS received 1,881 reports of infant deaths following vaccination, representing  4.8% of the adverse events reported for infants over the 20-year period. Moreover, analysts acknowledge that VAERS, as a passive surveillance system, is subject to substantial underreporting. A federal government report from 2010 affirms that VAERS captures only about 1% of vaccine adverse reports.

On the international frontier, the public health community—with the World Health Organization (WHO) in the vanguard—previously used a six-category framework to investigate and categorize serious adverse events following immunization (AEFI), including death. Guided by this tool, public health teams examined temporal criteria and possible alternative explanations to determine whether the relationship of an AEFI to vaccine administration was “very likely/certain,” “probable,” “possible,” “unlikely,” “unrelated,” or “unclassifiable.”

In 2013, the WHO’s Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety discarded the prior tool, ostensibly because users “sometimes [found it] difficult to differentiate between ‘probable,’ ‘possible,’ and ‘unlikely’ categories.” The WHO enlisted vaccine experts to develop a “simpler” algorithm that would be more readily “applicable” to vaccines. The resulting four-category system now invites public health teams to classify an AEFI as either “consistent,” “inconsistent,” or “indeterminate” with a vaccine-related causal association or as “unclassifiable.” Despite the patina of logic suggested by the use of an algorithm, “the final outcome of the case investigation depends on the personal judgment of the assessor” [emphasis added], especially (according to the tool’s proponents) when the process “yields answers that are both consistent and inconsistent with a causal association to immunization.”

In a 2017 letter in the Indian Journal of Medical Ethics, Drs. Jacob Puliyel (an India-based pediatrician and member of India’s National Technical Advisory Group on Immunization) and Anant Phadke (an executive member of the All India Drug Action Network) raise important questions about the revised tool. They describe an Orwellian Catch-22 situation wherein it is nearly impossible to categorize post-vaccine deaths as vaccine-related. This is because the revised algorithm does not allow users to classify an AEFI as “consistent with causal association with vaccine” unless there is evidence showing that the vaccine caused a statistically significant increase in deaths during Phase III clinical trials. By definition, however, any vaccine not found to “retain safety” in Phase III trials cannot proceed to Phase IV (licensure and post-marketing surveillance). The result of the algorithm’s convoluted requirements is that any deaths that occur post-licensure become “coincidental” or “unclassifiable.”

Read the full post and bookmark the WMP site here.


Grace Green

Bennedetta, you're right. I think you're about the same age as me - old enough to be a grandparent if only our offspring could find a spouse and a house! - and I don't remember babies dying in the 50s, 60s or 70s. Now there are so many reports of previously completely healthy babies just suddenly dying (after a vaccine). I think the population at large are waking up to it, voting with their feet, and that's why California, Italy and where next, are getting scared and introducing mandates. They know this movement will snowball.


All those great guys traveling around on the Vaxxed bus did say the one thing that they were not prepared for was all the deaths they were hearing about.

Once again nothing is said by the media, and we have to go around and find out ourselves.

It made me think; wow - just wow.

And then this evening, I got the evening paper and in the obituaries - what do I see, but a three month old baby girl had died this week; and I have to wonder, three months and that DTap vaccine.


Normally when a drug is approved, the FDA requires Phase 4 studies to monitor safety events that are not observed or measurable in smaller Phase 3 studies. Yet for vaccines, the FDA refers to the VAERs database as the primary mechanism for monitoring post marketing safety. With its known deficiencies (self reported, 1% compliance), I agree with Bob that is criminal to unleash these vaccines on the population without adequate Phase 4 studies.

The vaccine advisory committee is chaired by one Kathryn Edwards, MD. Infectious disease, Vanderbilt University. Keep in mind the GSK guy sits right there with her at the meetings. Members of the committee are appointed by the Commissioner. They do have a vacancy and I would be more than happy to nominate a qualified member of AoA. no trolls.

Hans Hitten

France attempts forced vaccination on unwilling population

Gary Ogden

The report referenced above actually says "Fewer than 1% of adverse events are reported." This means that there were more than 188,100 deaths during this 20-year period, more than 9,400 per year, on average. Infant deaths from vaccines. They also report that 2.6% 0f vaccinations (of 1.4 million doses) produced a possible reaction, and that the CDC ignored their requests for assistance to fix this woefully inadequate system so that we could identify ". . . 'problem' drugs and vaccines which endanger public health." This report is well worth a read. Produced on the taxpayer's dime, and immediately buried. Post-marketing surveillance of vaccines simply does not exist and our criminal government likes it that way.
As for the GAVI "tool," it is indeed Orwellian, and intentionally so.

bob moffit

"Moreover, analysts acknowledge that VAERS, as a passive surveillance system, is subject to substantial underreporting. A federal government report from 2010 affirms that VAERS captures only about 1% of vaccine adverse reports."


As Joseph Stalin said ... "It's not the people who vote that count, it's the people who count the votes."

It is one thing for the federal government to affirm that VAERS captures only about 1% of vaccine adverse reports .. but .. it is quite another .. (CRIMINAL?) .. to then ALLOW THIS CRITICAL FAILED SYSTEM TO CONTINUE FAILING TO PROTECT OUR MOST PRECIOUS RESOURCE ... OUR INNOCENT CHILDREN.

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.)