20 Problems with Vaccine Science As Exemptions Are Ripped from Parents
Note: Parents are losing their right to say "no" to even partial vaccination of their children. Exemption laws are being ripped apart and thrown away from coast to coast. Most recently in Connecticut. Politicians' knowledge of vaccine science, safety, testing, efficacy and side effects is spoon fed to them by the loving hand of the lobbyists hired by the pharmaceutical companies who make billions off the CDC mandated schedule. Below are 20 facts from an MD who is not held captive by the religion of vaccination. Dowload the list in .pdf form here
TWENTY PROBLEMS WITH VACCINE SCIENCE
Alvin H. Moss, MD, FACP, FAAHPM*
*Dr. Moss has more than 40 years of medical practice, research, and teaching experience. His interest in vaccine safety and vaccine injury was first prompted by ethical concerns regarding conflicts of interest in vaccine research and in public policy. The opinions expressed here are his own and do not represent those of his employer.
1) No inert placebo-controlled studies with saline injection
2) Short duration of follow-up (as little as days to weeks)
3) No human or animal studies involving SC or IM injections of aluminum to establish the safety of injecting infants & children with aluminum hydroxide, aluminum phosphate or amorphous aluminum hydroxyphosphate sulfate
4) One-size-fits-all. Newborns have 20% of the kidney function of a 2 year old (excretion of aluminum through the kidneys is the main route to remove systemic aluminum) yet both receive the same dose of aluminum-containing vaccines; the one-size-fits-all approach is in stark contrast to precision medicine, an emerging approach for disease treatment and prevention that takes into account individual variability in genes, environment, and lifestyle for each person.
6) Predominant monitoring only for pre-specified adverse events in clinical trials leading to vaccine approval
7) No active post-marketing surveillance (VAERS is passive and voluntary)
8) No vaccinated versus unvaccinated studies by CDC to learn true adverse events of vaccines
9) No research to identify those with preexisting susceptibilities to vaccine injury
10) Small sample sizes in clinical trials that do not allow detection of less frequent severe adverse events.
11) No incentive to improve vaccine safety because vaccine makers cannot be sued (and consequently no changes to improve safety in a particular vaccine during the 17-year life of the patent)
12) Underreporting of vaccine injuries—less than 1% (Harvard 2010 study)—so no good way to assess balance of benefits versus harms
13) No studies for carcinogenicity, mutagenicity and infertility
14) No adequate research base to evaluate vaccine safety—Institute of Medicine concluded there was insufficient science to accept or reject a causal relationship for 135 adverse events reported with vaccines—“The absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence.” IOM 2012 report, Adverse Effects of Vaccines: Evidence and Causality.
15) Excessive reliance on observational retrospective studies in which confounding variables cannot be examined (weak science).
16) No accounting for healthy user bias in observational retrospective and prospective studies.
17) Scientific misconduct in which there is selective reporting of results or omission of conflicting data to arrive at a desired conclusion
18) Scientific misconduct in which there is deceptive reporting of results to omit important limitations to generalizability of results (e.g., vaccination status of groups are not comparable) or in which groups are deceptively misrepresented as “unvaccinated” when they had received a number of vaccines
19) Conflicts of interest of those conducting the studies (“investigator determined that deaths associated with vaccine were not vaccine-related”; no Data Safety Monitoring Boards) and those approving the vaccines (Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices) See OIG 2009 report.
20) No safety testing of vaccines and vaccine ingredients in pregnant women even though CDC recommends vaccines to pregnant women
Just an FYI, while there is a lot of talk in Connecticut, there are religious and medical exemptions available as always. So far.
Posted by: Winnie | September 26, 2019 at 03:58 PM
One day prior to scheduled vaccination, 0.25-mL blood and 12-hour urine collections were obtained. Prevnar 13, PedvaxHIB, and Pediarix vaccines were administered, in total containing 1200 µg of aluminum, as determined by company literature and confirmed by testing a set of these vaccines in our laboratory. One day postvaccination, 0.25-mL blood and 12-hour urine collections were obtained.
No significant change in levels of urinary or serum aluminum were seen after vaccination
Surely this wasn't the main 'finding' of this study. Because even non scientists can see, that this is the complete and utter absence of a finding.
There's no way that a real scientist is going stop at this point, and not want to know where the aluminum DID go.
Since Eindeker is the one who brought this study forward, maybe he/she can clarify where the scientists conclude that the aluminum did go. And more importantly, how they were able to make that determination.
Posted by: Barry | September 19, 2019 at 05:46 PM
Thank you Dr. Moss and AOA! My mission today...hand out twenty-five copies of this pdf. Same tomorrow...and the next.
Posted by: NH | September 19, 2019 at 09:04 AM
Like the mercury in thimerosal. It was a bad sign that it wasn't excreted, it meant that it had been stored long-term in the bones, organs, and/or brain, and wasn't available to be put into the hair, urine, or blood. Several recent books have explored what happens to the injected aluminum, and it's pretty horrifying. Like The Autism Gene by Forrest Maready. One interesting thing is that it's a lot more dangerous to inject just a little aluminum compared to a lot, a bolus dose. I had a dog who got a big lump at the injection site of a parvovirus vaccine that my father got her (against my wishes). I took her to the vet and he said it was "just" some aluminum from the vaccine that had settled in a big lump that might take a long time to disperse. But it's actually better that it all clump together like that: it's EXTREMELY damaging when it's just a little.
Posted by: Cia | September 18, 2019 at 06:46 PM
And I'm not particularly reassured by this comment from Movsas et al: "We observed a significant decline of serum levels of iron, manganese, zinc, and selenium and a significant increase in copper level (a marker of inflammation) on the day after vaccination. These same EE [essential elements] have been described as declining after inflammation from trauma or burns. Of the EE that are not known to be associated with inflammation-induced perturbations (ie, sodium and potassium), we found stability of these levels after vaccination."
Posted by: Carol | September 18, 2019 at 05:59 PM
Eindecker, I saw a video with Professor Exley yesterday. From what I can remember, he was concerned about aluminium NOT being in urine. His concern is that it was found in cells in the brains of the deceased autism youngsters.
I know that I am a complete dummy when it comes to science, but I can understand the implications of that finding.
Posted by: susan welch | September 18, 2019 at 05:51 PM
@ Frederic Chopin, My correction re infant vaccines.
My correction: Actually by age 7 months (including while exposed in the womb to their mother's DTaP & Flu shots), infants by the age of 7 months have taken in 34 vaccine doses.
Corrected: By 7 months (including in-utero), our American infants have been, literally, damaged by all the "excipients" in their 34 doses of vaccines, most all documented being toxic by all Chemical Industry references.
Your position re vaccines' safety is the definition of 'cognitive dissonance".
Posted by: david m burd | September 18, 2019 at 05:41 PM
If you absorb a toxin in to your body, then what you want to track is its removal from the body. That means what you want to find is efficient kidneys showing high concentrations of the toxin in the urine. If you give someone a toxin and the kidneys are not removing it, then the amount of toxin in the urine is going to stay low. This is a bad sign, because it means that the toxin, in this case, the aluminium, is not being excreted from the body.
Posted by: Hera | September 18, 2019 at 05:25 PM
"The Movsas study (2013) is consistent with Flarend. Movsas measured aluminum concentration in urine and blood before and after routine vaccination with 1200mcg aluminum in 2-month old infants. No change in urine or blood levels was observed. Strangely, Movsas did not disclose the actual aluminum measurements*. Movsas states:
'No significant change in levels of urinary or serum aluminum were seen after vaccination.'
The obvious question is 'where did the aluminum go'? It was injected, but it didn’t show up in the blood or urine. It’s in the body somewhere, but we don’t know where.
Movsas was 'reassured' by these results, which makes no sense. Movsas states:
'We were reassured to find no significant postvaccine rise in serum aluminum level after vaccination of preterm infants with vaccines containing a total of 1200 μg of aluminum.'
The above statement is bizarre. We don’t know where the aluminum went, and that's not reassuring at all. Some tissues like the brain are very sensitive to aluminum. I believe this irrational interpretation is motivated by a desire (or psychological need) by medical professionals to believe they are helping, and not injuring, their patients (See the FAQ/About page for commentary about this). Also see NOTE below about Movsas*....
* Pre-vaccination blood level of aluminum was 11.1 ng/mL, and this was the only aluminum measurement provided. Dr. Movsas did not disclose post-vaccine aluminum levels. I requested the aluminum measurements from Dr Movsas by both email and telephone. She did not respond to email. On the phone, she angrily yelled 'I am not answering questions about that study at this time!', and abruptly disconnected the call. This behavior is a cause for concern about the political forces that may be influencing Dr Movsas."
Posted by: Carol | September 18, 2019 at 05:22 PM
"In three clinical studies, 434 doses of RECOMBIVAX HB, 5 mcg, were administered to 147 healthy
infants and children (up to 10 years of age) who were monitored for 5 days after each dose."
Posted by: Carol | September 18, 2019 at 05:02 PM
Eindecker that proves zero not even a bit of swagger and thats your best shot....did they check the brain as well ?Gaunt think soo...
Look and learn
Aluminum at the vaccine injection site is taken up by macrophages which travel to the brain causing micro-glial activation, inflammation and immune activation with increased IL-6 cytokine levels, and impaired neuro development, leading to many of the symptoms of autism in animal models.(12-30)
Pharma For Prison
Posted by: Angus Files | September 18, 2019 at 05:00 PM
It means unfortunately that the aluminium is trapped in the body.
Posted by: Mercky Business | September 18, 2019 at 04:59 PM
I would add, in addition to the regulatory problems noted, no congressional oversight in the US.
Posted by: greyone | September 18, 2019 at 04:52 PM
It's a shame you don't understand a smidgen of science Mercky Business, the whole purpose is to demonstrate if the serum or urine aluminium concentrations were raised after the routine injection schedule, they were not and in any case Dr Gaunt's statements are clearly incorrect
Posted by: Eindeker | September 18, 2019 at 03:41 PM
@ Frederic Chopin,
OK, let's get real. Please tell everyone of Studies' results of healthy/non-healthy "vaxxed versus non-vaxxed" infants getting their 26+ vaccines by age 18 months, followed by their health status, such studies going out at least several years instead of several weeks.
As a relevant query, how old are you? - and how many vaccines did you have in childhood (and before, as an infant)?
Just the facts? Please answer.
Posted by: david m burd | September 18, 2019 at 03:38 PM
Unfortunately, all that shows is that the body is not processing it a normal way. It may be a test but it doesn’t tell you anything good.
Posted by: Mercky Business | September 18, 2019 at 03:34 PM
Well here's a reference that shoots down
"3) No human or animal studies involving SC or IM injections of aluminum to establish the safety of injecting infants & children with aluminum hydroxide, aluminum phosphate or amorphous aluminum hydroxyphosphate sulfate
4) One-size-fits-all. Newborns have 20% of the kidney function of a 2 year old (excretion of aluminum through the kidneys is the main route to remove systemic aluminum) yet both receive the same dose of aluminum-containing vaccines; the one-size-fits-all approach is in stark contrast to precision medicine, an emerging approach for disease treatment and prevention that takes into account individual variability in genes, environment, and lifestyle for each person."
Dr Gaunt suggest you read this: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/1712578
...... 15 preterm infants scheduled for routine 2-month vaccinations while still hospitalized.......One day prior to scheduled vaccination, 0.25-mL blood and 12-hour urine collections were obtained. Prevnar 13, PedvaxHIB, and Pediarix vaccines were administered, in total containing 1200 µg of aluminum, as determined by company literature and confirmed by testing a set of these vaccines in our laboratory. One day postvaccination, 0.25-mL blood and 12-hour urine collections were obtained.
No significant change in levels of urinary or serum aluminum were seen after vaccination
We were reassured to find no significant postvaccine rise in serum aluminum level after vaccination of preterm infants with vaccines containing a total of 1200 µg of aluminum. The average study infant weighed 2200 g at vaccination and thus received about 545 µg/kg of intramuscular aluminum.
Posted by: Eindeker | September 18, 2019 at 02:30 PM
Thank you for that excellent reminder, Dr Gaunt.
Access to data.
Posted by: greyone | September 18, 2019 at 01:36 PM
What are they going to say? They don't care. They'll just do what they can to force as many vaccines as they can on as many as possible.
Posted by: Cia | September 18, 2019 at 01:36 PM
So much anyone could easily debunk here but...which FDA-approved vaccines had less than a week of follow-up in clinical trials?
Posted by: Frederic Chopin | September 18, 2019 at 09:57 AM
21. The Vaccine Safety Data Link is closed to independent researchers. This has the records of hundreds of thousands of children and it could be a valuable source of truth if independent researchers were allowed access.
Posted by: Dr. William H. Gaunt | September 18, 2019 at 09:45 AM
Fantastic. Thank you. Definitely one for the Bookmark.
Posted by: susan welch | September 18, 2019 at 09:39 AM
The COLLECTIVE RESPONSE of main stream media .. medical professional organizations AMA, AAP, etc .. Academic researchers .. career bureaucrats occupying public health captured federal, state, local regulatory agencies .. CDC, HHS, IOM, on and on ..
OUR STORY IS .. AND WE ARE STICKING TO IT NO MATTER WHAT .. THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED .. SO .. MOVE ON .. NOTHING NOTEWORTHY OF DR MOSS' CRITICAL OBSERVATIONS REGARDING DELIBERATE FAILURE TO ENSURE ABSOLUTE SAFETY OF VACCINES …
As Edmund Burke warned: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
AND THE BAND PLAYS ON AND ON ….
Posted by: Bob Moffit | September 18, 2019 at 09:21 AM
Right now there are protests against Vaccination in
And how many more places - Its all over YOUTUBE
All simultaneously -- I can see it -- but our controlled opposition is blind to it ! Somehow ?
Posted by: Hans Litten | September 18, 2019 at 09:20 AM