Nightmare in Connecticut
Choosing to Smile

Dr. Larry Palevsky February Presentation to CT Assembly on the Nightmare in Connecticut

CtNote: Thank you to Anne Dachel for transcribing Dr. Larry Palevsky's presentation to the CT Assembly last February, during which time the religious exemption was in jeopardy. Then...  COVID. 

By Anne Dachel

Nightmare in Connecticut

On February 19, 2020 there was hearing by the Connecticut Assembly on vaccine safety. There should have been a packed chamber and lots of press coverage because what one expert testified to was shocking. Sadly, most of the seats were empty, but we need to consider what was said.

Larry Palevsky, MD answered questions for 28 minutes. He described the appalling lack of studies when it comes to vaccine safety, especially involving the use of aluminum in vaccines and its damaging impact on the brain.

“We have never studied whether the aluminum we’re giving in vaccines gets into the brain, and we’ve never measured whether it stays in the brain, and what it does if it does stay in the brain.”

“What we’re seeing is a large outbreak of neurodevelopmental disabilities in adults, including Alzheimer’s, and one of the main factors that they’re finding in the brains of people with Alzheimer’s is the aluminum nanoparticle that’s directly related to the vaccines that we’re giving. “

The representatives should have been more than a little worried over the statistics Dr. Palevsky cited.

“We have more than half of our children with chronic inflamed conditions, and we’ve never allowed ourselves to ask the question: If the vaccines cause inflammation acutely, do they continue to create inflammation chronically?

“We have one in 5 with neurodevelopmental disabilities, one in 10 with ADD/ADHD, one in 35 with autism, one in 11 with asthma, and one in 20 under the age of five with seizures.”

For me personally, the most encouraging part of Dr. Palevsky’s remarks was what he said about an upcoming vaccinated versus unvaccinated study. He described a colleague who was studying health outcomes in siblings, some of whom were fully vaccinated, some partially vaccinated, and some totally unvaccinated. These are children who have the exact same genetics and environmental exposures; the only thing different was the vaccines they were given.

“In his preliminary data he’s already seeing quite a stark statistically significance difference.

“Unvaccinated children are unanimously healthier with fewer chronic illnesses. The next fewer illnesses are seen in the partially vaccinated children, and the most severe chronically inflamed conditions are seen in the fully vaccinated children. …

“Those vaxxed versus unvaxxed studies have never been done by the mainstream medical community or scientific community.”

Here is Dr. Palevsky’s full testimony.


Hello Connecticut.

I can’t think of a better example of the

Notice the lack of attendance at the hearing.

Larry Palevsky, MD.Testimony Connecticut State Assembly Hearing


Dr. Palevsky:

As a medical student starting in 1983 I was taught to critically think, and there are a couple of assumptions that we’ve heard today that I’d like to challenge.

One of the assumptions that we heard is that high vaccination [rates] protects those vulnerable  and it reduces the probability of those people vaccinated to spread the germ to others.

Never once in my thirty-seven years [of medical practice] have I ever seen a study that showed that a vaccination makes the bacteria or the virus disappear from the body of those who are vaccinated. Yet all we continue to say is that once a vaccine is given not only are people immune, but the bacteria and viruses are no longer in their bodies to transmit to others, and that is not true.

We also heard that once you are vaccinated, you are immune. Well actually the textbooks don’t say that. The textbooks say that 2 to 10 percent of children who receive a vaccine actually don’t develop an antibody at all.

Then there’s a whole number of children who will develop an antibody, but we don’t even know the percentage because they will develop the antibody but won’t be protected at all.

So there are more children who don’t develop protection from the vaccine than are actually unvaccinated in the state of Connecticut. We are told that unvaccinated children are the only children and the only people that are capable of spreading germs. But that’s not true either because vaccinated children can still spread germs; they can still carry the bacteria and viruses that we vaccinate against and so can adults. Adults can also carry the bacteria and viruses that we vaccinate against.

We are told that when you vaccinate, the bacteria and the viruses completely disappear from the earth. Well they don’t. They change activity, they may mutate. When you heard before that the measles virus doesn’t mutate, well it does. There are cases of outbreaks in Canada that have shown that a new virus came about, and there are studies in the literature that show that when a vaccine is given, you can induce a strain replacement, meaning that over time the bacteria and the viruses will mutate, but they don’t disappear from the earth. They are still here. Their activities change, and they may even mutate, and even those who are vaccinated can still carry them and transmit them.

Unfortunately we are targeting 2 percent of the children who are not the sole carriers or transmitters of germs. Vaccinations don’t stop people from carrying and transmitting germs just because they’ve been given the vaccine.

My last point: We heard that vaccines are unequivocally safe. We have a public health crisis in our midst: chronic illness, brain damage, neurodevelopment disability, and there are chemicals in the vaccines that are shown in animal studies to contribute to this kind of brain inflammation that we are turning our backs on. We are creating many of these children and we are ignoring it for the sake of continuing to vaccinate. Thank you.

Next State Representative Nicole Klarides-Ditria asked about the effects of mercury and aluminum in vaccines.

Dr. Palevsky: (5:00)

You heard earlier that there’s no real concern about aluminum because it’s such a small amount and so it really shouldn’t matter, but the kind of aluminum that we put into vaccines is a different kind of aluminum than we see environmentally. This is called a nanoparticle. Nanoparticles bind really tightly to the bacteria antigens, the virus antigens, the food protein antigens, and any other contaminates that are in the vaccines that we may not know about.

What we know [about] the biochemical properties of the nanoparticles is that they are capable of entering the brain. We have not evaluated the safety of the aluminum nanoparticle and its injection and where it goes when it gets into the body and whether it gets into the brain.

Do vaccine ingredients belong in the brain? No.

Do they get into the brain? No one has ever studied it, but animal studies using the same chemicals that are in vaccines that we give to children directly demonstrate that the vaccine ingredients do enter the brain. We are ignoring this information.

There are scientists in Europe who’ve actually done studies on the aluminum nanoparticle and have shown that it can persist in the brain for years and decades.

What we’re seeing is a large outbreak of neurodevelopmental disabilities in adults, including Alzheimer’s, and one of the main factors that they’re finding in the brains of people with Alzheimer’s is the aluminum nanoparticle that’s directly related to the vaccines that we’re giving.

We have never studied whether the aluminum we’re giving in vaccines gets into the brain, and we’ve never measured whether it stays in the brain, and what it does if it does stay in the brain.

We do know that vaccines are supposed to cause inflammation in the body.

We have more than half of our children with chronic inflamed conditions, and we’ve never allowed ourselves to ask the question: If the vaccines cause inflammation acutely, do they continue to create inflammation chronically?

We have one in 5 with neurodevelopmental disabilities, one in 10 with ADD/ADHD, one in 35 with autism, one in 11 with asthma, and one in 20 under the age of five with seizures. The autoimmune diseases are exponentially rising, and we are finding that the viruses and the bacteria that we are injecting into the body, along with the adjuvants create something called molecular mimicry.

Which means the body sees those viruses thinking that it’s foreign but actually finds pieces of those viruses that match pieces of the self and the immune system doesn’t differentiate between what’s it’s been told to reject and itself. So it will turn the immune system on itself leading to an autoimmune condition.

We know this about Hepatitis B. We know this about the Gardasil vaccine, and we know it about the flu vaccine, and we continue to say unequivocally that the vaccines have been studied effectively and that they’re safe. And that’s just not true.

State Representative Jonathan Steinberg next asked Dr. Palevsky about the inability of aluminum to pass through the blood—brain barrier.

Dr. Palevsky:  9:00

There have been studies looking at the brains of people who had autism and those who didn’t, and compared the percentage of aluminum, and there was exponentially larger in those with autism and those who had no neurodevelopmental disabilities.

I do want to mention that aluminum is not in vaccines in a vacuum. One of the reasons aluminum is in there is to galvanize or catalyze an immune response against the antigens that are bond very tightly to it.

In every vaccine where you see an aluminum nanoparticle, it is accompanied by polysorbate 80, which is an emulsifier. An emulsifier can go through both water and fat materials.

Any of the experts I’ve ever asked, why is polysorbate in the vaccine, they have said, ‘to help disperse the vaccine material away from the vaccine injection site.’

Polysorbate 80 is known as an emulsifier.  It’s also used by the drug companies to bind to drugs to assist drug delivery into the brain.

So polysorbate 80 can pass through the brain and it binds very tightly to aluminum. In animal studies when using drugs bond to nanoparticles, bond to polysorbate 80, you massively increase drug penetration into the brain than if you didn’t have the polysorbate 80 alone.

Polysorbate 80 is a disperser. It does move things away from the injection site, and it increases the potential for entry of whatever is attached to the polysorbate 80 into the brain.

There’s another chemical in the vaccines called 2 phenoxyethanol which actually disrupts the health of the cell membranes of the body. It’s well known to be a detergent in that respect, and yet we don’t study it to see what it does when it’s injected into the body, and whether it actually changes the cell membrane that would allow almost anything from the vaccine or even from the bloodstream to enter into cells or enter into the brain.

We know that aluminum as a nanoparticle can destroy mitochondria, and mitochondrial disease is one of the basic patho, physiological findings in people with chronicle inflammatory conditions.

We also know that the aluminum nanoparticle can destroy the waste product removers of the cells. Those are called lysosomes. Those aluminum nanoparticles that can destroy the lysosomes change the way the cells remove wastes and inflammation, therefore you are increasing the potential for chronic inflammatory conditions. Polysorbate 80 can go right through the cell membrane. 2 Phenoxyethanol can destroy the cell membrane and allow material to go in and anything bond to the aluminum can still go into areas where it shouldn’t go in.

When you hear millions of parents, it’s even hundreds of thousands, when you hear millions of parents saying, my child was fine and then deteriorated pretty badly. And you have millions of parents hearing from their physician, that had nothing to do with the vaccine, but the parent saw it right in front of them. It’s our job to say, is there something in the vaccines that actually can penetrate the brain that can disrupt the mitochondria, that can destroy the lysosomes, that’s doing this? It can, and it most likely is, and we’re refusing to look at it. These families are real.

Representative Steinberg asked about the ability of nanoparticles to penetrate the blood—brain barrier.

Dr. Palevsky:

If you look at the pharmaceutical literature, the pharmaceutical literature says that number one, they have trouble penetrating the brain by delivering drugs because of the presence of the blood—brain barrier. Number two, if they attach a nanoparticle to the drug they can increase penetration of the drug into the brain. Number three, if they put in an emulsifier like polysorbate 80 bond to the nanoparticle, they can increase penetration of the drug in the animal studies 20 fold.

I don’t know what reference you have. I’d have to look at it, but there is scientific evidence to show that when an emulsifier like polysorbate 80 is bound to a nanoparticle and that bond to a drug, it can enhance delivery into the brain across the blood—brain barrier, and vaccines are constructed in the same manner: polysorbate 80, aluminum nanoparticle, bond to antigens that are in the vaccines.

Steinberg asserted the inability of the aluminum to pass through the blood—brain barrier.

Dr. Palevsky: 14:50

There have been numerous studies done by people outside the mainstream medical community who have attempted to look at what happens to the nanoparticle when it’s injected into the body.

They have found that not only does it penetrate the brain, it persists for years. So again if we’re seeing a public health emergency of chronically disabled and chronically ill children, and we know there are ingredients in vaccines that can potentially contribute to that happening, and we don’t have any scientific studies examining whether or not any of these ingredients contribute to the development of these chronic inflammatory conditions, we have a problem.

Steinberg said Dr. Palevsky’s evidence showed a correlation, but not causation. He pointed to the “tens of thousands of chemicals we’ve introduced into our food, into our environment.

“Have we evaluated all those? Should we be stopping all those ten thousand chemicals? Because they may be the cause of the presence of these various elements in the brain.”

He said Dr. Palevsky had failed to consider the effect of the chemicals on children. 

  Dr. Palevsky:

There’s a difference between what you inhale and what you ingest and what you inject. What you inhale and what you ingest has the capacity for the immune system along the airway and the immune system along the 26 feet of intestines in children, plus the liver, to actually eliminate that before it gets into the body.

When you deliver it through an injection one hundred percent of it gets in, and it’s never been studied as to what happens to it, and whether or not it stays in the body and what it does when it stays in the body. What does it bring with it, especially because we know that there are contaminants in vaccines like foreign cells, like foreign DNA.

In 2005 the FDA reported that they knew that there was foreign DNA in the vaccines, and they didn’t study it at all. They did make a side note and say, we don’t know if it’s going to cause any damage and it could, but we’re just going to tell you what the amount that’s legal for being in the vaccines.

So we don’t know everything that’s attached to these nanoparticles. We assume that when you inject the vaccine, it’s not going to hurt you. We also assume it’s going to give you immunity, and neither of those is true.

Steinberg continued to argue that it was “more likely” that other chemicals in the environment were to blame for the rise in childhood chronic illness.

Dr. Palevsky:

The fact of the matter is that vaccine ingredients have never been tested for mutagenicity or carcinogenicity, and there are actually statements in the package inserts that say that this product has never been tested to see whether it causes mutations in the DNA or whether it causes cancer.

So you’re right, I think we should be equally concerned about the injection of these materials.

I’ll say that in over 21 years of actually watching the health of vaccinated children in the same community as the health of unvaccinated children, I don’t see nearly as many chronic inflammatory conditions in those who are unvaccinated as I do in those who are vaccinated.

A colleague of mine is currently engaged in a wonderful study looking at the health outcomes of fully vaccinated children, partially vaccinated children and unvaccinated children. In his preliminary data he’s already seeing quite a stark statistically significance difference.

Unvaccinated children are unanimously healthier with fewer chronic illnesses. The next fewer illnesses are seen in the partially vaccinated children, and the most severe chronically inflamed conditions are seen in the fully vaccinated children.

So I think we do have observational data just by watching to see well, how many of the kids in the community who don’t vaccinated actually have cancer? How many do get cancer living in the same community who are vaccinated.

Those vaxxed versus unvaxxed studies have never been done by the mainstream medical community or scientific community.

I agree with you. I think environmental chemicals are definitely a concern, but we’re seeing stark differences just based on vaccinated versus partially vaccinated versus unvaccinated in the same communities.

We’re seeing it in the same families where you have parents who vaccinated their eldest child, saw very significant damage done to that child and then had two or three more children and did not vaccinate them or partially vaccinated them. They have their own study because they see that their youngest who have not been vaccinated are far and away the healthiest, living in the same home, living in the same environment, the same exposure to toxins, the same exposure to parenting, same foods, same medical care and different health outcomes.

My experience is that the medical community refuses to acknowledge that there are faults with the vaccination system that are much greater. Vaccine injury is much more widespread than we’re giving it credit for.

When you have two to 10 percent of your children in the community who might not even develop an antibody, you already have a tremendous number of children who are not even immune.

So we’re saying that all these children are immune, but vaccination doesn’t guarantee immunity, especially for those who don’t develop an antibody and then for those who do and don’t even get protection even if they do.

It strikes me that we’re sitting in a scientific community and we’re saying that if you vaccinate a child the virus or the bacteria just disappear from their body and they can’t transmit it anymore. That has never been proven, but it is generally believed to be true. We propagate that without really looking at the science.

So we’re making a lot of assumptions: that the only people carrying the germs that we have to worry about are the unvaccinated because somehow the adults don’t carry it, somehow the vaccinated couldn’t carry it because they’ve been vaccinated, even though more than 10 percent of them might not be immune from it. So there are a lot of assumptions here that I think we’re just agreeing to that really is not scientific at all.

State Representative David Michel asked why certain vaccines, like the flu vaccine and DTaP vaccine, are recommended for pregnant women when “vaccine products have never been tested for safety during pregnancy.”

“Does the recent study about flu vaccines and increased miscarriage rates concern you?”

Dr. Palevsky:

“There’s definitely divergent views about whether the flu vaccine contributes to miscarriages. You have the medical community that says no, and then you have increasing numbers of mothers, pregnant women who are saying, I was fine, I got the flu shot and I miscarried. Then you hear the authorities say to them, unequivocally, no it had nothing to do with the flu vaccine.

So we’re losing experiential and observational data because our belief systems refuse to acknowledge that there may be uptick in the number of women who are undergoing miscarriages.

 The thing about giving flu vaccine and Tdap to pregnant women basically supports the idea of cocooning, meaning that if you vaccinate the mother or the pregnant woman, she will be immune so that when the baby is born, the baby will be protected from getting pertussis basically. Diphtheria is really non-existent even though it’s around, it’s just not causing infections. Vaccines don’t make the germ just disintegrate into thin air.

It’s also to prevent her from theoretically from developing the flu, but nine years ago, in the Vaccine Journal there was a study actually looking at flu vaccine in pregnant women, and it showed that women who are given the flu vaccine had increasing inflammatory markers. And nobody knows what they mean, but yet you have literature that demonstrates that babies that are exposed to increasing inflammation in utero, have increasing incidents of schizophrenia and mental health disorders by teenage years.

So again, we’re not looking at long term effects of injecting material that does cause inflammation, and then again, if it does cause inflammation, how chronic is that inflammation?

Does it persist, and then when you revaccinate and get further exposed to other factors in your environment that stress you, are you creating a downhill effect of further, further disease?

 Rep. Michel asked about the lack of thorough testing of vaccines.

Dr. Palevsky: 26:03

You heard before that vaccines are double—blind randomized, placebo—controlled studies, but they’re not.

I would love to have the opportunity to work through the scientific literature to show that not one ingredient in vaccines has ever been injected into a group of kids with a control group that’s given a placebo. That’s never happened.

Vaccines are not considered under the same standards of medicines. They’re considered biologics, and the vaccine industry has adopted and [been] given permission to not study vaccines the same way medicines are studied.

They’ve also said publicly that it’s unethical to keep children unvaccinated during the study, so that’s why they say we don’t see studies looking at four weeks, eight weeks, 12 weeks, six months later.

We do have these surveillance studies, but if a child gets vaccinated at two years of age and then six months later, never having had asthma, starts to get asthma, even though there’s evidence in the literature how vaccines can favor the development of a wheezing illness, we have no data to actually say yea or nay. That vaccine, in combination with what the kid got in the first two years, may have contributed to the onset of that chronic inflammatory condition.

So we are demanding that the proper safety studies be done, and we are told that they won’t be because we can’t leave children unvaccinated for any length of time. Then when we say that we have all these kids who are unvaccinated who can be in the study, they say they don’t have same demographics, they don’t all have the same diets, they don’t have the same home environments, so we really can’t compare one to the other. But we do have the families who have the fully vaccinated, partially vaccinated, and unvaccinated kids, and we don’t have the full study yet, but we have tremendous observational data that show that these kids who are unvaccinated are much healthier.


susan welch

Anne. What Bob said. If you were reporting in mainstream, this catastrophe would be over.

Thank you so much for this transcript. I wish it could be read by millions.

Another Larry

Thank you for this.


I've seen the video linked to above. Please watch it.

Bob Moffit

Once again I want to thank Anne Dachel for taking the time and making the enormous effort to transcribe the testimony of Dr Palevsky .. testimony that should be broadcast on national television so people could understand how the vaccine industry and public health bureaucrats are LYING to the people ... putting at grave risk the health and future of our most precious children and grandchildren.

It is positively SHAMEFUL for our country to be DENIED hearing the testimony of Dr Palevsky .. where in God's name are INVESTIGATIVE REPORTERS on the subject of VACCINES????? I suspect recent events where YEARS have been invested in efforts to impeach President Trump .. clearly demonstrate INVESTIGATIVE REPORTING IS DEAD … TODAY'S ARBITORS OF FREE PRESS ARE "ADVOCACY JOURNALISTS" .. PURSUING ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS AND NARRATIVES SUCH ADVOCACY REPORTERS APPROVE OF.


Coram Deo

video - 15 mins 45 secs
In this video report, we examine how we seem to be living out a scenario very similar to a Rockefeller Foundation document from a decade ago. We also explore several examples of how what was Ince considered to be basic, fundamental freedoms are being erased in response to this current crisis. At the end of the day, one must always ask… who benefits? Spiro Skouras

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.)