Note: Yesterday, ACIP recommended that infants as young as 6 months old, toddlers and children receive the Covid vaccine this Fall. And parents will comply, thinking they are doing right by their children. As did so many of us. ‘Unconscionable’: FDA Approves New COVID Vaccines — Even for Infants as Young as 6 Months — Based on Minimal Data or Testing
###
By Richard Moskowitz, MD
Those of you who know me or are familiar with my work know that I’ve been questioning the scientific basis of vaccinations for over forty years,1 and that my concerns about them go beyond the side effects of this or that vaccine to the nature of the vaccination process per se. In short, I am that rare case of an honest-to-God “anti-vaxxer,” unlike the vast majority of those unjustly ridiculed and dismissed with that label, the parents of vaccine-injured children, whose only mistake was to have done exactly what they were told, and suffered the devastating consequences of it ever since: “ex-vaxxers” would be a more appropriate term for them.
My way of supporting their cause and seeking redress for all they’ve suffered revolves around the contentious issue of scientific truth, based on my 53 years of experience as a family doctor, and amply supported by articles in the medical literature,2 albeit largely unread and ignored. I am far from claiming that what I’ve come to believe is the complete and final truth about them; but I do think that such views deserve serious consideration, rather than the censorship and ridicule that they commonly receive. So I will begin by summarizing my findings here.
The idea of vaccinating sounds attractive, as a way of preventing large populations from coming down with and suffering from acute infectious diseases, especially the most serious ones like smallpox, diphtheria, and polio, which have killed or maimed large numbers of people who came down with them. But we now have so many vaccines and use them routinely for so many diseases, that we no longer give much thought to the natural process of coming down with and recovering from them, seemingly unaware of its decisive importance for our general health. Almost all of them represent acute illnesses of short duration, involving fever and a host of immune mechanisms acting in concert, until the offending foreign organism is inactivated and expelled from the body, an all-important result that cannot be achieved by any one of them operating independently.
The natural immunity thus achieved is first of all specific, in the familiar sense of protecting the patient against future outbreaks of the same disease, just as vaccines claim to do. Less obvious but even more valuable is its nonspecific effect of priming the immune system to respond acutely, vigorously, and in concerted fashion to whatever other infections we are exposed to in the future. That might not seem so important, were it not for research that most people don’t know about, showing that those who come down with and recover from measles, mumps, chickenpox, influenza, and other common acute diseases of childhood are much less likely to develop chronic, autoimmune diseases and cancer later in life than those who do not, in proportion to the number of such ailments successfully recovered from.3
If true, that statistic means that vaccinating is not the way to develop a healthy immune system, and that we’re much better off learning how to be sick than vaccinating everybody against everything simply because we have the technology to make it happen.
In contrast, whatever good vaccines achieve depends solely on producing specific antibodies in significant quantities over long periods of time, bypassing and indeed dysregulating all the other mechanisms it was meant to collaborate with,4 and thus falling far short of duplicating the natural immunity that good health requires. When a vaccine is injected intramuscularly, there is a brief inflammatory reaction at the injection site, but no overt illness, and thus no reliable mechanism or pathway for getting rid of it.
After 14 days or so, yes, there probably will be measurable titers of specific antibodies in the blood; and, yes, the recipients of many though not all vaccines will be somewhat less likely to come down with the corresponding disease, at least in the near future, than they were before. But without the acute illness, there is no activation of the cellular system, no mobilization of phagocytes, cytokines, or serum complement, no priming of the immune mechanism as a whole, no improvement in the general health, no encrypted memory of the infection, and again, no means of expelling the invading viruses, bacteria, or bioengineered fragments derived from them.
Indeed, where the vaccine goes, how it persuades the antibody-producing cells to continue doing their work over extended periods of time, as it was designed to do, and what price we have to pay for these antibodies and the partial, temporary semblance of immunity that they provide, are questions that it seems we're not supposed to ask, can expect haughty contempt or righteous indignation when we do, and haven't been convincingly or usefully answered in any way that helps the public understand.
What continues to haunt me about the vaccination process is the obvious fact that, unlike the diseases it is supposed to prevent, vaccination is and must be a chronic phenomenon, that its intended result of achieving continuous antibody synthesis for months and years afterward would seem to require either the vaccine substance itself or at least the information that it conveys to remain active inside the body for at least that long. It’s worth asking how such long-term carrier states might be achieved, and what effect they might have on the health of vaccine recipients; but for now I’ll just say that it’s dangerously misleading, if not the exact opposite of the truth, to claim that vaccines render us immune to acute diseases, if in fact they drive the invading organisms or toxic derivatives of them deep into our vital organs and cause us to harbor them chronically if not permanently instead.
In the early years of my practice, I shied away from vaccinating routinely, based on a gut feeling that I couldn’t explain; and the analysis I’ve just offered took shape during a sabbatical year of revisiting the basic immunology that was glossed over in med school. But it didn’t really hit home or make sense for me until I began seeing a lot of chronically ill children in my practice.5 With so many vaccines being given, several of them simultaneously at the same visit, years went by without implicating a specific vaccine or component before it dawned on me that the vaccination process itself might be the culprit.
What first made me think of it was seeing so many kids given vaccines on the approved schedule who were reacting nonspecifically, by developing a more intense or prolonged version of whatever chronic diseases they were already bothered by. Even then, I didn’t see any uniform pattern, because the children reacted in a manner that was uniquely characteristic of them, just as you’d expect. Eventually I discovered that any vaccine would do, and that several different ones would have the same effect for that child, while their diseases ran the whole gamut of pediatric practice, affected kids who weren’t vaccinated, and could be brought on by environmental toxins and pollutants as well.
Equally confusing was the tendency of chronic diseases to wax and wane idiosyncratically, rather than on any preformed or regular schedule; and although treatment with pharmaceuticals often relieved their symptoms, the children remained perceptibly ill. But if the children recovered to the point of feeling well and essentially symptom-free for at least several months, which usually required gentler forms of treatment, their old disease would recur promptly and dramatically after their next vaccination, whatever it was, such that the causal link became obvious to everyone.
That was the turning point, the breakthrough I was looking for. Over the years, using ultradilute homeopathic medicines, I had the good fortune to witness dozens and ultimately hundreds of such cases, consistently enough to be the rule, not the exception, all exhibiting the same pattern, yet in a manner uniquely their own, no matter which vaccine was given, which disease they manifested, or how severely they suffered from it. Like this 18-year-old girl, plagued with bedwetting and obsessive-compulsive behavior in elementary school, who overcame both complaints and remained essentially symptom-free for more than 10 years. Even so, her old illness came back full force within a week after receiving the MMR booster her college required for admission. Fortunately, she recovered, using the same medicine as before, and remained well thereafter, but newly resolved to avoid further shots.
In short, my years of clinical experience leave little doubt in my mind that all vaccines, whatever the benefits ascribed to them, are regularly and significantly implicated in initiating, exacerbating, and reactivating the innumerable chronic diseases of our time. If that’s true, then subjecting whole populations to repeated doses of more and more of them must be adding continuously and exponentially to the crushing burden of chronic diseases that we already bear, as the dominant public health threat of recent decades, and not as rare coincidences, aberrations, or side effects, but as a built-in feature of their design.
Gripped by the urgency of that realization, and unnerved by our obstinate unwillingness to take it seriously, I began combing through the scientific literature, and soon uncovered a substantial body of reputable, published research along the same lines,6 albeit ignored by most practicing physicians, because it directly contradicts what we are authoritatively taught, fondly believe, and seldom bother to question. One study found that the risk of serious reactions to childhood vaccines was directly proportional to the number of vaccines given simultaneously at the same visit,7 and another showed a risk similarly proportional to the total number given over a period of years.8 In both cases, the main causal factor was the total vaccine load, a quantity that again points to the vaccination process itself, rather than any particular vaccine.
On the other hand, with the specific effects of each individual vaccine still largely hidden from view, and the generic effects of the vaccination process rarely taken into account, it is easy to understand why doctors see no reason to resist the industry’s agenda of vaccinating everyone and piling on as many new vaccines as they see fit. Yet investigating their safety would require nothing more elaborate than comparing the all-cause morbidity and mortality, the overall rate of death and chronic disease, in carefully-matched cohorts of vaccinated and unvaccinated people of all ages.
It boggles the mind that our nation, which yields to none in its professed commitment to science, has never seen fit to undertake such a simple and obvious study, even though if not precisely because it could resolve the issue once and for all. At the very least, if they prove to be as safe as we’ve been led to believe, it would effectively silence nay-sayers like me. The trick will be to find someone reputable to run the study who is totally independent of the CDC and the drug industry who pays their bills.
The COVID phenomenon and its aftermath have both dramatized and heightened that threat as never before, by devising a whole new version of it and imposing it on the present as well as future generations. Declaring a global emergency and locking down large populations in response to it have resulted in vaccinating most of the world in the midst of the disease, for the first ever, rather than just trying to prevent it in the future.
Even when it turned out that the new vaccines didn’t prevent transmission, but only lessened the severity of the disease for a few months, the lockdown, by prolonging the outbreak, allowed the highly mutable virus to generate a sequence of variants, for the ingenious mRNA technology to devise a customized new vaccine for each one. Now that the virus has become endemic, yet more boosters will be required more or less on schedule and quite possibly mandated for the future, despite lacking even the modest benefit of traditional vaccines, not to mention posing brand-new threats, like the mRNA sequence becoming permanently incorporated in the host’s DNA,9 and some of the spike protein produced by it continuing to circulate in the blood and damaging various organs for as long as the mRNA sequence continues doing its job.10
These extraordinary new impositions exemplify what Naomi Klein has called “disaster capitalism,” namely, “orchestrated raids on the public sphere in the wake of catastrophic events [repurposed] as exciting market opportunities.”11
For all of these reasons, it is more urgent than ever for the scientific community to investigate the all-cause morbidity and mortality of vaccinated and unvaccinated subpopulations in a manner and venue that is transparent and certifiably independent of the pharmaceutical industry, so that the general public will accept their results, whatever they may be.
Until then, I propose that vaccines simply be made optional, that is, available on request, without mandating them or penalizing those who don’t want them, so that, once these studies are completed, we can finally have the public discussion and debate that we should have been having all along, à propos of Schopenhauer’s word to the wise,
The task is not so much to see what no one has yet seen, but to think what no one has yet thought, about that which everyone sees.12
Notes.
1. “The Case against Immunizations,” Journal of the American Institute of Homeopathy 76:7, March, 1983.
2. Moskowitz, Vaccines: a Reappraisal, Skyhorse, New York, 2017, Chapters 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, passim.
3. Cf., for example, Albonico, H., et al., “Febrile Infectious Childhood Diseases in the History of Cancer Patients and Matched Controls,” Medical Hypotheses 51:315, 1998.
4. Cf. for example, Profs. Lucija Tomljenovic and Chris Shaw, "Aluminum Vaccine Adjuvants: Are They Safe?" Current Medicinal Chemistry 18:2630, 2011.
5. Moskowitz, 2017, op. cit., Chapter 4, pp. 57-69.
6. Ibid., vide supra, note 2.
7. Miller, N., and Goldman, G., "Relative Trends in Hospitalizations and Mortality among Infants by the Number of Vaccine Doses and Age, Based on the VAERS Reporting System, 1990-2010," Human Experimental Toxicology 31:1012, 2012.
8. Glanz, J., et al., "A Population-Based Cohort Study of Under-Vaccination in 8 Managed-Care Organizations across the United States," JAMA Pediatrics 167:284, 2013.
9. Aidén, M., et al., "Intracellular Reverse Transcription of Pfizer BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine in Vitro in Human Liver Cell Line," Current Issues in Molecular Biology 44:115, February 25, 2022.
10. Cf. Dr. Byram Bridle, Interview with Alex Pierson, "See More Rocks," You Tube, May 30, 2021.
11. Naomi Klein, The Shock Doctrine, Henry Holt, 2007, p. 6.
12. Arthur Schopenhauer, Parerga und Paralipomena, 1851, 76.
Join us in congratulating Dr. Brian Hooker and Robert Kennedy, Jr. and the Children's Health Defense imprint on the huge news that Vax Unvax Let The Science Speak was #11 on the New York Times non-fiction best sellers list this week. This is important because it tells those who feel they shouldn't question science, "Hey, it's OK to read, and learn and make your own decisions." It's currently 124 on ALL of Amazon books. Buy a copy HERE
