Sunday, June 16, 2024


“You may choose to look the other way, but you can never say again that you did not know.”

— William Wilberforce


Internet Trolls Attack Anyone Resisting Vaccine Party Line

Here’s how it usually goes… You say you have some doubts about vaccine safety and all those vaccinations the government requires you to give your kids. You say you’re concerned about serious side-effects you keep reading about, and particularly potential links to autism and autoimmune disorders, and the reports of encephalitis and shock. A typical response from mainstream proponents of vaccines would proceed like this…

Oh, you’re being silly, you don’t know the science. Look, 99.9% of all doctors and scientists will tell you that vaccines are safe and effective. The science is solid, it’s long been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Ninety-nine point nine percent. That sounds pretty convincing. Of course, it’s unclear what formula, study or survey was used to come up with that figure, so you start to do your own research, and you quickly realize there are lots of doctors and scientists, in addition to well informed parents, journalists and consumer advocates, who do not subscribe to the establishment’s mantra about vaccine safety and effectiveness. They do not believe the myth that the science is settled, and some are very vocal about their reservations or opposition to it.

The more you read, the more you start to realize that there is a growing chorus of doctors, scientists, nurses, and other health care providers who have serious questions about the current vaccine paradigm favored by the pharmaceutical industry, government agencies, such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA), medical trade groups, and the mainstream media.

Increasingly, professionals within a wide range of health care and science fields are giving interviews and writing articles and books voicing their concerns about vaccine risks, the misrepresentation of the historical role of vaccines in reducing mortality from infectious diseases, the expanding schedule and number of vaccines mandated, or even the basic mechanism theories behind vaccine science.

David Gorski, MD
David Gorski, MD, alias “Orac””
Michael Simpson, alias
Michael Simpson, alias “Skeptical Raptor”

Predictably, every time you give the name of a contrarian doctor or scientist in response to the 99.9% figure, what you tend to get is, “Eh, well, he’s a quack, she’s not credible.” Also, you get referred to blogs such as Science-Based Medicine1 or Respectful Insolence,2 or the Skeptical Raptor’s Blog.3 The first two are often written by or associated with a guy named David Gorski, MD, who also goes by the alias “Orac.” Gorski is a surgical oncologist and an assistant professor of surgery at Wayne State University School of Medicine in Detroit, MI.4 The third is written by Michael Simpson, who goes by the “Skeptical Raptor.”5 This is how Simpson describes himself on his blog:

I have over 25 years experience in marketing, business development, and product development in the medical products industry, working in a variety of marketing, sales, clinical research, and product development roles with large and small medical products companies. I have also had key executive roles on both the manufacturing and distribution sides of the medical products industry.3

Should you wish to debunk someone, anyone, who dares to disagree with mainstream thinking on vaccines, all you need do is inform Orac or the Raptor, and either will gladly oblige by writing up a boorish piece, long on insult and short on science. Their methods are painfully predictable. In one piece earlier this year, Raptor criticized a prominent immunologist6 who had the nerve to write an open letter on vaccine science to state legislators in California about to vote on a bill eliminating personal belief vaccine exemptions. The piece started out by dismissing the individual’s credentials outright. Raptor writes:

One of the most irritating problems I have with the antivaccination movement  is their over-reliance on false authorities, where they trumpet the publications or commentary from someone who appears to have all of the credentials to be a part of the discussion on vaccines, but really doesn’t.6

In the same piece, Raptor takes a backhanded swipe at a leading neuroscientist and a molecular biochemist by first acknowledging their “sterling credentials in medicine and science,” and then going on to say…

they publish nonsense research (usually filled with the weakest of epidemiology trying to show population level correlation between vaccines and adverse events) in low ranked scientific journals.5 

In a crude shot at a pediatrician allowing parents in his practice to make informed, voluntary vaccine decisions for their children, Orac writes:

If [he] weren’t such a worthless excuse for a pediatrician when it comes to promoting misinformation about vaccines, I’d almost feel sorry for him. Almost. He is, however, a perfect example of what the phrase ‘hoist with his own petard’ means.7 

Orac took aim at a well-respected nephrologist, who left a successful private practice to speak out about the damage being done by doctors taking a narrow-minded, aggressive approach to vaccination of patients::

As someone who comes from a strong basic science background, having been a chemistry major (who graduated with honors–so, there!), I think I can see [her] problem. First, she seems unduly proud of her science background, wielding it like a talisman against charges that she doesn’t know what she’s talking about (which she doesn’t). Unfortunately, as those of us in medicine know, what you did 25 or more years ago in college has little bearing on what you can or can’t understand now.8 

And here is Orac having a go at a top notch molecular and cellular physiologist:

A real molecular biologist who did real research for various biotech and pharmaceutical companies, apparently competently, for 20 years, she suddenly embraced antivaccine pseudoscience, apparently based on her embrace of fundamentalist Catholicism.9

Catholicism appears to be what first led [her] to embrace her pseudoscientific hypothesis about fetal DNA in vaccines and autism, the tragic death of her child less than a month and a half ago is unlikely to do anything but cement in her mind the evils of vaccines made using fetal cell lines.9

Notice the pattern. This is only a smattering of the handiwork of these two bloggers, but you begin to get the idea. Orac’s defensiveness, in particular, may have something to do with his research on a Sanofi-Aventis drug called Riluzole (Rilutek®),10 which may well eventually be used to treat autism. Riluzole has been approved for clinical trials (for autism) by the FDA, and one can imagine the money that might be at stake if the drug makes it to market.11 12 13

But then, reason would dictate that Orac’s criticisms of individuals disagreeing with his views not be so personal and mean-spirited, because it’s always more effective in the long-run to present one’s case standing atop the moral high ground, instead of down in the gutter.

The collection of disparaging pieces by Orac and Raptor about anyone offering a different perspective about vaccination is so impressive in both volume and diversity it’s a wonder they have any time left for their day jobs. But rather than take umbrage, those at whom such vitriol is aimed should feel comforted by Socrates’ memorable adage, “When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.” Or its modern-day equivalent by Britain’s Maggie Thatcher, “I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.” (… just replace “political” with “vaccine”).

So yes, if you take Orac’s and Raptor’s trolling and their blogs seriously, you are likely to believe that 99.9% of all doctors and scientists are enthusiastically onboard with the mainstream vaccine paradigm, because you have automatically excluded all those who Orac, Raptor and others like them are afraid of and try really hard to discredit and silence.

There’s that pesky cognitive dissonance rearing its ugly head again.

Note:  The original version of this article mistakenly attributed the Science-Based Medicine, Respectful Insolence, and the Skeptical Raptor’s Blog blogs to David Gorski, who is only associated with the first two. The Skeptical Raptor’s Blog is written by Michael Simpson. Our thanks to both individuals for kindly pointing out this error in their respective pieces titled “I am Spartacus! or: Orac applies some Insolence to a rather confused anti vaccine blogger” and “Internet troll connects the dots – mockery ensues”. The author stands corrected.


1 Science-Based Medicine: Exploring issues & controversies in science & medicine.
2 Respectful Insolence.
3 Skeptical Raptor’s Blog.
4 Wayne State University, Department of Surgery. David Gorski, MD.
5 Simpson M. Review of 10 years of GMO research—no significant dangers. Ag-West Bio Nov. 14, 2013.
6 Appeal to False Authority—Who is Tetyana ObukhanychSkeptical Raptor’s Blog.
7 Gorski D. Quoth “Dr. Bob” Sears: Poor, poor pitiful me, you stupid peopleRespectful Insolence. Jan. 21, 2015.
8 Gorski D. Dr. Suzanne Humphries and the International Medical Council on Vaccination: Antivaccine to the coreRespectful Insolence. Feb. 16, 2011.
9 Gorski D. More horrible antivaccine “science” from Theresa DeisherRespectful Insolence. Aug. 24, 2015.
10 Wayne State University, School of Medicine. Cancer Biology Graduate Program, David H. Gorski.
11 Crosby J. David Gorski’s Financial Pharma Ties: What He Didn’t Tell YouAge of Autism June 21, 2010.
12 Ghaleiha A, Mohammadi E, Mohammadi MR, Farokhnia M, Modabbernia A, Yekehtaz H, Ashrafi M, Hassanzadeh E, Akhondzadeh S. Riluzole as an adjunctive therapy to risperidone for the treatment of irritability in children with autistic disorder: a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trial. NCBI
13 Wink LK, Plawecki MH, Erickson CA, Stigler KA, McDougle CJ. Emerging Drugs for the Treatment of Symptoms Associated with Autism Spectrum Disorders. NCBI

96 Responses

    1. A well paid MD retard. You can’t imagine that doctors are above having such an overwhelming desire for riches that they wouldn’t do almost anything for them? Remember the doctor who was treating many of his normal patients with chemotherapy for which they had no need?

      1. Not only is Mr. Gorski well paid, he’s stinking rich. He sold his patent for Rotovirus vaccine (the very 1 that he sat on the CDC board and voted to have added to the schedule) for over $100 million. No conflict of interest there.

          1. Yes I do and the information on Whale has served me beautifully in my debating with so called health professional on the safety,efficacy and history of vaccines.

          2. Your comment falls pretty much in line with the content of this article. Rather than debate the issue you chose to attack a website. A website you probably have not spent much time reviewing because if you did you would know that Whale presents both sides of the issue and is a respiratory for information, out of prints books and documents that are hard to find. It provides a detailed historical record of the Vaccine Issue which demonstrates that the anti-vaccine movement is not a new phenomenon but goes back to the 1800’s. It provides details of the horrors of the smallpox vaccine, polio and others that discredit and debunks the long standing myth that the Smallpox & Polio vaccines eradicated the diseases.

            Discredit the information, not the website. That is a reveal of trolling behavior.

        1. Actually, that was Offit. One of his buddies. Offit was on the IOM and got rotavirus vaccine added 5 times. Why? His university was given over 100 million for the vaccine. He got $6 million himself and a royalty on every single vaccine (which is a lifetime of wealth on that schedule mandated for every single child).

      2. The doctor who was giving chemo to patients who didn’t have cancer works in the same centre as Orac/Dr. Gorski.

  1. It’s not only Orac aka David Gorski-if you can stomach reading his sites there is a legion of cheerleaders that also mimic his rantings. This same core group appear on all disqus comment boards and because so many websites articles appear to be extended ads for the pharmaceutical industry-they have free reign to be as abusive and obnoxious as Gorski.

    There are several commenters online that have put together some information on the Science Based Medicine Blogs and a couple of website dedicated to Gorski:
    Exposing Dr. David H. Gorski, aka ORAC Organization. This is a facebook page at: https://www.facebook(dot)com/ExposingDrDavidHGorskiAkaOrac.

    TruthWiki: http://www.truthwiki(dot)org/?s=David+Gorski.

    Skeptical Raptor’s Blog: http://www.truthwiki(dot)org/skeptical-raptor/

    Many website have provided good solid information on Gorski. Bolen reports did some article of him a few years back and Age of Autism has several very good stories investigating the site’s money trial. A former Science Based Medicine paid commentor gave information about where the funding comes from:
    “Science”Blogs, As Told By A Defecting “Science”Blogger

    Sharyl Attkisson calls the Science Based Medicine blogs an astro turf site: https://sharylattkisson(dot)com/what-the-news-isnt-saying-about-vaccine-autism-studies/.

    I think Orac is singing his swan song. The Science Based medicine Blogs have clearly been outed as a paid for shrill site for the pharmaceutical industry. Once you are identified as a paid operative the creditability of what you comment on and information you provided will always be questionable.

    1. Note this quote from the post:
      “It’s not only Orac aka David Gorski-if you can stomach reading his sites there is a legion of cheerleaders that also mimic his rantings. This same core group appear on all disqus comment boards…”

      “DISQUS” in my opinion, is a contaminated infested swamp of toxic trolls because “DISQUS” allows them to keep their activities private and apparently doesn’t bother investigating their comments, instead leaving that to the host blogs’ moderators.

      “DISQUS” has been dumped by the Providence Journal and LA Times in favor of viafour, and I suggest that people email web sites, such as and others that still use it and urge them to dump it in favor of a better comment infrastructure provider.

      1. “DISQUS” allows them to keep their activities private and apparently doesn’t bother investigating their comments, instead leaving that to the host blogs’ moderators.

        I agree with this but also, the trolling issue is the fault of the site moderators whose job it is to actually read the comments. I complained to Disqus about being banned on some sites by moderators who allowed the trolls to moderate the board. There is a troll tactic that is used to have removed comments that cannot be discredited. The facilitator of these groups will notify trolls to go to a site and FLAG comments they want removed. I have seen comments with over 100 upticks removed in this way. When I complained to Disqus about it they said it’s the job of the site moderator to not just look at the number of times a comment was flagged , but to actually read the comment. When I sent this to different sites where my comments were removed the comments were reinstalled BUT because of Disqus has flagged your name in their system any other site moderator that sees one of your comments flagged will just go to the Disqus site see the “flag” and just remove your comment or ban you from the site. Never having read the comment. I have emailed site moderators and have asked them to explain to me why my comment was removed and they have no reason other than I was flagged on Disqus. Of course I asked them did they read the comment because it was within the policies of their website and most of the time I never hear from the site again. To me this is their failing and it has resulted in many websites ditching them.

        No proof of this but I’m sure somewhere along the line, there is money involved to manipulate the direction of public opinion in many areas. Especially when it comes to vaccines.

        1. We have had shills make imposter accounts with our names and profile pics and post disturbing abusive things in our names, disqus does nothing about it. The shills are in with the mods or are mods themselves and can see your IP and email address and use it to find more personal information about you. I post under a synonym, and yet have had the trolls tell me my real name, my correct age, my employment status, all in an attempt to intimidate me.

          I have proof that one shill, has multiple sockpuppets, and he used their names and pictures to run his porn sites before they were used to shill for big pharma.

          This same person is good buddies with Dorit Reiss lol

          1. @Ione Murphy, that’s why you should always use a dedicated email account, that you don’t use for other purposes, for the purpose of commenting on the internet anonymously. Similarly, use a VPN where possible. That way, it’s almost impossible to link your activities back to your real identity.

            I had a conversation with a vaccine troll recently on FB. Of course using a pseudonym (I would never use my real FB account for such exchanges, or indeed, anything that is public). We traded insults, but I was clearly winning. I made fun of his obviously fake name, and by the end of the conversation, after he posted a screenshot of me making fun of another troll (probably also from Skeptical Raptor) I asked whether that lady and him are the same person. He claimed there were 17355 such accounts.

    2. Disqus is a 100% media information collection agency. All run from India. If you want to post anything, post it at 10.00pm Mumbai time, that way the comments don’t get edited out till the supervisors, and Mumbai shills arrive at 9.00am next morning, try it, its humorous. Why on earth sites like Health Ranger use this “”free”” corrupt software, complete with inbuilt shills, is beyond me. I got blocked a year ago, and got around the blocks many times. But try it, post after 10.00pm Mumbai time, and you will see its all run from India. Oh the best software teams, tracking software, and PR aka shill teams are all in India now. Where they do all the horror drug trials too, 3 x24 hour weekend getaways, if you survive to the third, 100% success on the drug, and you get paid, if you die, or get sick and don’t make it for the third, you obviously not a consideration in the final “”successful”” results. Oh you could do 3 or 4 trails at once, many do, they can earn 4 years worth of income in 3 months. (If you live of course :))

  2. Just saying: I’m old enough to remember the culture of the medical community and political people of the early 1970s on. There was a culture in Western New York, that if a doctor said anything about a vaccination causing a reaction (now termed an “Event”), the doctor would mysteriously lose thier license to practice medicine in New York State. Wow, corrupt or what. A politician my parents grew up with, went to grammar school with, and said at one meeting: “This is how we do business now”. Didn’t know what that meant back then, but I do now as proven by Dr. Pan from California taking money to push mandatory vacc. If it was safe and proven so, why would they push for mandatory vacc? A friend of mine (who was the Mayor of a small town in New York Southern Tier, always said: “Follow the money” and “If you had a government mandated profit of billions per year, would you let it go for a few nameless faces?” Problem is, I would.

    I was old enough to remember my vaccine episode (Sept 1970, I was 5 years old). The “culture” back then was deny, deny, deny. And if that didn’t work, lie.
    My wife’s eldest child had over 30 seizures from the DPT (later found in hospital records), but at the time, she was told she was a nervous new mother and her dog just scared him.
    How many others are told the same lies?

    In 1970, the doctors said there was nothing wrong when my mother told the intake nurse that I had progressive pain in, and progressing up my forearms, less use of my hands over the previous weeks, and greater difficulty in breathing since the MMR booster. By late September, I was in an oxygen tent, great birthday present for a five year old! In about 1996, almost verbatim to what my mother told the intake nurse was published a type of GBS (Guillain-Barre Syndrome) in Cambridge University Press, but my mother didn’t use specific scientific & medical terms, she was just smart as a tack. You are NOT going to mandate and subject me again to such torture!
    In 1998 I started to have seizures of an undetermined source. After extensive testing, it was determined I have demyelination of the nerves in my brain from a severe “something in my childhood”.

  3. Could you name some non-quack doctors who seriously doubt the effectiveness and safety of the vaccine programme as it stands?

    Kind regards,


    1. What is your definition of a non-quack doctor? Please be specific. This is just one of the many troll tactics used to distract from the article that questions the validity of this so called research and to dissuade other from reading the links other commentors have made.

      If you really want a list of doctors please provide specifics and if you complain but we know that’s not what you gig is.

      1. Why not put forward the doctor that you think provides the best argument and has the most relevant credentials, instead of arguing the semantics of Fisher’s question?

        1. Because the question is an enigma. A false assumption. This is a questions trolls have been using on other comment boards recently. The question assumes that a specific doctor is a quack so whoever gives a name is set up to constantly defend the reputation of said doctor and to the person who asked the question (fisher) no answer will be acceptable therefore the person who gives the name of the doctor is caught in the no answer acceptable loop.

          My question to fisher & you, what are your qualifications to determine what doctor is a quack? What are your educations achievements? Are you an MD, medical researcher, PhD in science, have you gone to medical school, are you a nurse and if so what is your medical background, where did you go to med school and did you graduate, where do you practice, are you a social worker, psychologist and what is your training to make an assessment as to the medical qualities and skills of anyone-specifically a medical doctor. If there is a test to determine quackery, what is the name of the test? Who developed the test? How long has the test been in use in the medical community? Who assessed the test to determine the reliability of it? What is the research behind the development of the test and who funded it?

          1. OK, I’ll Agree that it was a loaded question, but lets unload that question. What doctor would you put forward that you think provides the best argument and has the most relevant credentials?

          2. My definition of a quack is a doctor that doesn’t improve your health condition. Loading patients up with drugs, to alleviate symptoms – isn’t a cure. A real doctor looks beyond the symptoms to that cause the disease. Unless doctors are prepared to go beyond their inadequate “med school” education and join the dots – they are all quacks.

          3. Paul: I was expecting the name of a few MD or preferably virologist science communicator.

            Why? If you have someone in mind, please, by all means-name him/her.

          4. If the doctors that the science bloggers and skeptical rats call quacks, how are these doctors all Board Certified? Then the panel certifying them must be inadequate and quacks too! Which means that Offit and Gorski are quacks since they’re Board Certified.

        2. I can only give you names of MD’s who I have had interpersonal experiences with and no others. Any others that oppose the ritual of vaccination I am not qualified to assess because I don’t know them personally. Just because a person has a perspective that oppose the existing paradigm doesn’t make them a quack. Especially when they have data that support their position.

          1. I was expecting the name of a few MD or preferably virologist science communicator. Not many private MD’s make a detailed case for or against vaccines, and unless they are a science communicator, they wouldn’t do it publicly.

          2. Why are we chasing MD opinions here? As consumers in a free country it IS our responsibility to make informed decisions. Why don’t we ALL start asking MD’s more questions? This would naturally reveal those who are parroting vs informing. I like to ask the following…. What kind of studies have been done? When? Where? Why? How? By whom? How many MD’s have time to read through them all? How can I access them?

            Are all MD’s motivated by the same thing? Why not ask what motivates the MD one is listening to? Sadly, MD’s who care about their patients over wealth and status are in a hot spot these days. These vaccine mandates do not allow for individual choice even where there are sensitivities / biological concerns. Especially in states like California. The MD who stands for his patients that are vulnerable risks a great deal.

            I still appreciate the article from this site for overall perspective.

        3. If you are serious about seeing some of the work of doctors and researchers who don’t fall in line with the medical/political/corporate paradigm, you can start by looking into Dr Tetyana Obuchanych, Dr Russell Blaylock, Dr Sears, and Dr Suzanne Humphries

          Good website discussing the science, objectively. You can tell this is objective because both pro-and anti-vaccine people are likely to be offended

          Dr Tetyana’s open letter to legislators:

          Dr Blaylock’s paper on herd immunity:

          Dr Sear’s on aluminum.

      1. There is no justification for the increase in the vaccine schedule. In fact, there is no scientific justification for vaccination – period considering there is not one study that confirms the effectiveness or safety of vaccination. Since vaccine makers have blanket liability and since Healthy People program was created over 35 years ago with the purpose to mandate mandatory vaccination you could comfortably say money is a big factor in the increase. With 300 new vaccines in the developmental pipeline-you can say the mandatory pushes and future increase in the shot schedule are for financial purposes not health purposes.

    2. For one, Dr.Joel Furhman is skeptical about the number of vaccines the average child receives. He also says the flu shot is ineffective. He’s a board-certified MD and renowned nutritional expert…do they teach you any nutritional science over at the mind controlled RI site? If not, here’s something for you:

      But…wait, remember Dr. Jack Wolfson, a board-certified cardiologist, who went on 60 minutes to speak his mind on the risks and dangers of vaccines? Shortly thereafter, the Arizona State Medical Board threatened to revoke his license if he didn’t shut-up. Sounds like the CDC counter-insurgency team was in full action ?.

      If you step outside the box for a minute, you would realize there are probably many MDs who are unwilling to risk their careers by publicly speaking out against vaccines. Far too risky to be ostracized and intimidated by their superiors and threatened with license revocations by medical boards. The CDC is a powerful empire with a strong support from the pharma industry. I don’t think Dr. Wolfson will be back on 60 mins anytime soon, do you?

      And how about all those industry-funded vax safety studies that masquerade as the real deal? Do you think everyone is mind controlled and can’t see through the stench of industry-funded fraud? Even Richard Horton, Editor-in-chief at The Lancet, thinks this whole peer-reviewed drug literature stuff is stinking up the joint. He says: “Science has taken a turn toward darkness.” Perhaps he could go on 60 minutes and tell us about the grand Illusion of scientific peer-reviewed literature.

      Pro-vax tyranny = medical dictatorship!?

    3. Any DOCTOR that does not adhere to the Vaccine Party Lie is put on the QuackWatch list.
      Your voice is just another scripted response from your lowlife, paymaster, bottom feeders.

      1. Hey, if there’s a list of doctors that won’t vaccinate kids on Quack watch, then that’s a great place to start picking your kids next doctor, on quack watch!

  4. Bugger These A$$ $OUL$! An egregious example is the varivax which is so unadulterated (over-strength), it infected 3 other men in our family, including one previously lower-grade vaccinated for chickenpox with full-blown shingles, instead!! Back to good ol’ “chickenpox parties” !!!

  5. Could you provide some examples where vaccine proponents have said that 99.9% of all doctors and scientists are enthusiastically onboard with the mainstream vaccine paradigm?

    1. Hi Paul… My use of the “99.9%” figure is meant more to reflect common expressions such as “nearly all” or “almost all” or “unanimously”. I use it to make a point. But, yes, I have often times had the 99.9% figure offered to me in conversations. I don’t think you’re going to find it written in many places, because it’s a figure that has no scientific backing, so any serious person would be silly to use it in an article or a book.

      But here’s one example of its use within a blog piece: … Look under the post titled “Vaccinating Your Child: Look for Evidence, not Middle Ground.” The third paragraph reads… “As the title betrays, it is a missive based on the fallacy that there are two different sides to vaccines and that the science is up for debate. So right away, let’s dispense with that by acknowledging that when 99.9% of doctors, nurses, researchers, and immunization-related scientists in every corner of the globe in private, governmental, and non-profit industries stand behind the safety and effectiveness of vaccines, there are no sides. There is evidence, and there is the denial of said evidence.”


      1. OK, I don’t know who that is, but she certainly isn’t Dr. Gorski. Maybe the first part of your blog should have been directed at her, whoever she is. That number doesn’t seem to have a reference, it sounds made up.

        I would like to know some real figures about how many MD’s would say they agree that vaccines are safe and effective in general. I would hazard a guess that it will be close 95%.

        I’ve found this one
        and this one

        Both of which say the vast majority follow the recommended vaccine schedule

        Any other good ones?

        1. Did you happen to read who funded these studies?

          How Do Physicians Immunize Their Own Children? Differences Among Pediatricians and Nonpediatricians

          Pharma paid for study.

          *Conflict of interest: Financial support to perform studies was received from Wyeth (Switzerland) (U.H., D.D., B.V., and C.-A.S.), GlaxoSmithKline (Switzerland) (U.H., C.A., and C.-A.S.), and Sanofi Pasteur MSD (Switzerland) (C.-A.S.); honoraria to function as an expert in advisory boards and/or lecture honoraria were received from Baxter (Germany) (U.H.), Baxter (Switzerland) (U.H., C.A., D.D., and B.V.), Berna Biotech (Switzerland) (U.H.), Chiron Vaccines (Germany) (U.H.), GlaxoSmithKline (Germany) (U.H.), GlaxoSmithKline (Switzerland) (U.H., C.A., D.D., B.V., and C.-A.S.), Sanofi Pasteur MSD (Germany) (U.H.), Sanofi Pasteur MSD (Switzerland) (D.D. and C.-A.S.), and Wyeth (Switzerland) (D.D. and C.-A.S.); and financial support to participate in scientific meetings was received from Baxter (Switzerland) (D.D. and B.V.), GlaxoSmithKline (Germany) (U.H.), GlaxoSmithKline (Switzerland) (K.P.B., C.A., D.D., B.V., and C.-A.S.), Sanofi Pasteur MSD (Switzerland) (D.D. and C.-A.S.), and Wyeth (Switzerland) (C.-A.S.).

          OR, odds ratio • CI, confidence interval • Hib, Haemophilus influenzae type b • TBE, tick-borne encephalitis virus • DTP, diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis • DTaP, diphtheria-tetanus-acellular pertussis • MMR, measles-mumps-rubella • IPV, inactivated polio virus vaccine • BCG, bacillus Calmette-Guerin

          Physicians Who Do and Do Not Recommend Children Get All Vaccinations

          Author affiliations
          a. Immunization Services Division, National Center for Immunizations and Respiratory Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention , Atlanta, Georgia, USA
          b. Porter Novelli , Washington, DC, USA
          c. Immunization Safety Office, Office of the Chief Science Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention , Atlanta, Georgia, USA

          Both article/study were done by pharma insiders. The study: Physicians Who Do and Do Not Recommend Children Get All Vaccinations-the lead researcher Deborah Gust works at the CDC as well as Fatma Ali Soud. Deanne Weber is from Porter Novelli a public relations firm that is part of Omnicom Group. Hmmm, now why would a CDC study need a public relations PHD on a study. Propaganda maybe? Listed authors: Eric Weintraub Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Allison Kennedy Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Adam Burns.

          Both studies can hardly be characterized as Independent unbiased and most likely designed to generate the exact conclusion that have been presented.

          1. OK, but since you and Marco offer no reference for figures, that is the best we have.

            Are their any peer reviewed surveys that meet your standards?

        2. What percentage are you referring to that I’ve committed to?
          I provided you with the funding sources as well as the authors of the studies you provided so I have no idea what you are talking about in that regard.

          As far as peer review, I think Ben Goldache states it es in his book:

          How Drug Companies Mislead Doctors and Harm Patients
          -Medicine is broken. And I genuinely believe that if patients and the public ever fully understand what has been done to them – what doctors, academics and regulators have permitted – they will be angry. On this, only you can judge. We like to imagine that medicine is based on evidence, and the results of fair tests. In reality, those tests are often profoundly flawed. We like to imagine that doctors are familiar with the research literature, when in reality much of it is hidden from them by drug companies. We like to imagine that doctors are well-educated, when in reality much of their education is funded by industry. We like to imagine that regulators only let effective drugs onto the market, when in reality they approve hopeless drugs, with data on side effects casually withheld from doctors and patients. I’m going to tell you how medicine works, just over the page, in one paragraph that will seem so absurd, so ludicrously appalling, that when you read it, you’ll probably assume I’m exaggerating. We’re going to see that the whole edifice of medicine is broken, because the evidence we use to make decisions is hopelessly and systematically distorted; and this is no small thing. Because in medicine, doctors and patients use abstract data to make decisions in the very real world of flesh and blood.
          Drugs are tested by the people who manufacture them, in poorly designed trials, on hopelessly small numbers of weird, unrepresentative patients, and analysed using techniques which are flawed by design, in such a way that they exaggerate the benefits of treatments.

          Unsurprisingly, these trials tend to produce results that favour the manufacturer. When trials throw up results that companies don’t like, they are perfectly entitled to hide them from doctors and patients, so we only ever see a distorted picture of any drug’s true effects. Regulators see most of the trial data, but only from early on in a drug’s life, and even then they don’t give this data to doctors or patients, or even to other parts of government. This distorted evidence is then communicated and applied in a distorted fashion. In their forty years of practice after leaving medical school, doctors hear about what works through ad hoc oral traditions, from sales reps, colleagues or journals. But those colleagues can be in the pay of drug companies – often undisclosed – and the journals are too.
          ……you can read more of Goldache’s into in his book. There are many excerpts of it online.

          Goldache’s admission mimics those of Marcia Angell and Richard Smith:
          “It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.” —Marcia Angell, MD.

          Richard Smith, who served as the editor of BMJ between 1991 and 2004:
          “Most of what is published in journals is just plain wrong or nonsense,” says Smith, warning that there is no credible evidence to suggest that the peer review process is an effective method of detecting errors or ensuring that only sound science gets published in the world’s leading journals.

          “If peer review was a drug it would never get on the market because we have lots of evidence of its adverse effects and don’t have any evidence of its benefit,” contends Smith. “It’s time to slaughter the sacred cow.

          “Peer review is a failure and, ironically, it’s more faith-based than science-based, says Smith.

          1. You’ve moved away from my original question and I’m not reading a blog post’s worth of comment about something I’m not talking about.

        3. You are engaging in various troll tactic. Specifically:
          -The Enigmas that has no solution.
          -Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs aka play dumb. No matter what information or logical argument is offered it’s never going to be quite right. It also can be called a distraction tactic.

          My question to you is, since this is your brainchild to speak is: Are their any peer reviewed surveys that meet your standards? Because you see your posing that question is just another one of those re-worded False Assumption questions that is designed to again, put a person in the position of defending their response therefore psychologically putting you in the power position. Not happening.

          1. I am afraid that “Paul” is just another hack from big pharma. The Bible says that we should not argue with a fool. Enough from Paul. If he REALLY wants to know whether vaccines are safe, let him do his OWN research. The truth is out there, but not if you refuse to look at it. Hard science can be proved; the greedy/arrogant will never accept that. I have seen it with my own eyes and have 30 yrs experience as a healthcare worker. It is all about money…nothing else, unfortunately.

        4. PubMed is a tool controlled by the Medical/Pharmaceutical Industries to give some kind of a credence to Bull$h!t medicine.
          (but of course your handlers wouldn’t tell you that would they)

  6. “But rather than take umbrage, those at whom such vitriol is aimed should feel comforted by Socrates’ memorable adage, ‘When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.’ Or its modern-day equivalent by Britain’s Maggie Thatcher, ‘I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.’ (… just replace “political” with “vaccine”)…

    And as Redpill1 mentions, it is not just these two alone — there are many others also contributing to the Troll brigade. (It reminds me of the minions… but just not at all funny).

  7. Their tactic is actually a logical fallacy known as ad hominem abusive. I’ve gone head to head with these guys on numerous occasions. I’ve been quite successful in shutting them both down by calling out their inability to effectively use logic to support their case and rather relying on a fallacy in logic which puts in question their intelligence, not mine. I couple this response with pointing out that they’ve had nothing meaningful to offer, in terms of science or data with specific citation to support their insistence that vaccines have been PROVEN safe. After which I say something like, “I’ve offered substance, you’ve offered insults…….we’ll let the reader decide who is more credible.”

    1. Thats a long blog, but vetting her sparse references I see that her claim:

      “There is only one recent study (Cowling 2012) where a true saline placebo was used, rather than another vaccine or the carrier fluid containing everything except the main antigen.That study showed no difference in influenza viral infection between groups but astonishingly it revealed a 5-6 times higher rate of non-influenza viral infections in the vaccinated.”

      Is half-true and intellectually dishonest. To quote the study.

      “There was no statistically significant difference in the risk of confirmed seasonal influenza infection between recipients of TIV or placebo, although the point estimate was consistent
      with protection in TIV recipients (relative risk [RR], 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], .13–3.27). TIV recipients had significantly lower risk of seasonal influenza infection based on serologic evidence (Supplementary Appendix).”


      “Influenza vaccination is effective in preventing influenza virus infection and associated morbidity among school-aged children”

      So Dr. Humphries is redefining their conclusion.

      This study wasn’t designed to investigate the effectiveness of the flu vaccine in preventing the flu. While the rate of Influenza was the same for both groups they showed that the vaccinated had influenza anti-bodies, where the unvaccinated had fewer. The study does not conclude with any claims about the effectiveness of the flu vaccine in preventing the flu. It was meant to investigate secondary infections.

      1. Paul de Boer
        You’ve done nothing but initiate multiple troll tactics to create diversions and misdirection. The use of industry paid for studies and polls is a clear indication of what you are being paid to do. Nothing you have provided is from an independent unbiased source. I read the poll back in January when it hit the media and like many other paid for research, because that’s all the science by consensus is capable of these days, it’s meaningless. Didn’t you notice back than that it didn’t get much media traction—just like the other studies that the science for sale research garners. Once researchers who are not on the pharmaceutical industries payroll read the studies and pull them apart-the media attention fades.

        When you need to use a industry paid for poll as a source of legitimate research, a poll that is designed to produce specific results, just like in politics–you are really scrapping the bottom of the barrel. Remember back in 2012 POLLS stated that Romney, 1 week before the election was so far ahead of Obama that he would win hands down? Well, not only did Romney not win he was so far behind it was staggering. If you’ve taken a statics class a poll can be created to say anything. Polls are meaningless just like the MMR recommendation. I’d be willing to bet a million dollars that the individuals who were polled know nothing about the lack of science behind vaccines.

        The Science by Consensus Cartel will say anything to not offend the pharmaceutical Industry & it’s cohorts in crime, The CDC/FDA for fear of significant retribution. Once a member, you follow the path laid out before you or suffer the consequences. Here’s a typical example of the criminal enterprise that Merck is:
        Drug Giant Merck – “Destroy” Critical Doctors “Where They Live”: https://childhealthsafety.wordpress(dot)com/2009/10/12/merckdestroydoccritics/.

        Also from an insider: Drug Industry Operates Like Organised Crime – But Kills More People Than The Mob – Says Dr. Peter Gøtzsche of the Cochrane Center in Copenhagen, Denmark – 200,000 Americans pa Killed Following Doctors’ Instructions – Prescription Drugs 3rd Leading Cause of Death In West

        “It says 86% of AAAS members think “Childhood vaccines such as MMR should be required” let alone if they believe it they are safe and effective.”

        *The measles vaccine has failed, he explained two years ago in a prescient paper, “The re-emergence of measles in developed countries.” In that paper, he warned that due to factors that most haven’t noticed, measles has come back to be a serious public health threat. Poland sees the need for a major rethink, after concluding that the current measles vaccine is unlikely to ever live up to the job expected of it: “outbreaks are occurring even in highly developed countries where vaccine access, public health infrastructure, and health literacy are not significant issues. Paper: The Re-Emergence of Measles in Developed Countries: Time to Develop the Next-Generation Measles Vaccines? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih (dot) gov/pmc/articles/PMC3905323/
        http://business.financialpost (dot) com/2014/05/01/lawrence-solomon-vaccines-cant-prevent-measles-outbreaks/ & -Arch Intern Med. 1994 Aug 22;154(16):1815-20.

        -Failure to reach the goal of measles elimination. Apparent paradox of measles infections in immunized persons. Poland GA1, Jacobson RM.
        Conclusion: The apparent paradox is that as measles immunization rates rise to high levels in a population, measles becomes a disease of immunized persons. Dr. Gregory Poland is Professor of Medicine and founder and leader of Mayo Clinic’s Vaccine Research Group. Poland is one of the world’s most admired, most advanced thinkers in the field of vaccinology.
        This study was written back in 1994! The previous posted Poland paper-2012.

        -My name is William Thompson. I am a Senior Scientist with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, where I have worked since 1998. I regret that my coauthors and I omitted statistically significant information in our 2004 article published in the journal Pediatrics. The omitted data suggested that African American males who received the MMR vaccine before age 36 months were at increased risk for autism. Decisions were made regarding which findings to report after the data
        were collected, and I believe that the final study protocol was not followed.
        Remainder of admission at: http://www.morganverkamp(dot)com/august-27-2014-press-release-statement-of-william-w-thompson-ph-d-regarding-the-2004-article-examining-the-possibility-of-a-relationship-between-mmr-vaccine-and-autism/.

        -CDC Whistleblower Revealed:
        -CDC Whistleblower Dr. Thompson on Thimerosal and Pregnant Women:

        ****Dr. William Thompson chose to release his public statement less than one day after Natural News published the second in a series of once-secret emails between Dr. Thompson and his CDC colleagues.

        The release of those emails may have been pivotal in Dr. Thompson’s choice to go public with his own statement. The vaccine establishment, which immediately and predictably accused Natural News of fabricating the two emails, is now backpedaling as rapidly as possible with the full knowledge that Dr. Thompson’s public statement affirms and supports the authenticity of those emails. Natural News, in other words, was instrumental in breaking this historical story about medical fraud at
        the highest levels of the CDC. (Credit is also due to many other independent media organizations and alternative journalists who pounded this story from day one.)

        Those two emails are available here:
        October 18, 2002 letter to Melinda Wharton, Coleen Boyle and others, where William Thompson announces he is hiring his own lawyer and impliesa CDC cover-up of a D.O.J. investigation:

        Dear Melinda, I am writing once more regarding the recent Department of Justice (DOJ) request for a broad range of documents associated with MMR, thinners, and Autism. I first spoke with you on September 3rd of 2002 regarding the sensitive results we have been struggling within in the MADDSP MMR/Autism Study. I have also tried to bring your attention to some potentially sensitive legal issues surrounding what documents we should provide for his study. We have subsequently been told by both Beverly Dozier and Kevin Malone that we should apply na very broad definition to the documents that we provide to the DOJ.

        February 2nd, 2004 letter to Dr. Julie Gerberding:

        The emails and admission by Dr. William Thompson are in regards to the 2000 study done by the now wanted criminal Poul Thorsen, who after creating a fraudulent study that even Dr. Verstraeten couldn’t “fix”, skipped out the the US with over a million dollars of US/CDC research grant money back to Denmark.
        (Verstraeten CDC Internal Email: “It Just Won’t Go Away

        Thorsen is now on Interpol’s most wanted list. Forbes, following orders from the pharmaceutical industry as they are one of the major astro-turf sites, came out with a story that Thorsen didn’t exist, was made up by anti-vaxxers. This was after Thosrsen picture was sanitized from the Justices Dept website. Unfortunately for the CDC & the pharmaceutical industry people know now to take screen shots of everything and not just link to information. You can find the sanitized page from the Justice Dept here: http://vaccineeducation(dot)org/. Just scroll down a bit. It’s also on many other sites.

        I have the entire transcript of the ILLEGAL meeting that took place in Norcross, Georgia back in 2000. This meeting was held in secret to discuss how to coverup the fact that the MMR was causing significant neurological and physiological damage to children-as Dr. Thompson stated. Here are a couple of quotes from: Scientific Review of Vaccine Safety Datalink Information June 7-8, 2000 Simpsonwood Retreat Center Norcross, Georgia:

        Dr. Verstraeten, pg. 40-41: “…we have found statistically significant relationships between the exposure and outcomes for these different exposures and outcomes. First, for two months of age, an unspecified developmental delay, which has its own specific ICD9 code. Exposure at three months of age, Tics. Exposure at six months of age, an attention deficit disorder. Exposure at one, three and six months of age, language and speech delays, which are two separate ICD9 codes. Exposures at one, three and six months of age, the entire category of neurodevelopmental delays, which includes all of these plus a number of other disorders.”

        Dr. Weil of the AAP, pg. 207: “The number of dose related relationships are linear and statistically significant. You can play with this all you want. They are linear. They are statistically significant. The positive relationships are those that one might expect from the Faroe Islands studies. They are also related to those data we do have on experimental animal data and similar to the neurodevelopmental tox data on other substances, so that I think you can’t accept that this is out of the ordinary. It isn’t out of the ordinary.”

        Dr. Bernier, pg. 113: “We have asked you to keep this information confidential. We do have a plan for discussing these data at the upcoming meeting of the Advisory Committee of Immunization Practices on June 21 and June 22. At that time CDC plans to make a public release of this information.

        -Dr. Johnson, pg. 198: “This association leads me to favor a recommendation that infants up to two years old not be immunized with Thimerosal containing vaccines if suitable alternative preparations are available. I do not believe the diagnoses justifies compensation in the Vaccine Compensation Program at this point. I deal with causality, it seems pretty clear to me that the data are not sufficient one way or the other. My gut feeling? It worries me enough. Forgive this personal comment, but I got called out a eight o’clock for an emergency call and my daughter-in-law delivered a son by C-section. Our first male in the line of the next generation, and I do not want that grandson to get a Thimerosal containing vaccine until we know better what is going on. It will probably take a long time. In the meantime, and I know there are probably implications for this internationally, but in the meantime I think I want that grandson to only be given Thimerosal-free vaccines.” [In other words, all of us at this meeting could make an informed decision for our loved ones, but, we’ll just keep all this to ourselves and let those “other kids” get these mercury-laced vaccines even though we knew there were some major and statistically significant concerns here!!!]so I think it would serve all of our interests best if we could continue to consider these data. The ACIP work group will be considering also. If we could consider these data in a certain protected environment. So we are asking people who have a great job protecting this information up until now, to continue to do that until the time of the ACIP meeting. So to basically consider this embargoed information.

        Now don’t start the “thimerosal has been removed from vaccine” chant because it hasn’t been. That’s why the CDC says there are “trace amounts” in vaccines. Also, because vaccines are such a filthy germ & bacteria laden product, all vaccines are filtered through thimerosal & formaldehyde in an attempt to remove “some of contaminants” however that has proven impossible. Dr. Boyd Haley has done research in this area. There are propriety or trade secrets that the vaccine makers do not have to disclose to the public and thus your “trace amounts”.

        Now I know it’s your job to reply you haven’t proven anything”, LOL. That’s cool because you don’t get paid to do anything else and others on this board are now aware of that. I do want to thank you for the opportunity to provide substantiating information to others who are still researching vaccines and the corrupt industry that produces them. Hopefully this information will help others in their endeavors so they can make an informed decision in health care choices for their families.

        1. Diversion and misdirection, as you write a blog post about all sorts of things in response to my specific complaint about Dr. Humphries use of a specific study.

          Ha, I’m not reading further than “The use of industry paid for studies and polls is a clear indication of what you are being paid to do.” I’m a programmer, the only tie I have to the medical industry is electronic medical devices and twice removed from caring if they are profitable. There you go conflict of interest disclosed. I’m sure you’ll try to spin this that I am an employee of a pharmaceutical company. You’d have a better case saying that my posts here are being paid for by my company to promote the use of computers!

          1. I see you can’t discredit anything I posted in regards to your use of the industry paid for survey: Public and Scientists’ Views on Science and Society- Like I said the “OPINIONS” of scientist in this poll, are meaningless.

            As far as you being on the payroll of the Pharmetutical industry-no. Not directly. That would be too easy. It’s never that direct. You probably answered an ad like the ones the job site Indeed runs often as a Pharmetutical Media position. The titles of the jobs vary but what it boils down to is online commenting of vaccine websites- specifically the ones the CDC/Pharma/Bill Gates (uses his software to do this) targets as anti-vaxx. Trolls are also know as opposition control.

          2. Redpill1 had you all fiqured out – pretty impressive. Your fully integrated into the “psyops” of RI & Skeptic Raptor.

            From:”Time to publicly shame people who are still anti-vax?” (Doubtful News-Jul/2014):

            Paul de Boer

            July 2, 2014 at 12:51 PM

            I think a clear distinction and exemption must be made for those who are not actively anti-vax but are simply citing anti-vax out of naivete and laziness.

            It is important to reduce the effectiveness of active anti-vaxxers by ridiculing them, but I think it has been shown time and again that confronting someone who holds irrational beliefs will only reinforce them.

            I’m extremely pessimistic about converting the anti-vax activists. However, the parents leaning to anti-vax should be shown a calm, rational, and positive pro-vaccination side to counter the irate, conspiracy-laden and defensive anti-vax side.

            Conclusion: Do mock the local homeopath selling Influenzinum. Don’t mock your in laws who don’t get the flu vaccine because “they don’t want to get sick”.

            Shannon, please be careful about calling for such aggression. I don’t feel like the new atheists movement is going to change anyone’s hearts and minds for the better, likely the other way. This seems like a similar tactic. Those who are uninformed will (hopefully just initially) perceive the aggressive side as the enemy. Feelings influence more than facts to the non-skeptical.

          3. I’m not sure why you’re quoting something I said that is clearly calling for less trolling of anti-vaxxers. Just because I post on another website that leans towards vaccination? Couldn’t I say the same thing about you?

          4. RedPill1,

            The question that you have tried to confuse at every turn was “What percentage of scientists and doctors agree that vaccines are safe and effective?” I agree that even that is not a good way to judge the safety or efficacy of vaccines, but I was responding the post’s figure of 99.9%. I didn’t start this conversation, and I don’t particularly want to be sucked into the many many topics you throw out.

            How much does being a blog troll pay? Would I get paid by the post?

            If I was a pro-vaccine shill, I’m doing a terrible job here, just asking for a reference for a single figure.

          5. The question that you have tried to confuse at every turn was “What percentage of scientists and doctors agree that vaccines are safe and effective?” I agree that even that is not a good way to judge the safety or efficacy of vaccines, but I was responding the post’s figure of 99.9%.

            I did not make the statement-you’re desire to discredit the information I have provided, in the world of trolldom is admirable and I’m sure you’d gt an atta boy BUT:
            I didn’t make the statement. You need to direct the question to Marco.

      1. Dr. Sherry Tenpenny, a critic of vaccines, has on her site a complete list of the vaccine ingredients that become toxic once injected as opposed to an oral, GI route (e.g., Aluminum, Formaldehyde, Polysorbate 80, etc.). But…of course, she’s considered a “quack” by the mind controlled hyper-vax medical establishment. And Dr. Joel Furhman, a board-certified internal clinician, says the flu shot is ineffective (i.e. a JOKE!), and believes that the science of nutrition can promote an efficient immune system against viral & bacterial disease. I bet he’s not on any of the mainstream medicine’s Christmas list for his views in this area.

        And guess what now? Jeanne Lenzer, Associate Editor of the BMJ, recently published in the BMJ that the CDC “lies” about it’s financial ties to Big Pharma. OMG…the CDC lying???Nah…can’t be…aren’t they supposed to be honest with a high degree of integrity (?):

        What a grand Illusion of BS. And considering the majority of vax studies are industry-funded, and industry-funded studies show a positive 85% of the time, it’s easy to see how doctors are fooled into believing the Illusion of vaccine safety.

        And the hyper-vax medical establishment’s MO? Attack the anti-vax researchers, promote bills in legislatures that cancel legal exemptions from vaccines and terminate freedom of choice, create propaganda so the vaccinated become “terrified” of the unvaccinated/undervaccinated.

        The beginning of a medical police state ?

        1. I’d like some specifics instead of complaints. How about you pick the worst and most scientifically supported toxic ingredient and we’ll discuss that instead of complaining about the establishment?

          You say that injected vaccines “become toxic once injected as opposed to an oral, GI route”. Does that mean you think oral vaccines are safe?

          1. @ Paul de Boer

            I’m not qualified to discuss the adjuncts of vaccines – aren’t you aware that the oppressive medical cartel says that people without a medical/science background have no business discussing vaccine adjuvants? That being said,”Vaccine Papers” would be glad to discuss it with you. The site is run by science researchers who indicate that Aluminum is the most dangerous adjuvant acting as a neuro toxin. According to their research, Aluminum injested orally has a low absorption rate having to bypass the GI track before entering general blood circulation. Intramuscular injection provides prompt absorption. “The dangers of Aluminum in vaccines:


            Dr. Sherry Tenpenny also has a site that discusses the dangers of vaccine adjuvants. Now she has the medical background but is considered a “quack” by her critics. Strongly despised by the medical cartel because she is disobedient to the repeated montra of the “science is settled” on vaccine effectiveness and safety (imagine that).

            IMO, Furhman has the best idea for people who want a healthy immune system fully capable of fighting off viral & bacterial infections, and prevention of other diseases. It’s called nutritional science. Certain organic fruits & vegetables to promote a healthy immune system. Not popular with Big Pharma because it’s not going to sell drugs if people are healthy. A few years ago my kids and I incorporated Furhman’s nutritional principles to our diet. We noticed less colds and other infections – in fact very little sickness overall. Our athletic performance also seemed to improve (my kids are HS athletes and I’m a middle-age amateur endurance athlete myself). Of course, this is all just anecdotal and the medical establishment would simply snuff at this because we’re not taking the flu jab and buying their medical drugs.

            IMO, it’s all the about the immune system. And with the standard American diet (SAD) so full of unhealthy food, no wonder many people are so frightened of those dreaded “germs.” Maybe that’s one reason why the vaccinated are so “terrified” of the unvaccinated/undervaccinated (?) ?.

          2. Paul, do you realize that you are appearing quite ignorant of even understanding scientific data? You are acting like a jerk. It is plain for anyone to see…oh, wait…you don’t see it…yeah.

          3. I’m being a jerk, because I’m asking for specifics? Not the other guys accusing me of being a corporate shill, or calling me ignorant?

      2. OMG Mr questions? Think we got a live flea here? Rs 7000 amonth call centre Mumbai perhaps?

  8. I like the part about their being short on science and long on name calling and put downs. The tactics must work but for how long. For those of us who have developed the contrary opinion there is no cognitive dissonance because I see right through their bloggy ways. I see right through their name calling. Call me a fundamentalist anti-vaxxer if you like, I am a lost cause to them. They only have power over the undecided because the true vaccine believers are like singing to the choir. I would think a far better tactic would be to admit that some vaccines are unnecessary and the dangers outweigh the benefits, but that parents can get away with some vaccinations and they should for the health and well being of their children. Unfortunately this isn’t even true. My daughter got sick from one vaccine given to her at 4 years old. She had already had the DPT (the heavy duty old one) and got whooping cough anyway. And she wasn’t a little sick with whooping cough, she was extremely sick. She had barely recovered from whooping cough when she got the MMR and then she was never well again. No one can convince me vaccines are safe on any level and certainly not for chicken pox, measles, mumps, etc. Maybe for Typhoid or Typhus if you are in one of those regions, but I’ve heard even those don’t work very well because people get a false sense of immunity and drink the water and get sick.

  9. It’s always interesting when the idea is put forth that because a majority believe something, it must be true, even in the medical field.

    1) There is no verification of the numbers of doctors or professionals who believe vaccines are safe and effective. 2) Pediatricians’ offices are compensated for a high vaccine rate in their practices which creates a conflict of interest…legal kickbacks. 3) Most everything they learn about the safety and efficacy of vaccines comes from the sales rep from the vaccine manufacturer, not independent research. 4)Every vaccine manufacturer has been sued for fraud in the last 3 years. 5) History shows that having the masses believe something doesn’t make it true. The earth was flat. Copernicus was ridiculed for suggesting the earth revolves around the sun instead of the other way around because the masses of professionals were sure he was wrong. Dr. Semmelweiss lost his medical license centuries ago for suggesting doctors wash hande before delivering babies because the vast majority of doctors were sure hand washing had nothing to do with infection. Linus Pauling was ostracized for suggesting Vitamin C was such a great healer because the majority of scientific professionals believed it wasn’t true.

    Science is about independent and corroborated research and staying open to new results that are 180 degrees different that what one believes. Real science is about research not bought and paid for by the drug manufacturers who are knowingly and repeatedly lying and manipulating results. Look at how many vaccines have been recalled. Note that 50% of FDA approved drugs are pulled from the market within 5 years. The FDA doesn’t test, they rely on the what is provided to them by the manufacturers. Look up Dr. William Thompson, lead CDC scientist now whistle blower exposing how the CDC and Merck got together to destroy documents showing dramatically increased link between the MMR and autism.

    Stay open to the real science:-)

  10. For all these pro-vax idiots on here go get a bunch of jabs and report back!!! Put your arm where your mouth is.

      1. If you seriously did get a Dtap or Tdap, hope you know you will be able to catch, carry and spread whooping cough to little babies, who get real sick, over and over again for about 3 years. Lucky you!

  11. Why are we going back and forth about needing a specific doctor’s theory on how vaccines don’t work? How about we just lay it out here? My background is in nutrition biochemistry, nutrition wellness and I’m an RN. I can tell you right now that there is a wide, wide gap among health care providers in their understanding of this issue and it has very little to do with position. Most MDs understand the immune system at the most rudimentary level and lower providers even less so. Going to a doctor for advice on vaccination will likely produce a talk about whatever said doctor was told in Med school. It’s the same in nursing. There is NO VACCINE EDUCATION in medicine. When the topic comes up, it sounds like this: All vaccines are good for public health. End topic.
    The IMMUNE SYSTEM is something else entirely. There are two major components to it but immune cells live all over the body (not just in lymph). In fact your GUT BACTERIA make up about 70% of your individual immune functioning, if you can imagine that. You literally ARE what you eat (think twice about what you kill off with antibiotics, pesticides and food preparation methods).
    Each person is able to make unique sets of antibodies that tie in with blood type. Each blood type has “natural” antibody to specific flu types, for example. This means that a flu bug in Asia would likely not affect a Caucasian in the US. If you were to contract said flu virus, it would likely be very, very mild and you may not even know you had it, etc.
    In addition, what you been have exposed to in the past helps you to make antibody faster to new bugs that are similar to the bugs you’ve had before. This is why the swine flu was thought not to have created the mass outbreak that was predicted- there were still too many people with immunity from the last swine flu outbreak. This is true with many other diseases as well and it is now believed (not surprisingly) that building immunity may even prevent certain types of cancers (which is why immunotherapy is all the rage in cancer treatments, and I might add that naturopathy uses this method in more natural forms for many common ailments).
    The two components of the immune system: cellular vs humeral.
    When you come into contact with a foreign invader, your body mounts a cellular response to kill it. A healthy individual can typically do this just fine (there would be NO SHEDDING of a virus)and may never feel any symptoms. Occasionally a body is overwhelmed (producing illness and viral shedding through actual INFECTION). When infected, your system will call out for a humeral response (takes longer) to make specific antibody (think of locks and keys) to kill the organism faster. Again, a healthy individual can do this just fine.
    Vaccination relies on humeral response only. This is why many vaccines DON’T WORK and you require boosters from time to time (if you even respond at all- JUST BECAUSE YOU’VE BEEN VACCINATED, DOESN’T MEAN YOU MAKE ANTIBODY, meaning you may NOT be immune).
    The reason most folks DO NOT want vaccinations is because the adjuvants in vaccines (heavy metals, etc), along with other noxious ingredients are NOT SUPPOSED TO BE IN THE BLOODSTREAM. They irritate the immune system and the “reaction” you are having to vaccine usually relates to a reaction to these items, not so much a reaction to a viral particle (though this does occur as well). However, since you are bypassing a normal cellular response, which is the #1 method to kill foreign invaders, you run the risk of causing an inherent problem with your response/reaction chronically. The entire process of vaccination is linked to allergies, autoimmune reactions (autism is just ONE of the many) CANCER(yes it is!), other brain disorders and many, many chronic diseases. You can’t know which person is going to react which way. Couple this with pesticides, plastics, other environmental toxins, sugar consumption and the like, and you’ve set yourself up for disease. And it’s unfortunately your fault for not educating yourself because YOU CANNOT TRUST A HEALTH PROVIDER TO DO IT FOR YOU. Health care is a business. They make money. They don’t care about you. The providers in this business may start out caring but this is just a job for them and they want to keep it. Thank god for those out there who are ready and willing to lose it for the sake of integrity.

    1. I know. Doctors aren’t taught how to ‘cure’ people in med school, just diagnose and drug ’em or dissect ’em.

      They know very little about nutrition, and possibly what they do know is wrong anyway because it comes from the ADA (funded in part by M&M Mars Co.)

      People gotta start going to Naturopaths, Chiropractors, Herbalists, TCM practitioners, Accupuncturists and avoid the Allopaths if at all possible (except with emergency medicine which is the few specialties that do good!).

      Problem is, you got ‘herd mentality’ and ‘hero worship’ of doctors, then couple that with the penchant of humans to believe implicitly the “authority figure” is always right, and mix in a bit of social ostracism and you got a recipe for zombies that just do what they’re told.

    2. Thank you for this thoughtful and responsible approach to health. There are many choices to be made and your entry speaks directly to the biological processes that money making industries are denying. Selling short cuts to health never pays. I most appreciate your mention re our medical community – they are not one’s personal health authority. Here’s to a healthy immune system doing what is was inherently designed to do when not interfered with and / or damaged.

  12. Besides the money, don’t forget the ‘Agenda 21’, ‘Georgia Guidestones’, Bill Gates, etc. who want to reduce the population to 500 million. What better way than to convince people that vaccines are safe so people will take them and then get diseases and die from them. Vaccines are a perfect medium to use.

    1. EXACTLY!!!!
      That’s what I ended up with when I was doing research on this whole vaccine thing and ran into the ‘philanthropic’ org that Bill Gates O’Hell put together. Nothing made sense until I read about the Georgia Guidestones and the Eugenecist movements, and also the whole craziness at Bohemian grove and their devil worship in Northern CA.

      The pieces all fit together.

    1. Wow, that’s pretty good, like they say, there’s no such thing as bad press.

      He is pretty daft, doesn’t he know that by talking about the experts (Dr. Tenpenny, Dr. Humphries, etc) that he’s actually giving them lots of free exposure?

      Orach, or OR ACK or whatever Gorski’s handle is is just trying to bog everyone down in minutae in his incredibly dull blog posts so their eyes glaze over, they start to drool and they just start repeating in monotone, ‘whatever you say…whatever you say…just stop blogging, it’s so BORING…’ ha ha!

  13. Bluefish made a comment about doctors who don’t vaccinate (not sure if it’s on schedule or at all) are put on a list at quack watch.

    If this is true, then that’s a great place to pick your new doctor for your kid, on Quack watch!

  14. I have no what you call qualification but you do not need to have a qualification when it comes to out right common sense. I know bullshit when I read it and I can tell the difference between shit from clay. Vaccinations have never been proven to be safe nor work if you do your research you will see this. These trolls can comment on whatever crap they want but if you follow the facts you are safe. FACTS do not lie,people can manipulate the facts and then it is no longer a fact it is a lie. Research needs to be from an independent source. You do not need a degree in anything to have common sense when you know the FACTS.

  15. Readers might find this exchange between myself and Orac amusing, it was about the CDC Whistleblower. You can tell that this entire story absolutely terrifies poor Orac.

    This exchange was also posted on Age of Autism:

    My comment to Orac’s blog on the CDC Whistleblower

  16. There is a real issue in the practice of medicine nowadays in that learning to become a doctor requires so much time, that really all we have time to do is to swallow as much of the information that comes our way as possible.
    When I was in Medical School I was rather shocked at the lack of critical thinking that this produced.
    This process continues after qualification, and it is all we can do to learn the guts of “best practice guidelines”. Analysing them critically is usually just too time consuming (and our critical thinking skills are too rusty- replaced by “obedience to authority skills”. This is especially so in areas of controversy. In Australia, any doctor who dares to make a contribution on any open doctors forum that questions vaccination in any way is attacked aggressively. The news website 6minutes is a particular offender here.

    So these statistics that say 99% of us doctors are in favour of vaccines (and by that I mean- would not make any changes or reductions to the vaccination schedule) really are meaningless. Most of us have to deal with a combination of intimidation, information overload and lack of specific skills in decoding scientific papers.

  17. Thanks for the intelligently written article, I had to put in a laborious search term into google to get this result, all the top results are dumb hit pieces written by pro vaccine shills. Anywhere I can get some accurate information on safety of vaccines in the UK, I may need some vaccines for travelling to South America next year?

  18. Skepticalraptor’s Michael W. Simpson pretends to be an expert in immunology, but in reality he’s just a MARKETEER.

    His posts on under his real name (see for example ) link to the website Looking up the web archive of this site, we find his posted CVs all over the place:

    “…After spending years in the medical industry in marketing, sales, new product development, and business development, this blog is my thoughts on a wide range of issues in the healthcare industry. I am a firm supporter of science-based medicine, the health care industry’s partnership with clinicians and government regulators, and, of course, building business models that link it all together. And sometimes I talk about sports. Oh, and I really don’t like woo (fancy term to describe quackery and pseudoscience)…”

  19. Should you apply the same procedure to analyze no-vax articles, blogs, sources, papers, etc etc you would probably come to the same conclusions.
    To asses who is right, according to science, there’s only one way: we should have to stop vaccinating people and then see what happens. A price I am personally not so willing to pay for me and my children.

  20. Best I can tell, there are periods of history without vaccines, and with a lot less disease than we have. Seems to me that vaccines have known downside, with unnecessary upside. If we know the natural health approaches. Which vaccine/pharma companies don’t tell us. Because natural doesn’t market itself well in a majority vote environment that has a profit motive.

    Some examples:
    a) Mediterranean cultures had little (no) disease
    . “ Because there was no disease. “ in 1177 BC
    . ( youtube: 1:10:15; )
    b) American Indians had virtually no disease
    ( when living on their tribe lands )
    c) Amish are healthy in old age
    d) Menonites too
    e) Desbah’s 99 and herding her sheep…in Arizona…today

  21. We seem to have had periods of widespread health in the past. Without big pharma. When we understood the natural anti-everything approaches. But natural doesn’t vote well in a majority vote environment. ( Good thing Amazon’s in health benefits. )

    Times of health:
    a) Mediterranean cultures had little (no) disease
    . “ Because there was no disease. “ in 1177 BC
    . ( youtube: 1:10:15; )
    b) American Indians had virtually no disease
    ( when living on their tribe lands )
    c) Amish are healthy in old age
    d) Menonites too
    e) Desbah’s 99 and herding her sheep…in Arizona…today

    Suggests it’s possible to have a lot more health that we currently do with pharma and ask your doctor rules. If one understands health. I’m looking forward to Amazon’s health benefits … might be the feint, actual acquisition and stack!

  22. I think I’ll stick with an IMMUNOLOGY textbook.


    Roitt, Brostoff, Male Immunology, Mosby Publ, 1998 London
    “Cytokines are low-molecular weight proteins that control, coordinate, and regulate various immune or inflammatory responses. The importance of cytokines in the host response to infection cannot be overstated. Full protection against disease requires the involvement of many different systems of the body and it is the cytokines that coordinate them. Vaccines inhibit the normal function of cytokines, and in fact new vaccines specifically target cytokine activity. Recently, gene therapy and DNA vaccination has been used to produce memory against a number of cytokines that promote inflammation. Antibodies to the product of each inserted gene were produced. These antibodies were found to prevent the effects of the cytokines.”

  23. …especially when that textbook on IMMUNOLOGY is supported by other doctors.
    Dr. Rebecca Carly explains:
    The mechanism by which the immune system is corrupted can best be realized when you understand that the two poles of the immune system (the cellular and humoral mechanisms) have a reciprocal relationship in that when the activity of one pole is increased, the other must decrease. Thus, when one is stimulated, the other is inhibited.  Since vaccines activate the B cells to secrete antibody, the cytotoxic (killer) T cells are subsequently suppressed.  (In fact, progressive vaccinia (following vaccination with smallpox) occurs in the presence of high titers of circulating antibody to the virus1 combined with suppressed cytotoxic T cells, leading to spreading of lesions all over the body).  This suppression of the cell mediated response is thus a key factor in the development of cancer and life threatening infections.  In fact, the “prevention” of a disease via vaccination is, in reality, an inability to expel organisms due to the suppression of the cell-mediated response.  Thus, rather than preventing disease, the disease is actually prevented from ever being resolved.  The organisms continue circulating through the body, adapting to the hostile environment by transforming into other organisms depending on acidity, toxicity and other changes to the internal terrain of the body as demonstrated by the works of Professor Antoine Béchamp.  He established this prior to the development of the “germ theory” of disease by Louis Pasteur.  Pasteur’s “germ theory” was a plagiarist’s attempt to reshape the truth from Béchamp into his own “original” premise – the beLIEf that germs are out to “attack” us, thereby causing dis-ease. Thus, treatment of infection with antibiotics as well as “prevention” of disease with vaccines are both just corrupted attempts at cutting off the branches of dis-ease, when the root of the cause is a toxic internal environment combined with nutritional deficiency.  However, since Pasteur’s germ theory was conducive to the profits of the burgeoning pharmaceutical cartels that only manage dis-ease, no mention of the work of Professor Béchamp is made in medical school curricula.
         To make matters worse than the suppression of cellular immunity which occurs when vaccines are injected, adjuvants (which are substances added to vaccines to enhance the antibody response) can actually lead to serious side effects themselves. Adjuvants include oil emulsions, mineral compounds (which may contain the toxic metal aluminum), bacterial products, liposomes (which allow delayed release of substances), and squalene.  The side effects of adjuvants themselves include hyperactivity of B cells leading to pathologic2 levels of antibody production,  as well as allergic reaction to the adjuvants themselves (as demonstrated in Gulf War I soldiers injected with vaccines containing the adjuvant squalene, to which antibodies were found in many soldiers). Note that the pathologically elevated hyperactivity of antibody production caused by adjuvants also results in a distraction from the other antigens that the immune system encounters “naturally”, which must be addressed to maintain health.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Search in Archive