Sharing is caring!

In part 1 of our “Vaccinate With Confidence” story we discussed the prevalence of vaccine injury. In part 2, we take a closer look into the CDC and their vaccine claims.

Something Rotten At The CDC

A number of critical questions have been persistently asked by concerned parents and individuals with unsatisfactory answers to date. The points presented here are the most contentious issues surrounding the vaccine debate:

  • Vaccines have never been properly tested for safety by independent, interest-free research groups. Most of the science is industry-funded, poor, and largely inadequate. True inert placebos are rarely used in vaccine clinical trials; most vaccines are tested against adjuvanted placebos (placebos containing other vaccine ingredients or against another vaccine).
  • Vaccine clinical trials are shockingly brief (5 days on average compared to 5-6 years for most drugs).
  • Lack of medium and long-term safety studies.
  • Lack of adequate long-term studies on systemic reactions to vaccine adjuvants and preservatives; bioaccumulation and autoimmunity potential is unclear.
  • The lack of testing on polysorbate 80, formaldehyde, and the presence of harmful contaminants. 
  • The lack of testing of the combined CDC recommended vaccination schedule as implemented in real life, which according to the CDC’s own source has never been done. The number of doses increased from 12 injections of 25 antigens in 1986 to 54 injections of 70 antigens in 2019. There is no explanation justifying the warrant for such a dramatic increase nor data to support its safety.
  • Lack of testing on the effect of multiple combination vaccines administered on the same day.
  • The lack of testing on vaccine safety in relation to the age of administration.
  • The lack of testing on vaccinated vs. unvaccinated populations and comparing the short and long-term effects and overall health outcomes.
  • Lack of testing for synergistic toxicity, carcinogenicity, mutagenicity, and effect on fertility.
  • The lack of testing for neurological effects and impact on the brain.
  • The lack of testing in pregnancy, the risk for miscarriage, and the effect on fetus development.
  • Lack of testing for a possible association between vaccines and SIDS.
  • The lack of testing on vaccine effectiveness. Addressing vaccine failure and the consequences of vaccine-dependent immunity.
  • The lack of research on shedding and transmission from recently vaccinated with live virus vaccines such as MMR, varicella, polio, influenza, which should be considered when recommending vaccines and implementing policies.

CDC Recommends Vaccines Despite Safety Concerns

At an Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) meeting in February 2018, the CDC unanimously approved the HEPLISAV-B vaccine for Hepatitis B. When questioned if HEPLISAV-B can be used in combination with other vaccines, a CDC spokesperson admitted, “We have no data to make a recommendation one way or the other.” CDC spokesperson Amanda Cohn further acknowledged that “pre-clinical data were not done using these vaccines simultaneously … our general approach to immunizations is that they should be given/can be given at the same time in different limbs.” Despite these alarming statements, HEPLISAV-B received the committee’s unanimous approval. A rapid response published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) titled “New unsafe vaccines will only add to vaccine hesitancy” raises serious concerns about the unwarranted approval of the yeast-containing vaccine with a new powerful adjuvant, CpG 1018.

According to the same BMJ article, vaccine clinical trials detected serious adverse events (SAE) in subjects vaccinated with another vaccine — SHINGRIX. There is no mention of these SAEs in the vaccine insert. This indicates that healthcare professionals may likely be unaware of the vaccine’s SAEs. Additionally it means they are precluded from the opportunity to disclose such vital information to vaccine recipients. Or, they may fail to diagnose and establish a possible link between SAE incidents and said vaccine (e.g., SHINGRIX).

The CDC continues to lie and deceive the public and shows no serious interest in the proper evaluation of vaccine safety studies. 

Vaccinate With Confidence: Conflicts Of Interest

One recent article by the organization Children’s Health Defense sheds light on some disturbing evidence of extensive corruption and conflict of interest in the CDC, FDA, HHS, NIH, and WHO.

The CDC has deep financial ties to the pharmaceutical giants. The agency owns 56 vaccine patents and an annual operating budget of $4.6 billion invested in the purchase and distribution of vaccines. This accounts for more than 40 percent of the agency’s total budget. Considering that the CDC is a vaccine regulatory body the ownership of any vaccine patents is a clear conflict of interest.

The CDC has no interest in investigating fraud within its own quarters. In fact, the CDC regularly neglects to screen medical experts hired to advise the agency on vaccine safety to ensure they are free of financial conflict.

In 2014, Dr. William Thompson, a CDC researcher, admitted there was fraud and data manipulation of a critical study on the possibility of an age-dependent connection between the first MMR dose and autism incidence, but there has been no follow up investigation to this day. Despite the rising autism rates in the U.S., from less than 1 in 10,000 prior to 1980 to 1 in 45 today, health agencies and governments show no interest in dissecting the anatomy of this alarming trend.

The landmark passing of the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act granted vaccine manufacturers a legal shield against litigation. There is virtually no incentive to conduct research contrary to Big Pharma’s desired outcomes and the CDC is neglectfully ignoring the lack of proper vaccine safety science.

Problems with fraudulent science and looming conflict of interest in vaccine safety research remain unaddressed public secrets.

Vaccinate With Confidence: Ethical Considerations

The “one-size-fits-all” approach to vaccination fails to consider an individual’s special needs, personal as well as family medical history. This poses a risk of unknown magnitude. Despite quietly admitting that “no vaccine is actually 100% safe or effective for everyone because each person’s body reacts to vaccines differently,” the CDC weighs heavily on the side of vaccine benefits and grossly underestimates the risk of injury.

The Harvard Pilgrim Federal study identifies the lack of clinician awareness and uncertainty about diagnostic qualifiers for vaccine adverse events as being highly problematic. Many healthcare professionals are unaware of the existence of post-marketing surveillance systems nor are they familiar with the reporting process. 

The collective denialism supported by majority consensus among practitioners results in missed diagnoses and underreporting of adverse events to the CDC-FDA’s own Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).

The potential risks of vaccines and the adverse event reporting process remain excluded from the doctor-patient conversation. CDC’s “Vaccinate with Confidence” campaign does not seem to adequately address these issues. Instead of educating doctors on the vaccine adverse events reporting process, the CDC is providing physicians with tool kits focused on supporting the “vaccines are safe” message while omitting critical information on potential risks. This is counterproductive and only spurs on more “hesitancy.”

During the 2019 American Medical Association (AMA) annual meeting, one of the agenda highlights was the “mature minor clause,” a doctrine that encourages minors to override their parent’s refusal to vaccinations. According to the AMA, “Allowing mature minors to provide informed consent to vaccinations will ensure these patients can access this type of preventive care.”

A recent article published in wikiHow provides a roadmap for minors to get around their parents’ decisions and receive vaccines without parental knowledge. The outrageous piece promotes and normalizes insincerity and antagonism in the child-parent relationship by encouraging minors to “tell a white lie, like saying that you are visiting a friend to study or hang out. You’re allowed to tell lies to protect your health and safety, and getting vaccinated is one of those cases.”

Informed Consent At The Doctor’s Office

Meanwhile, there is an emerging trend in medical practices that reject patients based on vaccination status. Refusal of care due to physician’s conscientious objection to their patient’s choice is discriminatory and goes against the spirit of the Hippocratic oath as well as the AMA’s code of ethics. Health agencies and the medical profession must realize such strategies may be perceived as coercive and further strain the patient-doctor relationship, which should ideally be one based on trust. Doctors have the responsibility and obligation to share all accurate and scientifically valid information, but what happens when the reliability of such information is highly contestable?

Considering the risk of injury is primarily assumed by the individual, it follows that full disclosure of risk and informed consent must be respected. Compulsory vaccination is a direct violation of basic human and civil rights. Informed consent is a cornerstone in the practice of medicine and observes the sanctity of self-determination and bodily integrity.  These principles are clearly defined by the Nuremberg code as well as the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights:

Any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information. The consent should, where appropriate, be expressed and may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without disadvantage or prejudice.

Vaccine Hesitancy: The Query Of The Sober Mind

In the summer of 2019, ICAN made a FOIA request to the CDC to provide the studies the agency used to support the claim that DTaP, HepB, Hib, PCV13, and IPV vaccines do not cause autism. After numerous follow up requests, the CDC failed to provide a single study. With no other options, ICAN filed a lawsuit against the agency to compel them to do so. In March 2020, ICAN’s court challenge was successful and the CDC was forced to produce the studies. Of the 20 studies provided to support the claim that vaccines do not cause autism, 19 are only tangentially related to the specific FOIA request made by ICAN. The one study that addressed DTaP and autism determined that, “The epidemiologic evidence is insufficient or absent to assess an association between diphtheria toxoid–, tetanus toxoid–, or acellular pertussis-containing vaccine and autism.” The author’s conclusion was that “The evidence is inadequate to accept or reject a causal relationship between diphtheria toxoid–, tetanus toxoid–, or acellular pertussis-containing vaccine and autism.”

Not only is the CDC unwilling to have an open and transparent conversation about their policies, but it has also been now revealed that there are no studies to confidently support its infamous claim that DTaP does not cause autism.

The CDC’s “Vaccinate with Confidence” campaign is dismissive of the demands for proper science and the legitimate concerns raised by vaccine-inquisitive individuals. The majority of the research presented as vaccine science is nothing short of carefully crafted pseudo-science and aggressively marketed propaganda.

The CDC must realize that vaccine hesitancy is not a disorder based on “myths and misinformation”. Consumer confidence and trust are lanes on a highway that the CDC has decommissioned in service of Big Pharma.


Zara is a Certified Homeopath with special interest in women’s health, organ therapuetics and natual approach to cancer. Zara holds B.Sc. in Geology and received formal training in Chemistry and Biology. In her free time, she is a singer and writer.

Submit your story or essay to Buzzworthy Blogs.

Leave a Comment

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

Shopping Cart