Latest Comments by 777RN

777RN 7,312 Views

Joined Mar 12, '09 - from 'Detroit, MI, US'. She has '2+' year(s) of experience and specializes in 'Geriatrics, dementia, hospice'. Posts: 307 (21% Liked) Likes: 111

Sorted By Last Comment (Max 500)
  • 2
    MassED and herring_RN like this.

    Thank you, herring_RN, for replying with additional information that includes both risks and benefits of vaccines.

    Willingness to discuss this issue, while civilly disagreeing, is exactly what this highly combustible topic needs. If more nurses and other healthcare professionals could do what you just did (that is, furthering discussion instead of trying to shut it down or ostracize dissenting opinions), there is hope for the dark side of vaccines to become brighter.

  • 1
    MassED likes this.


    My intent here is to shed some light upon the dark side of the vaccine industry. There IS a dark, murky, opaque, nebulous, rotten, festering side to vaccines that it seems most nurses (and other medical professionals) do not want to admit or discuss—perhaps for fear of being Wakefielded.

    By attempting to bury, hide, or otherwise avoid the discussion of vaccine safety issues by telling me (and those like me) to go away, attacking me personally, or otherwise ridiculing me, you are part of the problem.

    As a nurse concerned for patient safety and also in support of vaccines, don't you want them to as safe as they can possibly be? Nurses should be more concerned about vaccine safety than perhaps any other group, given that we are the ones who typically administer them! Furthermore, as more vaccine safety issues are raised as the public continues to awaken to the deception in the mainstream media and scientific fraud, there could come a day that the administering nurse could be held liable for any injuries sustained from a vaccine. Please keep in mind that medical literature highlighting vaccine safety issues and concerns also exists.

    So, instead of bowing down to the pharmaceutical companies and their propaganda, why can't we rise up in defense of ourselves and our patients? Many of you have been nurses for decades. Aren't you tired of all the politics and bean counting that goes on in this industry? Instead of trying to avoid, bury, cover, or dismiss this discussion, why not welcome it? Why not defend and refute the points with specifics?

    Why not delve into the massive deception surrounding the revocation of Dr. Andrew Wakefield's medical license, done in an attempt to silence him and future would-be whistleblowers? Again, Dr. Wakefield is a hero and, in my opinion, is on the level of Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, and Martin Luther King, Jr. Despite losing everything, he is still fighting to reveal the truth. Only the truth could give someone so much energy and passion to continue such a vicious, decades-long fight against a billion-dollar industry. Conversely, liars have little stamina, as lying takes too much energy.

    Despite all the rhetoric declaring how safe vaccines are, more than $3 billion in damages have been awarded for vaccine injuries, including autism and death, by the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) since its inception. If no safety issues exist concerning vaccines, what is the reason for the court in the first place? Furthermore, the VICP is an extremely underutilized program, as most nurses, physicians, parents, teachers, etc. do not even know about it. Why do the mainstream media generally black out the reporting of cases heard before the so-called Vaccine Court? Why don't more people know about the Vaccine Court? Why are its records sealed? Why the lack of transparency?

    If vaccines are as safe and effective as they are purported to be, there should be no reason for the move-along-folks-nothing-to-see-here, hush-hush stance the mainstream scientific community takes when the subject is raised. Real science is based in truth and welcomes debate. Real science does not run, scattering like cockroaches, from the light.

    Real science will defend its position, with additional information and not rhetoric, over and over and over and over and over again. For defending his position that the Earth revolved around the sun, Galileo was convicted of heresy and placed on house arrest, where he remained until he died. Still he never backed down!

    The notion that those sharing your position are just simply too tired to discuss this subject because it has been rehashed over and over again, quite frankly, seems dishonest and disingenuous. People can see through that thinly veiled excuse. Incidentally, most of you attacking this discussion (and me personally) are some of the most prolific posters on AllNurses, with regular if not daily contributions, and have a history of thousands of posts over your account lifetimes! Despite wishing this topic to go away, it won't, especially if you continue to avoid discussing the issues. More and more people are asking questions. Surely, this thread may die or be closed, but more, from other people who have genuine questions and want real answers, will follow it.

    As the largest group of frontline healthcare workers, nurses can be the group that effects positive change in our industry. As nurses we are fully aware of the politics in healthcare dictated by the pharmaceutical and insurance companies. The same companies that manufacture vaccines also manufactured Vioxx and thalidomide. Why can't we admit the flaws and politics regarding vaccines and their safety?

    There IS a dark side to vaccines. The sooner nurses and others in healthcare admit to it, the sooner they can change it.

    So, they say that a picture is worth a thousand words. What does this picture, which is likely to meet with harsh criticism and may even be taken down, say?


    The text in the image reads:

    Lack of Food
    Lack of Shelter
    Lack of Clean Water
    but don't worry
    Billions of Dollars in
    Vaccines Have Arrived!


    "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act."
    —George Orwell

  • 1
    MassED likes this.


    Your statements on Dr. Andrew Wakefield simply repeat the mainstream media narrative of his supposed scientific fraud. Nevertheless, the story surrounding the retraction of Dr. Wakefield's paper is one of the world's most convoluted.

    Dr. Wakefield is a gastroenterologist whose research found an association between certain gut changes and autism, after the administration of the trivalent MMR vaccine.

    Regarding the retracted paper, did you know that Dr. Wakefield was one of 13 co-authors?

    Why is Dr. Wakefield the only one of the 13 authors vilified in the mainstream media? (Could it be because he dared to openly and publicly suggest that parents opt for the monovalent vaccines? That is, he suggested that parents get the single measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines, instead of the patented trivalent MMR. Dr. Wakefield never even suggested that parents not vaccinate their children! Despite all the disinformation, hype, and outright lies, Dr. Wakefield is not anti-vaccine.)

    Dr. Wakefield's findings are perhaps amongst the most misrepresented in history. Have you read the conclusion to his infamous paper? If not, here are the last four paragraphs:

    We did not prove an association between measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and the syndrome described. Virological studies are underway that may help to resolve this issue.

    If there is a causal link between measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and this syndrome, a rising incidence might be anticipated after the introduction of this vaccine in the UK in 1988. Published evidence is inadequate to show whether there is a change in incidence22 or a link with measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine.23 A genetic predisposition to autistic-spectrum disorders is suggested by over-representation in boys and a greater concordance rate in monozygotic than in dizygotic twins.15 In the context of susceptibility to infection, a genetic association with autism, linked to a null allele of the complement (C) 4B gene located in the class III region of the major-histocompatibility complex, has been recorded by Warren and colleagues.24 C4B-gene products are crucial for the activation of the complement pathway and protection against infection: individuals inheriting one or two C4B null alleles may not handle certain viruses appropriately, possibly including attenuated strains.

    Urinary methylmalonic-acid concentrations were raised in most of the children, a finding indicative of a functional vitamin B12 deficiency. Although vitamin B12 concentrations were normal, serum B12 is not a good measure of functional B12 status.25 Urinary methylmalonic-acid excretion is increased in disorders such as Crohn's disease, in which cobalamin excreted in bile is not reabsorbed. A similar problem may have occurred in the children in our study. Vitamin B12 is essential for myelinogenesis in the developing central nervous system, a process that is not complete until around the age of 10 years. B12 deficiency may, therefore, be a contributory factor in the developmental regression.26

    We have identified a chronic enterocolitis in children that may be related to neuropsychiatric dysfunction. In most cases, onset of symptoms was after measles, mumps, and rubella immunisation. Further investigations are needed to examine this syndrome and its possible relation to this vaccine.

    Dr. Wakefield's paper clearly stated that it "did not prove an association between measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and the syndrome described."

    Here is the citation of the paper that was retracted:

    Wakefield, A. J., Murch, S. H., Anthony, A., Linnell, J., Casson, D. M., Malik, M., ... & Valentine, A. (1998). Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children. The Lancet, 351(9103), 637-641.

    During his career, Dr. Wakefield has contributed to more than 100 scientific papers. Interestingly, only the one cited above has been retracted. Many researchers began piggybacking on that now infamous paper, achieving similar findings. By retracting Wakefield's paper, the findings of those 700-plus papers citing it were called into question too, thereby blocking further research in that vein.

    During the extremely convoluted proceedings to discredit the paper, Dr. Wakefield and his co-author, Dr. J. A. Walker-Smith, had their medical licenses revoked. Dr. Walker-Smith's medical license has since been reinstated (very quietly). Where's the US mainstream media coverage on that? Fortunately, for Dr. Walker-Smith, his malpractice insurance covered the legal expense of overturning the case due to "inadequate and superficial reasoning and, in a number of instances, a wrong conclusion"; unfortunately, for Dr. Wakefield, his insurance did not cover such expense.

    For more information on the controversy surrounding Dr. Wakefield, please consider reading Science For Sale by Dr. David L. Lewis, whose own scientific career was jeopardized when he blew the whistle on EPA fraud.

    In summary, Dr. Wakefield's paper was retracted for political reasons; i.e., to protect the profits of the trivalent MMR manufacturer and to block further research into the safety issues surrounding the vaccine.

    So pervasive is the libel and slander surrounding Dr. Wakefield's case that the Urban Dictionary lists the term "Wakefielded" or "Wakefield'ed" and defines it as such:

    When pharma controls mainstream media and uses blackmail, threatens, trolls, bribes, slanders and lies in an attempt to discredit and destroy any researcher or medical professional's reputation and career who has attempted to highlight the corruption and lack of pharmaceutical accountability and safety.

    Dr. Andrew Wakefield will one day be publicly exonerated. May justice be served upon those who have intentionally misrepresented and slandered him for personal gain.

  • 1
    MassED likes this.


    I am in no way affiliated with the VAXXED documentary. Quite frankly, I think the documentary only touches upon a few of the many issues surrounding vaccination and is a good STARTING POINT, at best. Those questioning vaccine safety research should follow the money to determine where the vast potential for disinformation lies.

    Incidentally, respect for Gandhi seems to be a point of common ground and I love that quote by him in your signature. According to it, it is the person who is ignored who later wins. (Frankly, I am really surprised that you replied to me again, since you already welcomed me to your ignore list once before.)

    Nevertheless, Mahatma Gandhi, who I believe was one of the most amazing and enlightened people who ever walked the planet, also said this:

    Vaccination is a barbarous practice and one of the most fatal of all the delusions current in our time. Conscientious objectors to vaccination should stand alone, if need be, against the whole world, in defense of their conviction.

    And so, I will gladly continue to stand up in defense of my conviction.

  • 0


    You clearly stated in your first reply to my original post that you hadn't read it in its entirety; so, how do you know whether or not I offered any new information?

    Again, I do not think that YouTube videos, in and of themselves, constitute credible evidence. Several times, I clearly labeled them as STARTING POINTS. By the same token, I never suggested that simply Googling something constitutes conducting research either, though doing so can be a STARTING POINT as well.

    Nevertheless, just because something appears in a peer-reviewed journal does not mean that it is necessarily true either. I urge others to research the issues surrounding the peer review process, which is heavily biased toward advertisers' agendas. There is a dark side to peer review that many seem to be overlooking. (The linked image is just a STARTING POINT. However, even Dr. Richard Horton, MD, editor of the Lancet, has gone on record to say that: "The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue.") Peer review is often a highly politicized process.

    Again, I have a problem with a great deal of the research supporting vaccines because much of it is funded by vaccine manufacturers. Why is hardly anyone addressing this? Also, there are plenty of peer-reviewed journal articles expressing vaccine safety concern. If peer review is the ultimate authority on matters of science, why should peer-reviewed studies exposing vaccine harm and safety issues be ignored?

    I apologize for suggesting that you hadn't watched VAXXED. Although I didn't see anywhere in your posts where you had clearly written that you had seen it, that statement wasn't really just directed at you. It was meant for anyone who has critiqued the film without having seen it (as so happened by many mainstream media reporters after its release). It would have been much better if I had worded that statement as such: "How can anyone honestly critique a documentary like VAXXED without having even watched it?

    Nevertheless, since you have seen the film, I am curious as to why you haven't refuted the film's specific points. As the film continues to be seen across the country and is now entering international markets, more and more discussions are going to pop up about it. Nurses who have seen the film, and who still support the current CDC vaccine schedule, are going to have to stand up and refute the film's points for those who still have questions. Ignoring the film and the points that it raises will only create more questions. More are coming!

    So, regarding the film, what are your thoughts on all the parents who shared their vaccine horror stories? Do you think they and everyone else in the film were lying?

    • What did you think about the very high-profile celebrity physicians who expressed concerns about CDC transparency after reviewing the evidence presented (and who risked being blackballed and ostracized by their peers by going on record to state so)? One physician, who was pregnant, clearly stated that she would not give the MMR to her unborn child after reviewing the evidence in the film. What are your thoughts on that?
    • What do you make of Dr. William Thompson's hiring a whistleblower attorney and the statement on his atttorney's website admitting that he and his colleagues omitted statistically significant data regarding the safety of the MMR vaccine in their 2004 article in the journal, Pediatrics?
    • What do you make of Congressman Bill Posey's plea to his fellow congressmen to investigate the CDC for scientific fraud in regards to the aforementioned MMR study and Dr. Thompson's handing over thousands of documents to Mr. Posey's office?

    As I also said in several posts, I don't think that I have lost or am losing my First Amendment rights because you (or other nurses here) wanted to shut down my original post. Nevertheless, AllNurses is a microcosm of what's going on in society at large, where dissenting opinions are often censored in our government- and corporate-controlled mainstream media.

    Finally, my intent is never to be condescending. Quite frankly, I have great respect for your nursing experience and that of others here, despite strongly disagreeing with most posting in this thread. Nursing is a tough job and not for the faint of heart.

    We nurses are the front lines of health care and by sheer numbers we can be the greatest force for change. As nurses, we all know very well that the health care industry is highly politicized and controlled by the pharmaceutical and insurance industries: everything from our nurse-patient ratios to the ever-increasing amount of documentation required of us. Why can't we see this, as a group, where vaccine policy is concerned? We all know that much of our jobs is dictated by accountants who are only concerned about the bottom line.

    Like almost everything else in this industry, vaccine policy is also highly politicized. Ultimately, nurses, due to our sheer numbers, are the ones who can change that.

  • 1
    MassED likes this.


    Thank you for refuting some of my points instead of completely ignoring them. I appreciate intellectual discourse and debate. Also, I agree that "the whole point of science is assuming we could always be wrong." So, although you oppose my viewpoints, we do have at least one speck of common ground.

    That said, every point made to refute the specifics you've chosen comes directly from the Web site. Skeptical Raptor is a misnomer at best. That site agrees with every conventional, mainstream position on issues of "science." Therefore, Skeptical Raptor (aka Michael Simpson) supports GMOs, pesticides, MSG, high-fructose corn syrup, and every other talking point from the pharmaceutical and biotech industries, while basically denouncing all herbal and natural supplements. If you were writing a paper for a nursing class, you could not cite Skeptical Raptor as a legitimate source.

    (To be fair, I am not suggesting that every source I have provided would be appropriate to cite in a nursing paper either; that would not be true. However, my original post contains links to a VARIETY OF SOURCES, not just one source that is grotesquely biased. Many of the documents I linked to come directly from the CDC and other governmental agencies, as well as many peer-reviewed journal articles. Incidentally such are articles are considered absolute gospel when they support vaccines, yet are almost categorically ignored or denied when they reveal legitimate concerns about them.)

    So, regarding the Skeptical Raptor, where's his skepticism? He has none; he is fully invested in the official narratives on all matters of "science." In my circles, Skeptical Raptor is well known to be a paid media shill for Big Pharma and biotech. Skeptical Raptor's site, almost in its entirety, shames and ridicules "science deniers" of all types with hyperbole and condescension.

    Here's what he said about Dr. Andrew Wakefield:

    a callous, narcissistic ex-physician who has an intense disregard for human life, specifically children. Known as one of the greatest scientific fraudsters of the last 100 years, he is the de facto demigod of the Evil Cult of Antivaccination. After his article claiming that MMR vaccine (for the prevention of measles, mumps and rubella) caused autism was retracted by the medical journal, Wakefield moved to Texas to plot his revenge on the world.

    Talk about media spin and talking points! Anyone who is honest and has done ANY research outside of what's said in the mainstream media knows that the above description is not only absolutely ridiculous (yes, I realize that Skeptical Raptor was attempting to be facetious and sarcastic, to some extent), but also patently false. Dr. Wakefield is fighting the good fight to share the truth ... and that's why the science gatekeepers are so afraid of him; his research revealed a truth that would have likely resulted in billions of dollars in losses for GlaxoSmithKline. So instead, the powers that be discredited him and destroyed his career.

    Again, I wholeheartedly support Dr. Andrew Wakefield and emphatically state that he is hero. For those willing to review additional information, please consider reading the chapter in Science For Sale that provides a concise explanation of the Wakefield case from another perspective or consider checking this out.

    Incidentally, almost every discussion forum site, especially ones with large followings, has media shills (paid or otherwise) whose job is topic or knowledge gatekeeping; i.e., to quell dissension on controversial scientific issues (usually by personally attacking and ridiculing the dissenters, while avoiding engagement on the issues they raise).

    Also, for those who say they ignore dissenters because they are simply too tired to rehash the same-old, same-old, you will need to replenish your energy stores. This issue is going to become a bigger, hotter, stinkier mess, as the public continues to wake up to the level of deception in the mainstream media (and other advertising-supported publications) and for reasons I have mentioned in other posts.


    “Sometimes people don't want to hear the truth because they don't want their illusions destroyed.”

    ― Friedrich Nietzsche

  • 1
    AndyB likes this.

    Quote from Spidey's mom
    Now that's just silly. Those of us who respond to anti-vaxxers on allnurses are far from scared or afraid.

    I commend the usual suspects here who regularly take on anti-vaxx posters with logic, reason, and scientific research.
    Spidey's mom:

    With all due respect, none of the posters who have criticized or ridiculed me in this post have offered ANY logic, reason, or scientific research to refute my arguments. Instead, they have simply parroted the mainstream media talking points that "vaccines are safe and effective" and that "there's no legitimate debate on vaccines, case closed." No one from your perspective has debated or truly discussed anything. Repeating the same thing over and over is not providing logic, reason, or scientific research; it's adhering to dogma. Yes, the "usual suspects" to whom you refer have taken me on, but primarily only with insults and ridicule.

    Meanwhile, they have completely ignored the very long list of concerns presented in my posts, similar to how the mainstream media in this country often does a complete blackout of certain stories in order to prevent placing such topics in the spotlight of public scrutiny. In relation to vaccines, two (of many) examples of US mainstream media (MSM) blackouts are:

    Don't those seem like newsworthy stories? Or is it more important to report on Brad and Angelina's impending divorce?

    It's far too easy to slap the "anti-vaxx" and "anti-vaccine" label on any discussion that questions vaccine safety, thereby stifling or completely eliminating discussion of the real issues within nursing and similar circles. In general, medical professionals descend upon anyone who dares to question vaccine safety like a wake of vultures upon their prey.

    "Anti-vaxx" and "anti-vaccine" labels have been so distorted that simply mentioning those words results in many nurses covering their ears or otherwise avoiding the discussion at hand, whether intentionally or subconsciously. Groupthink is especially dangerous where safety is concerned.

    However, if you and those who agree with you are not afraid of REAL debate or of challenging your own beliefs, why hasn't anyone commented on the vaccine SAFETY issues raised by the few of us raising them here? As nurses, we are all concerned about patient safety and want to make sure that the interventions our patients receive are as safe as they can possibly be. Please keep in mind that EVERY nurse or physician who openly questions vaccine safety has had to challenge his/her previously held beliefs and everything s/he was taught about vaccines during his/her education ... and often does so at great personal or professional risk.

    Some real issues that warrant discussion by anyone truly concerned about vaccine-related patient safety include:

    Why are newborn babies routinely given an aluminum-containing vaccine, namely the hepatitis B shot, even when their mothers are hepatitis negative? (Most of us don't even want to cook with aluminum pots and pans because the science says that it contributes to dementia.)

    Why are so many toxic ingredients in so many vaccines? Do they really need to be in there?

    Why are patients routinely given a flu shot on the first day of a hospital stay, even when they have impaired kidney function or other toxin- or waste-clearing issues (and even when it's not "flu" season!)?

    Why has the US government paid out billions of dollars via the Vaccine Court to families of children who were admittedly injured by vaccines? And why don't most people, including many physicians and nurses, even know about the Vaccine Court?

    Why are pharmaceutical companies indemnified from any harm caused by vaccines? That is, why can't pharmaceutical companies be directly sued by injured parties for damages in the United States? (By the way, pharmaceutical companies can be sued for vaccine injuries directly in other countries, hence the Italian Supreme Court case. Also, even here in the US, they can be sued for other drug-induced injuries, hence all the late-night, class-action lawsuit ads against them. Why were vaccines exempted from this policy in 1986 by the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act? Does a billion-dollar industry really need government indemnification for its products if they are so safe? Does legal immunity encourage vaccine manufacturers to make their products as safe as possible, given that they can't be sued if something goes wrong?)

    Is anyone concerned about a top-level CDC scientist admitting that he and his colleagues omitted crucial data in a study that has become the go-to study claiming no link between the MMR vaccine and autism? (Or, would you rather casually dismiss such claims, in order to prevent having to challenge your own beliefs, biases, and assumptions?)

    When new information emerges, it is irresponsible and downright dangerous to completely ignore it, regardless of the source. All information should be scrutinized. It seems that even the most diehard pro-vaccine nurse should be concerned about potential governmental and pharmaceutical company fraud. A quick perusal of other posts throughout this site suggests that many nurses have concerns about government and pharmaceutical transparency (or lack thereof). Why is that concern thrown out the window when it comes to vaccines? How is it that the government and pharmaceutical companies all of a sudden become exceptionally trustworthy entities beyond reproach, among so many of us, but only when vaccines are concerned?

    The Church of Science is a dogmatic religion. Many within the scientific community revere it so much that they are unable, unwilling, or afraid to question or challenge any of its commandments. While theologians of all types banter back and forth, debating passages within their respective scriptures, it seems many nurses and physicians are unable to question anything that appears in the "scriptures" of medical and nursing journals. However, unlike the world's holy scriptures, which are believed by so many to be divinely inspired, medical and other industry journals certainly are not; instead, they are for-profit, advertising- and subscription-supported publications written by mere mortals.

    It should be very obvious to any open-minded person that just because something appears in a medical journal does not mean that it is gospel. Scientific "facts" flip flop, reverse, or otherwise change over time (often based on who's funding the research). For example, at one point in history, it was scientific "fact" that the trans fat in margarine is healthier than the saturated fat in butter, that smoking is good for you, and that the world is flat.

    The very studies that appear in medical (and other industry) journals are often the ones that have the most money behind them (in terms of research budget and expected profit), period. That's why billions of dollars are spent researching very specific pharmacological cures for a variety of diseases while completely ignoring the multitude of natural therapies for such diseases that have been shown to be effective, via empirical observation, sometimes for thousands of years (but that's another story altogether).

    Too many of us worship science to the point that we will deny what we see right before our very eyes. Oftentimes, when parents believe their child may be having an adverse vaccine reaction, nurses and physicians will quickly dismiss parental concerns, chocking up such reaction to coincidence. (Such reaction couldn't possibly be from the vaccine the child received 24 , 48, or 72 hours earlier, could it?) As medical professionals, aren't we are supposed to listen to our patients instead of dismissing them?

    Quite frankly, by refusing to refute any of the concerns raised by the opposing side of the vaccine debate with any real logic, reason, or scientific research, your camp will ultimately lose credibility with people who have legitimate questions and who are paying attention. Those who attempt to hijack the vaccine-safety discussion by simply shutting it down will not be able to do so forever. This issue is only going to become more volcanic as additional vaccines hit the market and more mandates are imposed.


    I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

    Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

    There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.

    ~Michael Crichton, MD
    CalTech Lecture, 2003

  • 1
    MassED likes this.


    Of course, there is an inordinate amount of research supporting vaccination. I do not dispute that; how could I? If there weren't so much "research" supporting your position, this debate would be very different.

    As I have said in all of my posts in this thread, I dispute the validity and impartiality of that research, in many cases, due to the conflicts of interest held by the sponsors and funders of such research.

    Within the medical literature, there is also research that supports my position on questioning vaccine safety. Although I provided a link to a long list of such literature in a previous post, no one here has refuted any of that research, though it is unlikely that you or anyone agreeing with you has taken the time to even consider it.

    It seems that your collective mind has been made up, so you will not even look at anything that refutes your position. For me, that is a dangerous mindset and stance to take on any serious matter, and especially matters of health and safety. New information emerges all the time. As more and more vaccines are brought on the market (for everything from acne to Zika) and mandates start popping up all over the country, this debate is going to become even more combustible. It is not going away!

    (As a side note, no matter what side a person is on for any given hot topic, it seems that it would be prudent to truly research the other side, if for no other reason than to bolster one's own position. Lawyers do this when they are researching a case. So, those of you who refuse to even look at the information I have presented and repeatedly say "there's no legitimate debate on vaccines, case closed" are not doing your side any favors. It is always wise to know, study, and understand your opponent. Athletes, chess players, poker players, and politicians all study their opponents at great length; this is basic war, debate, or strategy game theory.

    If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.” ― Sun Tzu)

    As I stated in my previous post, the YouTube links (and a couple of articles) were STARTING POINTS. I do not think that YouTube videos, in and of themselves, constitute credible and verifiable research. They are STARTING POINTS bridging to more information. Similarly, pointing to a single Skeptical Raptor article, as you did in a previous post, does not mean that you have done any real research on the other side of the vaccine issue. In contrast, my original post was loaded with links to journal articles, videos, mainstream media and alternative media pieces, CDC documents, books, blog posts, and more. Although I have been attacked personally, no one has critiqued any of the documentation I offered.

    Are you seriously saying that the pharmaceutical companies add ingredients to vaccines that they don't tell us about?
    No. That is not what I am saying! Here is a link from the CDC Web site of vaccine ingredients: Any rational person would question why many of those ingredients are in vaccines.

    Dr. Andrew Wakefield

    An entire library of books could be written about what has happened to Dr. Andrew Wakefield. As to be expected by those of us on the other side of this debate, Dr. Andrew Wakefield has been vilified by the mainstream media, the medical establishment, medical journals, most of his colleagues, academia, and more. The medical establishment does not take well to dissenting and opposing viewpoints that jeopardize the profits of their sponsors. For those who have only heard (and believe) what the mainstream media has said about Dr. Wakefield, your believing that he is a quack scientist who's just trying to stir up trouble, where none exists, is warranted.

    However, for those of us who have researched beyond the mainstream media hype and spin, we know that Dr. Andrew Wakefield is one of the most courageous, upstanding men on planet Earth today. He has been made an example of, to quiet other would-be whistleblowers.

    The same media that have covered up 40 years of sexual assault on the parts of Bill Clinton and Bill Cosby are the same media that have slandered Dr. Wakefield, who despite basically losing everything, is still fighting to get the truth out. Just like this debate, Dr. Wakefield isn't going away.

    For those who are open to learning more about Dr. Wakefield, without media hype and spin, consider reaching out to the families of the vaccine-injured children he has helped or reading some information about him on the VAXXED Web site. Dr. Wakefield is a hero in those circles and in my book. Del Bigtree, who helped produce VAXXED, put his entire mainstream production career on the line to work on the documentary, after thoroughly investigating Dr. Wakefield. I believe no amount of money could make amends for the slander and libel spewed upon Dr. Wakefield, who has endured such injustices just because he has been willing to tell the truth that could jeopardize pharmaceutical company profits and government vaccine agendas.

    The only common ground, it seems, is that we speak our opinions on this matter because we are concerned for the health and safety of others. While I believe you are sincere, I also believe that you have missed (admittedly, it can be hard to find, as it is buried deeply below hype and media spin) or willfully ignored a lot of research, empirical evidence, and other information that provides a different picture of vaccine safety. Similarly, healthcare professionals who shut down opposing viewpoints, unwilling to even entertain other perspectives, undermine safety in the workplace and contribute to the hierarchical, paternalistic culture of healthcare.

    Nevertheless, given that your concern is real, you might consider watching this video from Dr. Sam Eggertsen, MD, a board-certified family physician of 35+ years: Why do parents refuse to vaccinate their children?

    Though our perspectives on this matter could not be more different, I appreciate your comments.

  • 1
    MassED likes this.

    Quote from PMFB-RN
    I'm not the government. But in my limited sphere of influence I shut down anti vaxxers as hard and fast as I can. I do a lot of in hospital teaching of nursing students, new hires, medical students, interns and residents. I teach a variety of classes and re-fresher classes in our SimMan lab. I will shut down an anti vaxxer immediately and hard. I am not in charge of hiring and firing for any department. But many of the nurse managers and I are long time friends. If I hear a (for example) nursing student express anti vaxx opinions I will make sure s/he is not hired at our facility.
    Wow! I am shaking my head in disbelief! Does anyone else find the above quote to be troubling?

    PMFB-RN, such behavior is exactly what I'm talking about in regards to the highly politicized nature of the vaccine debate. So, in your mind, there is absolutely no room for dissenting opinion and you will make sure to force it out of your circle of influence. You are not even willing to hear counterarguments to your position and fully admit that you act as a knowledge gatekeeper in your place of employment. When a person or group refuses to hear new or additional information, he/she/they effectively stop learning and stop growing! Do you consider yourself to be open-minded? Open-mindedness is at the heart of scientific discovery.

    Such gatekeeping is exactly what happens, more often than not, in the editorial departments within medical and nursing journals when a submission of dissenting opinion lands on an editor's desk, given that the pharmaceutical companies effectively own such journals via their advertising dollars. (I have been an editor in a different field and have witnessed firsthand how advertising dollars DIRECTLY AFFECT EDITORIAL CONTENT! In short, a publication will almost never challenge the source of its income.) This is one of the reasons that the research, upon which you are basing your entire argument, is biased, flawed, skewed, and downright deceptive at times. The peer review process can also be used as a form of knowledge gatekeeping.

    You have repeatedly stated that there is no legitimate debate regarding vaccines, but you have not refuted the safety concerns I discussed. Safety is supposed to be our foremost concern as nurses. Since you are not the one filling the vials in a vaccine production facility, how can you speak with such certainty that what's going in those vials is safe? You have said absolutely nothing about vaccine ingredients. Please remember that the same pharmaceutical companies who make billions off of "breakthrough" drugs are later settling class-action lawsuits for all the morbidity and mortality caused by those very drugs, whose safety studies were questionable to be begin with. Why do you think vaccine safety studies are any different? The same companies are involved.

    Regardless of one's position on vaccines, EVERY SINGLE NURSE SHOULD BE CONCERNED ABOUT THE SAFETY OF THE SUBSTANCES CONTAINED IN VACCINE VIALS. It would be great if you would forget about quelling debate and speak to this.

  • 1
    MassED likes this.


    You might be surprised that I appreciate your pointing out that vaccines are not administered intravenously. They certainly are not!

    Originally, I wrote this piece with the layperson in mind (and have shared it with lay groups as well). Leave it to detail-oriented nurses such as yourself to correct such errors! I can happily admit when I am wrong. I am human and, therefore, not perfect.

    Nevertheless, I am dismayed that you admit that you did not even read my original post in its entirety. That's the equivalent of covering one's ears in an oral debate or argument because he/she doesn't want to hear what the other party has to say. How can you honestly refute my points, if you haven't even read them? How can you honestly critique a documentary like VAXXED, if you haven't even watched it?

    As should be very obvious to sincere readers of this thread, you have not refuted any of the specific vaccine safety concerns I listed in my original post. Instead, you've launched ad hominem attacks against me, such as trying to discredit me by suggesting that I am not a licensed registered nurse. I certainly am ... and my journey through nursing school is well documented on How dare I have a dissenting opinions from the group?

    All you have said, really, is that there is no legitimate debate on vaccines because the powers that be say so. Nevertheless, there is always another side to a story and, often, there are many facets or sides. You have made it clear that you are not open to hearing new or other information. To me, that is not a scientific approach or scientific thinking, which is always open to probing and asking questions. No real breakthrough has ever occurred by adhering to the status quo. A departure from conventional thinking is required for any kind of significant progress, regardless of field.

    There was a time when the scientific literature encouraged and supported smoking with all kinds of "facts" proving its benefits. Research can be crafted to paint any picture its sponsors wish to depict. As I discussed in my original post, most vaccine research is bought and paid for by the pharmaceutical companies that make the vaccines. How can anyone, whether for or against vaccines, not see the conflict of interest therein?

    Furthermore, I fully expected to be attacked and ridiculed when I posted this information. All of us who have researched the other side of this issue understand that it goes with the territory. That's the price for taking a stand and speaking out on an issue that is highly inflammable. I don't mind standing in the arena and weathering the blows I get.

    Still, for anyone who has an open mind and is willing to, at the very least, consider additional information, I hope you'll dig deeply and do your own research. Here are a few very basic STARTING POINTS:

    If You Think Your Kid's Vaccines are Safe, DON'T Watch This! - YouTube

    Pro-Vaxers Debunk THIS! - Vaccination Truth w/ Dr. Suzanne Humphries - YouTube

    Vaccine injury denialism will get clobbered by the tipping point | Levi Quackenboss

    CDC: You're Fired. Autism Coverup Exposed. - Kelly Brogan MD

    VACCINE HOLOCAUST EXPLAINED by the Health Ranger - YouTube

    Interestingly, you will find that some of these physicians are no longer practicing, have been labeled as quacks, or have been blackballed by their peers. The practice of medicine, like nursing, is highly politicized and often does not allow room for dissenting opinions to be heard. Dissenters are ridiculed and ostracized.

    Finally, what may really, really surprise you is that I am not necessarily anti-vaccine. Allow me to explain. While I find the THEORY of vaccination plausible, I do not believe vaccination is necessary. Nevertheless, for those who believe they are, I wish there were SAFE vaccines that worked as purported and that pharmaceutical companies and the medical industry were honest, transparent entities truly concerned for the well-being of mankind. My problem with vaccines, more than anything else, is the fact that the research is biased, deceptive, and riddled with conflicts of interest; they contain ingredients that are known to be unsafe and even downright dangerous; and that they are being mandated despite KNOWN safety risks. I do not believe the government, any entity, or any person should be able to force another to have a medical intervention of any kind.

    Despite your attacks, I appreciate your comments because they shed light on how highly combustible this topic is. In certain professional circles, like nursing and medicine, vaccines cannot be discussed without the group personally attacking the few dissenters willing to speak up. Hopefully, some readers of this thread will see through this and take the time to uncover what's behind the curtain. The more the mainstream media and the medical industry try to silence opposition by simply repeating that vaccine science has been settled, case closed, the more people will start questioning why.

  • 1
    MassED likes this.


    With all due respect, I am not suggesting that we are losing our First Amendment rights because of what can or can't be discussed on AllNurses. However, the topics of threads that get attacked or closed (which could be considered a form of censorship at times) on AllNurses often reflect the threats against the First Amendment rights in society at large.

    We are losing our First Amendment rights because the powers that be censor opposing information. The hotbed that is the discussion of vaccines is just one example of the extremely one-sided nature of the vaccine discussion in the mainstream media, medical journals, and other "information" sources. When the documentary, VAXXED, was released, the mainstream press attacked it viciously by so-called journalists who often admitted in their critiques that they hadn't even seen the film.

    Several nurses here have referred to the film as being anti-vaccine, which it is not. It is a documentary about CDC fraud in relation to the scientific findings that claim there is no link between the MMR vaccine and autism. How many of the nurses here who have referred to the film as anti-vaccine have actually seen it? It would seem that in order to honestly critique a film, one would have to watch it.

    Thank you for your comments.

  • 1
    MassED likes this.


    Thank you for taking the time to read my post.

    I believe that the First Amendment is viciously under attack in the US. I wrote that "We are losing" freedom of speech, in that there's an ongoing culture in the media, healthcare, and other industries that is progressively censoring and stifling dissenting opinions. I do not feel the the process is complete. I do not feel that I have lost that right entirely ... yet.

    I am strongly against the corruption in scientific research that affects the "findings" for drugs and vaccines. However, in the larger context, I am deeply concerned that debate and discussion is missing on such important topics at the ground level. It is sad that we nurses can't even discuss these issues without attacking each other.

    Here's an example of what can happen when a respected mainstream blogger crosses into the forbidden territory that is vaccines; his post was taken down and his account was blocked without warning, after 8 years of publishing on Huffington Post. This kind of censorship happens all the time, but there is no mainstream media coverage of such events. Similarly, Dr. Michael Savage, who has been on the radio for 20+ years, recently had his nationwide radio show canceled, overnight, due to his opinions on this upcoming presidential election. A similar thing happened to Dr. Drew.

    On a different note, in an effort to further this discussion on vaccines, I would like to hear opinions as to why newborn babies are routinely administered hepatitis B shots at birth, even when their mothers test negative to the disease? What are the benefits of receiving a hepatitis B shot for a baby who is, obviously, not at risk of contracting a sexually transmitted disease? (Again, mom is negative.)

    No one could honestly answer those questions for me in nursing school ... and to this day, so far, still no one can.

    If anyone honestly researches this issue, I believe they will find that health policy (which is industry influenced) is the reason for the administration of these shots; health benefits are not a factor. So, why put newborns at risk when the known side effects of the shot are many?

    I encourage my fellow nurses to start researching the hepatitis B vaccine for babies as a starting point to, at the very least, realizing that there's a lot of information on vaccines that most have never seen.


  • 1
    MassED likes this.

    Quote from PMFB-RN
    There is no legitimate debate on vaccination.

    ... the facts about the safety and benefits of vaccines are beyond question.
    PMFB-RN, the "facts" about vaccines are often written by the manufacturers of them; i.e., the pharmaceutical companies. How is the safety of anything that is directly injected into the bloodstream of billions of people beyond question? Is anything or anyone ever beyond question?

    Have you looked at the published ingredient list of vaccines on the CDC site? Regardless of one's stance on vaccines, everyone should question why mercury, dog kidney cells, polysorbate 80, and similar ingredients are in them.

    As a nurse, you are fully aware of the admitted side effects caused by the numerous pharmaceutical drugs we administer every day. Many of such drugs are recalled every year, after passing every required "safety" study. Vaccines are made by the same multibillion-dollar companies whose drugs are recalled each year. So, are vaccines safe just because the pharmaceutical companies who manufacture them say so? (This billion- or trillion-dollar industry has a lot at stake to make sure that the masses continue to believe so. Consequently, they control the information on them, from the mainstream media down to what you're taught in nursing school.)

    You are correct in that there is no legitimate debate on vaccination ... because people like you will not allow there to be. The culture of the healthcare environment demands consensus. Dissenting opinions are not allowed! You are not willing to look at or consider additional information. Nevertheless, no real scientific advancement has ever occurred by refusing to examine a topic from a different angle or from a different perspective.

    When it comes to the safety of the world's people, and especially innocent newborn babies, everything should be questioned, repeatedly, as information and evidence change. "Facts" change. At one time, mercury, leeches, and lobotomies were routine treatments and cigarette smoking was prescribed by physicians.

    One day, the world will look at vaccines similar to leeches and lobotomies.

  • 1
    MassED likes this.


    You have proved my point about our First Amendment rights being under attack by requesting the removal of my post. Just because my research and opinions differ from yours does not mean that I do not have a right to express them. One of the problems with the USA and the world today is that people cannot handle disagreement or differing opinions. Why not let people do their own INDEPENDENT research and make up their own minds?

    I disagree with the official stance on vaccinations, based on decades of research, and I am not afraid to say so (any longer). Any physician or nurse who speaks out against vaccines is immediately and invariably blackballed by people like you. However, you might ask why any physician or nurse, knowing the heat and ostracization he or she will inevitably receive, would continue to speak out against them? Are we trying to be martyrs? Is every physician or nurse with concerns about vaccine safety crazy? Or is it possible that we have discovered the significant amount of medical literature that goes mostly unnoticed, is definitely not publicized, and is often even suppressed indicating serious problems with them?

    As a nurse who believes in the merits of vaccines, you are invested in believing that your education and everything you have told yourself, family, and patients about them is true. (This is analogous to the physicians who once staunchly supported cigarette smoking due the "research" supporting smoking's health benefits.) Fear is what keeps so many people from challenging and examining their own beliefs. Believe me, few physicians or nurses, who through extensive research have come to the realization that today's vaccines cause more harm than good, want to be in the middle of such a heated battle. I sure don't. I only share this information because I care about people and don't mind taking the heat to stand up for what I believe is right.

    I would encourage you to read David Lewis's Science for Sale, which discusses how pharmaceutical and other industry interests control the scientific literature. Nurses and physicians believe that vaccines are safe and effective because the medical literature says so ... and that's the problem! What most nurses and physicians do not understand is that the medical (and all scientific) literature can be and often is corrupted by pharmaceutical and other industry interests. If you truly look into this, you will find that a large percentage of the information that nurses and physicians use to base clinical decisions is based more on industry agenda and less on "science." As a blatant example, Coca-Cola recently funded a study that said sugary drinks are not implicated in the obesity epidemic.

    Again, the medical and nursing information we rely on to make decisions is often faulty (at best) and downright deceptive and corrupted (at worst). And when it comes to the pharmaceutical industry, their tentacles are so far reaching that they influence medical and nursing curricula as well.

    For what it's worth, most nurses and physicians often state that the medical literature or evidence on vaccines is conclusive. And for anyone with a critical, inquiring mind, that should be a red flag in and of itself. There is no such thing as settled science! So, here's a sizable list of peer-reviewed articles, also from the medical literature, pointing to problems with vaccine safety. Despite the peer review process being considered the gold standard for scientific publication, peer view is NOT without problems. Peer review is a process that works as a scientific gatekeeper, ensuring certain ideas are contained or never even published. Besides what you were told in school and any research you've done on vaccines, there is still more information out there about them.

    Unfortunately, most people in the healthcare industry will either overlook or ignore such information, or never find it. Granted, such information in becoming increasingly difficult to find because search engines like Google and social media sites like YouTube and Facebook censor information, based on their corporate agendas, in various ways. The difficulty of finding balanced information on any topic is difficult in these days of censorship and industry-media control. If you are not aware of the level of Internet censorship at the search engine and social media level, please search for vaccines on Google and then again on Try this with any controversial topic. You'll notice a marked difference in hits!

    PMFB-RN, what research have you done to really examine BOTH sides of this issue? Every nurse or physician has been formally trained to side with your viewpoint; if he or she later changes viewpoint, it is due to additional research. Any nurse or physician who questions vaccine safety has researched this topic beyond the OFFICIAL stance that wants to shut down all opposing discussion.

    Real science is ALWAYS open for debate. Again, settled science does not exist. Why would you want to stifle such discussion? Isn't this the breakroom? Isn't this a discussion forum? Isn't this supposed to be a place for debate and dialogue? Based on your desire to shut me down, I would say that for you, it is not. Your desire to shut down an opinion differing from yours is indicative of a much larger problem in our society today.



    There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.
    ~Michael Crichton

  • 0

    Dear Fellow Nurses:


    The CDC's lies have affected the health of millions of children.

    I am a concerned parent and registered nurse writing this letter to raise awareness about governmental corruption, especially that concerning health-related policy affecting children in this country ... and the world.

    Not long ago, the U.S. government experimented on African-American males afflicted with syphilis during the Tuskegee Syphilis Study. During the study, which ran for 40 years from 1932 to 1972, the study participants were told they were receiving treatment for their condition. However, they were actually given only a placebo, so that the scientists involved could use this population as human guinea pigs to monitor the effects of untreated syphilis. In the 1960s and 1970s, Hispanic women were forcibly sterilized by the Los Angeles County-USC Medical Center. These are just two of many medical atrocities perpetrated by the U.S. government.

    While these acknowledged medical atrocities occurred not that long ago, for some, they have been long forgotten or perhaps never known. Nevertheless, such medical atrocities continue to this very day, often under the guise of charity, "medical treatment," or progress. For example, a medical atrocity underscores every drug recall because the FDA-approved safety studies performed prior to the drug's release often show problems that get ignored in the pursuit of profits (as was the case with Vioxx).

    Drug safety studies (including those for vaccines) are extremely biased because they are produced by the very companies who stand to make billions of dollars from the drugs in question. In some cases, such studies have been shown to be fabricated. Like the tobacco science of yesteryear, many of today's scientific studies are nothing more than industry-backed propaganda posing as science. Industries of all types strongly influence the editorial content of their associated journals with their advertising dollars.

    Regarding the pervasiveness of academic and scientific fraud, editor-in-chief of The Lancet, Dr. Richard Horton, MD, stated:

    The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness. As one participant put it, “poor methods get results”. The Academy of Medical Sciences, Medical Research Council, and Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council have now put their reputational weight behind an investigation into these questionable research practices. The apparent endemicity of bad research behaviour is alarming. In their quest for telling a compelling story, scientists too often sculpt data to fit their preferred theory of the world. Or they retrofit hypotheses to fit their data. Journal editors deserve their fair share of criticism too. We aid and abet the worst behaviours. (Horton, 2014, p. 1380)
    The Lancet is the British equivalent of the New England Journal of Medicine and is often deemed the most highly respected medical journal in the world. Also, systemic academic and scientific fraud is nothing new, as in the case of the previously mentioned tobacco science, which proclaimed the health benefits of cigarette smoking for more than half of the 20th century.

    Pervasive, rampant, systemic academic and scientific fraud is discussed in detail in Science for Sale: How the US Government Uses Powerful Corporations and Leading Universities to Support Government Policies, Silence Top Scientists, Jeopardize Our Health, and Protect Corporate Profits by David L. Lewis, PhD. As Dr. Lewis, a former EPA scientist and whistleblower, has explained:
    The government hires scientists to support its policies; industry hires them to support its business; and universities hire them to bring in grants that are handed out to support government policies and industry practices.... The science they create is often only an illusion, designed to deceive; and the scientists they destroy to protect that illusion are often our best. (Lewis, 2014, back cover)
    Meanwhile, the disclosed side effects of many FDA-approved drugs often read like a horror novel—even after passing all required safety tests. For example, Paxil, a commonly prescribed SSRI antidepressant, has the following side effects (effects in red are life threatening and those in boldface are most common):
    CNS: neuroleptic malignant syndrome, suicidal thoughts, anxiety, dizziness, drowsiness, headache, insomnia, weakness, agitation, amnesia, confusion, emotional lability, hangover, impaired concentration, malaise, mental depression, syncope. EENT: blurred vision, rhinitis. Resp: cough, pharyngitis, respiratory disorders, yawning. CV: chest pain, edema, hypertension, palpitations, postural hypotension, tachycardia, vasodilation. GI: constipation, diarrhea, dry mouth, nausea, abdominal pain, ↓/↑ appetite, dyspepsia, flatulence, taste disturbances, vomiting. GU: ejaculatory disturbance, ↓ libido, genital disorders, infertility, urinary disorders, urinary frequency. Derm: sweating, photosensitivity, pruritus, rash. Metab: weight gain/loss. MS: back pain, bone fracture, myalgia, myopathy. Neuro: paresthesia, tremor. Misc: serotonin syndrome, chills, fever. (Vallerand & Sanoski, 2014)

    With all that being said, in August 2014, Dr. William Thompson, PhD, a senior CDC scientist, retained the protection of a whistleblower attorney and confessed that he and his colleagues destroyed and manipulated data showing a link between the MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine and autism. The MMR vaccine is given to all children in this country, unless their parents seek and are able to obtain an exemption.

    In particular, Dr. Thompson's research showed that African-American boys had a significantly higher risk of autism when given the vaccine before 36 months. Dr. Thompson raised his concerns about omitting data with the then-director of the CDC, Dr. Julie Gerberding, MD, who allowed the fraud to continue. Dr. Gerberding is currently the Executive Vice President for Strategic Communications, Global Public Policy, and Population Health at Merck, a multibillion-dollar pharmaceutical company and vaccine manufacturer; she was previously the president of Merck Vaccines.

    The study that Dr. Thompson and his colleagues authored appeared in a 2004 article in the journal, Pediatrics, which has been used repeatedly to deny any association between vaccines and autism. The study has also been used as the basis to deny compensation to more than 5,000 families who petitioned the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), a program about which most physicians and nurses, let alone the general public, are unaware. Since its inception, the VICP, also known as the "Vaccine Court," has paid out more than $3.3 billion in damages for vaccine-related injuries, including autism and death. Such settlements receive almost no mainstream media attention and the records of such cases are sealed, making them unavailable for public review. The mainstream media coverage of Hannah Poling's vaccine-induced autism settlement was a short-lived, rare exception because the diagnosis was undeniable, given that her father was a neurosurgeon.

    Despite severe underreporting of vaccine injuries, given that most people are unaware of the VICP or Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) database, more than 4,500 awards have been paid since the inception of the VICP in the late 1980s. During such time, more than 9,900 cases have been dismissed, many on the grounds of the aforementioned fraudulent CDC paper.

    Incidentally, the VICP awards are funded by taxpayers, as the result of the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act. This act granted legal immunity to vaccine manufacturers for damages caused by vaccines and transferred the fiscal burden of such damages to U.S. taxpayers. The heavy-handed push from the CDC and U.S. government to mandate vaccines ensures low-risk vaccine profits for pharmaceutical companies in the billions of dollars, since they are immune from lawsuits stemming from vaccine problems. If vaccines are so safe, why would vaccine makers lobby Congress for protection from potential lawsuits in the first place? Why would Congress grant legal immunity to a multibillion-dollar industry? And given such legal indemnity, what incentive exists for pharmaceutical companies to ensure vaccine safety? What other industry that could get away with legal immunity for faulty, defective, or dangerous products?

    Dr. Thompson has been waiting to be subpoenaed by Congress since July 29, 2015, when Congressman Bill Posey (Republican–Florida) implored his fellow congressmen to investigate the CDC for scientific fraud regarding the aforementioned MMR study. At the same time, the mainstream media, which is largely controlled by the pharmaceutical industry because it is the mainstream media's largest source of advertising revenue, has almost completely ignored this story.

    VAXXED: From Cover-Up to Catastrophe is a documentary about Dr. William Thompson's admission and the systemic corruption at the CDC, which is charged with "Saving Lives. Protecting People." Despite what is being said about it in the mainstream media, the documentary is not an anti-vaccine film. Furthermore, there have been widespread attempts to censor the film, which violates the First Amendment right to free speech for both the filmmakers and the film's potential viewers. On the heels of the Flint and Detroit Public Schools lead-tainted water crises, we Michiganders have recently been reminded that we can not trust the government to protect our health. It is time for the lies to stop!

    That's why, despite the mainstream media's concerted effort to infringe upon our First Amendment rights and censor VAXXED, awareness of the documentary is going viral, thanks to all the controversy and mainstream media bashing it has received. The film's executive producer is Del Bigtree, who was one of the producers on the highly respected, Emmy award-winning, daytime talk show, The Doctors. Mr. Bigtree quit his job on The Doctors to work on this film because he felt the story was so compelling and of grave importance; furthermore, he was in utter disbelief that the story had been completely ignored out by the mainstream media.

    The fact that physicians, nurses, and other health-related professionals have trusted CDC information to make clinical decisions underscores the importance of this film. While the CDC has a long history of lying to the public about vaccine safety, its stranglehold over the mainstream media has prevented it from losing large-scale credibility ... until now. With the rise of the Internet, independent news outlets, social networks, and Dr. Thompson's insider, whistleblowing admission, Americans are waking up from a long, mainstream-media-induced slumber and starting to realize that everything that the CDC advocates is suspect and should be intensely scrutinized. It is time for physicians, nurses, pastors, educators, and anyone who works with children to speak up about these issues.

    Actor Robert DeNiro has stated that "Everyone should see VAXXED." Robert DeNiro wanted to show the documentary at his Tribeca Film Festival; he is personally vested in the documentary's topic, as he has a son with autism. (Unfortunately, the film was pulled from the festival at the last minute and it is believed that the censorship was done under great threat, as was the case at the Houston Film Festival.) Additionally, Rapper Snoop Dogg sent an Instagram to his 9.7+ million viewers, stating that the film is a must see.

    VAXXED was first screened on April 1, 2016, at the Angelika Film Center in New York City, amidst intense censorship and negative mainstream press. However, in just a few short weeks, due to the outpouring of public support, the tide may be starting to turn a bit. On April 21, Steve Doocy, of Fox & Friends, gave the film's director and associate producer the first mainstream media interview without the typical, one-sided, pharmaceutical-slanted bias and bashing.

    Meanwhile, vaccine programs in countries in Africa and Asia (particularly India), have been continuing to vaccinate children with the oral polio vaccine (OPV). Nevertheless, the OPV has been banned in the United States and most Western nations for nearly two decades, because it is well known to actually cause polio. Even according to the CDC, "To eliminate the risk of vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis (VAPP), as of January 1, 2000, OPV was no longer recommended for routine immunization in the United States" (CDC, 2016). While governments in many African and Asian countries are mandating OPV and vaccines for other diseases which are not endemic to those areas (and, therefore, pose little risk to the people there), they are not providing medicines for diseases like malaria, which is a serious problem in many of those areas.

    While billions of dollars pour in to such countries to fund campaigns to administer vaccines for low-risk diseases, the lack of clean water and adequate nutrition, which are fundamental to good health and disease prevention (and far more important than any medicine or vaccine), goes largely ignored. As people around the world are waking up to the many scientific frauds unpinning much of allopathic medicine, is it a coincidence that the World Health Organization (WHO) recently called for the destruction of all existing vials of OPV worldwide by May 1, 2016? (Note: This extremely large-scale, worldwide OPV-destruction operation has been given a two-week execution time.)

    According to mainstream media stories and press releases, the recall was made because WHO is now admitting that the existing OPV causes polio in "rare" cases (which, again, has been known for decades and the reason it was discontinued in the U.S. and most developed nations). Nevertheless, it has been speculated by various alternative media sources that the vaccines may be expired or perhaps spiked with additional ingredients that the WHO does not want analyzed or revealed, especially with the international awakening of vaccine fraud and injury, in part fueled by the virulence of VAXXED and the international social media discussions surrounding it. Incidentally, several pharmaceutical companies have been found to spike vaccine vials with undisclosed chemicals. One example is Baxter, a U.S.-based pharmaceutical company, that sent H5N1 avian flu-spiked vaccine vials to various countries in Europe.

    On the other hand, vaccines have been heralded as the greatest medical breakthrough of modern times ... and billions of dollars have been spent to ingrain that into the consciousness of modern society. It has even been said that vaccines alone are responsible for the disappearance of numerous infectious diseases. Whether that is true has been discussed in books such as Dissolving Illusions: Disease, Vaccines, and The Forgotten History by Suzanne Humphries, MD, and Roman Bystrianyk. Amongst other things, the book notes that several diseases, such as Bubonic plague and scarlet fever, are no longer pandemics or epidemics, despite their lack of vaccines. What caused the decline in those diseases?

    It can be argued that whatever was responsible for the decline in Bubonic plague and scarlet fever may have also contributed to the decline in other infectious diseases, for which vaccines largely took credit. Furthermore, many of the diseases for which children are routinely vaccinated are not typically life threatening, such as measles and chickenpox; however, the vaccines for such diseases contain numerous toxic substances, which can compromise health and, in rare cases, cause death. To be fair, diseases like measles and chickenpox can also cause death in rare cases. Nevertheless, as Antoine Béchamp, a 19th century French chemist, declared: "The health of the host is everything. The disease [pathogen] is nothing."

    In considering the possibility that other potential factors may have played a role in reducing infectious disease, consider that it is not widely known that malaria was once endemic to the United States. According to the CDC's own statistics, malaria was "eliminated" from the United States in the 1950s. Meanwhile, malaria runs rampant in many tropical countries. Given that the first-ever vaccine for malaria was approved by European regulators in 2015, it certainly could not have played a role in the elimination of malaria from the United States in the 1950s.

    So, why is malaria practically nonexistent in the United States and most "developed" countries, yet prevalent in many parts of the developing world today? Perhaps the answer is really simple: access to clean water and the availability of sanitation systems—still a very serious problem in many developing nations. According to the CDC:
    Diarrheal diseases (such as cholera) kill more children than AIDS, malaria, and measles combined, making it the second leading cause of death among children under five.

    The pathogens that cause diarrhea are commonly spread by food or water that has been contaminated with human or animal feces. This contamination can occur in the environment as a result of inadequate sanitation and inadequate protection of drinking water sources and food products, or in the home through unsafe water storage and inadequate hygiene.

    Diarrhea is not the only disease spread through unsafe water and poor sanitation and hygiene practices. Neglected tropical diseases like schistosomiasis and Guinea worm disease can be reduced almost 80% with improved hygiene, sanitation, and safe water access. In fact, access to safe water and improved hygiene and sanitation has the potential to prevent at least 9.1% of the global disease burden and 6.3% of all deaths. (CDC, 2014)
    According to a study done by Luby et al. (2005), also known as the Karachi Soap Health Study, the researchers found a greater than 50% drop in diarrhea and pneumonia in the experimental group after an intervention using regular soap several times daily over a one-year period; no other interventions were made, including no attempts to improve garbage removal or improve water quality, which remained a problem in that part of Pakistan.

    Whether vaccines have ever been as safe and effective as authorities and vaccine makers have claimed stands to be (and should be) questioned. However, regardless of their past history, it is clear that today's vaccines are loaded with toxic chemicals and, therefore, not safe, even according to the CDC's own information. The CDC's vaccine ingredient list can be downloaded at this link:

    An abbreviated list of questionable or toxic ingredients in vaccines include aluminum, thimerosal (mercury), formaldehyde, human diploid cells (which are derived from aborted fetal tissue), canine kidney cell protein, insect cells, embryonic guinea pig cell cultures, human embryonic lung cultures, polysorbate 80 (which is known to cause sterility in rats), monosodium glutamate (which people avoid eating due to its excitotoxic effect on the brain), and E. coli.

    Furthermore, while the CDC, most physicians, most nurses, the mainstream media, and others continue to spout the mantra that "vaccines don't cause autism," the manufacturer of the Tripedia® DTaP vaccine lists autism as one of the vaccine's potential side effects on page 11 in the third paragraph of the vaccine's informational insert. SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome) and encephalopathy (brain damage) are also listed among the vaccine's potential side effects. This Tripedia® DTaP information comes directly from the vaccine's manufacturer and was downloaded from the FDA website.

    Autism is certainly not the only condition that vaccines can trigger. Vaccines can trigger or are associated with a long list of other chronic diseases including allergies (including egg and peanut allergies), asthma, eczema, and various autoimmune diseases. Anyone who has worked with American children for any length of time, has likely noticed the general decline in their health over the last few decades. While numerous factors contribute to this decline, the increased frequency and quantity of vaccines "recommended" (and sometimes mandated) have been shown to play a role. Today's children receive 49 doses of 14 different vaccines by age 6; in 1983, they received 10 doses of 4 different vaccines by the same age.

    It is widely known that the U.S. has the highest infant mortality rate of any developed nation. Meanwhile, the mainstream scientific community pretends to scratch its hydra-like head, as if to have no idea what might be causing such an elevated rate. Yet, it refuses to even consider looking in obvious places, such as the regularly ramped up vaccine schedule. Is it really just a coincidence that the U.S. has the highest infant mortality rate and also administers more childhood vaccines than any other country? While the WHO, the CDC, and other organizations casually dismiss the possibility of such a link, a first-do-no-harm approach suggests using the precautionary principle; i.e. we should not assume that the increased number of vaccines given in this country is safe just because we do not have data suggesting otherwise. Since children's lives are at stake, we should err on the side of caution. Furthermore, although correlation does not prove causation, basic common sense suggests that, at the very least, the correlation between this country's quantity of vaccines and its infant mortality rate should be thoroughly investigated, given that both are the highest in the developed world.

    As hundreds of vaccines are currently in development and state governments across the country are pushing to make them all mandatory (as was recently enacted by SB 277 in California), the CDC will undoubtedly continue to increase the vaccine schedule, as it does every few years; in fact, 3 vaccines were added to the CDC schedule in February 2016. Furthermore, the government fully intends to expand its adult vaccination program, ultimately making vaccines mandatory for all adults, including pregnant women. Healthcare workers and educators are particularly targeted groups for adult vaccination programs because their compliance can be enforced by their employers, who in turn are threatened with decreased government funding or reimbursement if less than a certain percentage of their staff is vaccinated. Incidentally, as a nurse, I am finding it increasingly difficult to opt out of annual flu shots.

    The ability of the pharmaceutical industry to literally force its products inside our bodies, while bearing no responsibility for the safety of those products, is nothing less than criminal, medical tyranny. As Robert Kennedy, Jr., nephew of the assassinated 35th President, John F. Kennedy, stated in his article, "Deadly Immunity":
    I devoted time to study this issue because I believe that this is a moral crisis that must be addressed. If, as the evidence suggests, our public-health authorities knowingly allowed the pharmaceutical industry to poison an entire generation of American children, their actions arguably constitute one of the biggest scandals in the annals of American medicine.... It's hard to calculate the damage to our country—and to the international efforts to eradicate epidemic diseases—if Third World nations come to believe that America's most heralded foreign-aid initiative is poisoning their children. It's not difficult to predict how this scenario will be interpreted by America's enemies abroad. The scientists and researchers—many of them sincere, even idealistic—who are participating in efforts to hide the science on thimerosal claim that they are trying to advance the lofty goal of protecting children in developing nations from disease pandemics. They are badly misguided. Their failure to come clean on thimerosal will come back horribly to haunt our country and the world's poorest populations. (Kennedy, 2005)
    In 2005, Robert Kennedy, Jr., also discussed his sentiments about vaccine safety in this must-see, extremely candid interview with Former Congressman Joe Scarborough (Republican-Florida):Similar to vaccine mandates, the Connecticut Supreme Court recently ruled that the government can force a 17-year-old to receive chemotherapy against her parents' and her own will. Cassandra Callender's story is heartbreaking and, like vaccine mandates, is symptomatic of something gone very, very wrong in a country that is supposed to be a democracy, the land of the free, and a protector of free speech.

    In a recent Q&A session after a screening of VAXXED, producer Del Bigtree suggested that the CDC scandal and cover-up makes Watergate look like child's play. The fraud surrounding the CDC's MMR study places everything the government has told us under scrutiny. It is time to end the corruption.

    We have reached a historic moment in this country. We must demand the truth as the cloaks and masks hiding the mainstream media, the CDC, and other governmental agencies are being lifted. It is becoming increasingly evident that the mainstream news is little more than a scripted public relations campaign for government corruption and special interest groups, like the pharmaceutical companies. However, with the Internet and social media connecting us, we can communicate with family, friends, colleagues, and others halfway around the globe in real time. We can see news as it happens. That's why many are aware of the protests demanding the subpoena of Dr. Thompson that took place in front of the CDC last week, despite limited mainstream media coverage. (And, that's also why the federal government wants to censor and control the Internet.)

    Please note that I am in absolutely no way affiliated with the VAXXED documentary. I am just a concerned parent, citizen, and nurse sincerely trying to share information with fellow nurses about the very real, very serious—yet often denied—vaccine safety concerns, and the government corruption that has pushed these products onto our society and into our bodies.

    So, I am asking fellow nurses to do some independent research on vaccines and to share the information with family, friends, and colleagues. I am asking nurses to stop blindly defending and following the mainstream media's narrative on vaccines, which is full of soundbites and snippets from journal articles ghostwritten by pharmaceutical companies. I am asking nurses who have witnessed a vaccine injury in the workplace or elsewhere to speak out about it. I am asking nurses who have done so to apologize to patients for casually dismissing their vaccine concerns or reports of vaccine damage, due to trusting in the "science." (As mentioned later, there is no such thing as "settled science.") I am asking nurses who have ridiculed or shamed colleagues for simply questioning or even opposing vaccines to do the same. Finally, I am asking nurses to go see VAXXED, and to take others with them, when it arrives in their area ... for the sake of the country's (and the world's) children.

    Thank you very much for your time.


    P.S. If you find it an outrage that Congress has not yet subpoenaed Dr. William Thompson regarding his serious allegations of CDC scientific fraud, please call the House Energy and Commerce Committee at 202-225-2927 to demand justice.


    I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

    Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics.Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

    There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.
    ~Michael Crichton

    Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform (or pause and reflect).

    ~Mark Twain

    The more vaccinations are supported by public authorities, the more will their dangers and disadvantages be concealed or denied.

    ~M. Beddow Bayly

    Vaccination is a barbarous practice and one of the most fatal of all the delusions current in our time.... Conscientious objectors to vaccination should stand alone, if need be, against the whole world, in defense of their conviction.
    ~Mahatma Gandhi

    Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth.
    ~The Buddha



    Centers for Disease Control. (2014). Polio vaccination. Retrieved from

    Centers for Disease Control. (2016). Disease and safe water system impact. Retrieved from

    Horton, R. (2015). Offline: What is medicine’s 5 sigma? The Lancet, 385(9976), 1380.

    Kennedy, R. (2005). Deadly immunity. Retrieved from

    Lewis, D. L. (2014). Science for sale: How the US government uses powerful corporations and leading universities to support government policies, silence top scientists, jeopardize our health, and protect corporate profits (1st edition). New York: Skyhorse Publishing.

    Luby, S. P., Agboatwalla, M., Feikin, D. R., Painter, J., Billhimer, W., Altaf, A., & Hoekstra, R. M. (2005). Effect of handwashing on child health: a randomised controlled trial. The Lancet, 366(9481), 225–233.

    Vallerand, A., & Sanoski, C. (2014). PARoxetine hydrochloride. In Davis's Drug Guide for Nurses. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: F.A. Davis Company.