Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s recent nomination as Secretary of the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has ignited a firestorm of debate on “all things vaccine.” The debate will hopefully lead to a broader national conversation about the deteriorating condition of public health in the United States.
Our country has never had a robust, honest nationwide conversation about the controversial issue of vaccines, even though they have impacted everyone’s lives in significant ways.
Or, more accurately stated, this country has never been allowed to have such an in-depth honest discussion on the topic.
Why not?
The reality is that the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP, an industry trade group), numerous academic and scientific institutions, many politicians, and the corporate-controlled mainstream media (MSM) all receive copious funding from pharmaceutical manufacturers that rely heavily on their vaccine cash cow to maintain healthy profits.
With pharma companies spending some $20 billion a year schmoozing doctors, upwards of $4 billion a year advertising on national TV in the US alone (globally, about $35 billion a year) and $300 million a year lobbying Congress (more than comes from any other industry), it’s no wonder they assiduously avoid public scrutiny and sidestep open discussion of their products.
On the rare occasions when the vaccine discussion does arise, Big Pharma’s loyal lapdogs in the MSM produce the usual hit pieces, character assassinations, and tiresome pejoratives aimed at anyone who dares question the established medical doctrine, which asserts that vaccines are undeniably “safe and effective.”
Another deceptive tactic regularly used by the pharma-controlled media is astroturfing, where an orchestrated message is made to appear as though it originates from a grassroots organization or participant. This practice is intended to give credibility to messaging while hiding the sponsors who are behind it.
A recent example of how astroturfing works can be seen in this interview on CNN, in which a formerly “antivaxx mom” attempts to discredit RFK Jr. A little sleuthing reveals that this mom, who is being sold to the audience as an independent operator trying rectify her past “anti-vaxx” sins, has been given an unbelievable amount of domestic and international press and is embedded in an astroturf organization funded by the HHS/CDC to spread their pro-vaccine agenda.
These manipulative and bullying tactics, coupled with an unquestioning pro-vaccine bias, constitute a form of propaganda that is designed to thwart substantive, evidence-based discussion.
Another recent example: In an attempt to manage the direction of the pending debate on vaccines, ABC, CNN, and NBC’s Meet the Press all rolled out former acting CDC Director Dr. Richard Besser to discuss Kennedy’s appointment — an appointment Besser called “chilling.”
These major media outlets failed in their ethical obligation to fully disclose all the facts. They did not inform viewers that their “expert,” Dr. Besser, is the current president and CEO of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. As it turns out, the RWJF is one of the partners and financial supporters of the Human Vaccines Project. Other backers of the HVP include Pfizer, GSK, Regeneron, and Sanofi Pasteur.
These same media giants also failed to mention the aggressively pro-vaccine statement Dr. Besser made in the wake of the US Food and Drug Administration’s approval of a certain Covid vaccine:
“The FDA’s decision to grant full approval of the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine is grounded in science and the real-world experience of administering hundreds of millions of vaccine doses in the United States. This confirms the safety and incredible effectiveness of this vaccine.
“It is time for schools, businesses, health care facilities, and other indoor places where people congregate to mandate COVID-19 vaccines for admittance for all who are vaccine-eligible.”
In other words, instead of promoting an informative debate, in which different voices are invited to point out the possible merits or the potential dangers of vaccines, these “journalists” offered the American public an industry insider who favors vaccine mandates, rejects parental choice, and dares declare: “The idea that receiving vaccines would be parental choice scares me.”
Fortunately, the mainstream media is now widely seen as intentionally duplicitous and has become increasingly irrelevant, as is clear by their crashing ratings. Rolling out yet another medical “expert” with blatant conflicts of interest only serves to put another hole in that sinking ship.
As the momentum for this discussion grows and as awareness about the harms of vaccines expands, the public is becoming increasingly starved for more actual information in order to make their own informed decisions, even if that means flouting the advice of pharma lobbyists put in front of the cameras to parrot the party line.
The amount of information that has been accumulating about the dangerous ingredients in vaccines is vast — and could be overwhelming to the average citizen. But the core issue is remarkably easy to understand.
Indeed, the primary consideration is whether the shibboleth that vaccines are “safe and effective” can stand up to scrutiny.
Simply put: Are vaccines really safe? Are vaccines really effective?
In an attempt to answer the first question, about safety, we can start by looking at the numerous studies that have been done on childhood vaccines.
What these studies reveal, among other things, is that not a single routine childhood vaccine has been licensed based on a long-term placebo-controlled trial. A fully referenced chart that documents this fact can be seen here.
Additional problems and contradictions crop up when trying to answer the question of vaccine safety.
“Safety” contradiction #1: If vaccines are safe, why does the pharmaceutical industry demand liability protection from harms that allegedly don’t exist?
“Safety” contradiction #2: Since there are now many multivalent vaccines, why are there no studies that examine their combined and synergistic impacts?
“Safety” contradiction #3: Given that no vaccine has ever had long-term trials done on it, how can a guarantee of long-term safety be made? One of the more egregious examples of this contradiction is that the Hepatitis B given to newborns has only five days of safety monitoring after injection.
“Safety” contradiction #4: Given that vaccines are studied only in healthy children, how can they be declared safe for all the chronically ill children?
Similar confounding contradictions crop up when we look at vaccines’ supposed “effectiveness.”
The most obvious contradiction is that if no long-term studies have been done, how is it possible to know that these products have long-term health benefits and cause no long-term harm to health?
The “accepted truth” that the benefits from vaccines are “undeniable” is said to be proven through the “accepted belief” that certain diseases have been radically reduced or eliminated due to vaccination.
But the evidence shows otherwise.
As noted in these charts, the reality is that in case after case the diseases were virtually eradicated before the vaccine designed to prevent them ever existed.
Another question that must be asked: If vaccines are the medical miracles they are alleged to be, then why wouldn’t the medical industry publish large unvaxxed versus vaxxed studies? After all, wouldn’t the makers of vaccines want to prove that their vaccines produce healthier children? Their silence on the subject can be explained by the fact that the few vaxxed versus unvaxxed comparative studies that have been done have suggested the exact opposite conclusion. Namely, that their vaccines do not create more health but instead cause more illness.
One of the last refuges vaccine proponents seek when trying to make a case for “effectiveness” is that vaccinated children could be infected by unvaccinated children. Dr. Besser employed this scaremongering tactic during his interview on CNN when he said:
“You know, sending a child to school, you need to have that confidence that the child sitting next to them isn’t going to give them measles or whooping cough because their parent decided that they didn’t want to get their child vaccinated because they’re hearing all of this misinformation.”
One of the problems with this line of reasoning is that outbreaks of mumps and whooping cough in nearly or fully vaccinated population numbers in the tens of thousands in recent years. And many cases of measles are in fully vaccinated individuals as well.
Another issue with this illogical line of reasoning is that it illustrates a lack of confidence in the effectiveness of vaccines. After all if the vaccine worked as advertised why would it be problematic for a vaccinated child to sit next to an unvaccinated child ?
Thankfully, fewer and fewer parents are accepting such obvious gaslighting.
What these discussions in the MSM reveal is a profound lack of integrity, where even the most fundamental issues surrounding vaccines are off-limits from the get-go.
Here are a few other considerations:
- When have we ever heard such a discussion about the ingredients used to manufacture vaccines?
- When have we ever heard any discussion about the enormous conflicts of interest that define virtually every aspect of the vaccine industry?
- When have we ever heard about the perverse incentives that have caused an explosion in the number of vaccines added in the past 40 years to the US childhood vaccination schedule?
All of these vaccine-specific questions and many more deserve a robust public debate. The goal should be to give American parents the opportunity to make informed decisions for themselves and their children on matters of public health.
It is our hope that this open debate is what we shall have with RFK Jr. at the HHS helm.
