Category Archives: vaccines

Journal of Pediatrics Refused to Get Vaccine Paper Reviewed

I sent them a paper that directly contradicts and cogently critiques their editorial and cites (and links, see for yourself) dozens of main stream peer reviewed papers not considered in previous safety surveys. The papers suggest huge problems, for example, that early vaccines are killing 4 US babies in 1000, and some of the biggest culprits, btw, are likely vaccines like Hep B for which there is no reasonable argument to give them so early. Their response is to refuse to consider the paper, or even send it to referees. Also, all my new citations are within the last 10 years, many within the last few years. The easiest way to see Le Bon Crowd think in the sciences: they have closed their minds (and the minds of any Pediatricians who might read my paper). When everybody assumes they are right and refuses to look at new evidence, you have crowd think for obvious reasons.

Ref.:  Ms. No. 2014624
The Published Data Indicates Early Adjuvanted Vaccines Are Dangerous
The Journal of Pediatrics

Dear Dr. [Philosopher],

Your manuscript has been evaluated by the Editors.  We are sorry to inform you that we will not be able to publish your manuscript in The Journal of Pediatrics.

Because of limited space, we are able to accept <20% of submitted manuscripts.  In reaching an editorial decision, the Editors considered the priority for publication, the quality of the manuscript, the novelty of the observation, and appropriateness for our readership.  

If a manuscript does not fulfill the requirements of The Journal of Pediatrics, we do not send it out for peer review.  This allows the authors to obtain a prompt decision, and to prepare their manuscript for resubmission elsewhere without delay.

We are sorry that we cannot allow resubmission.  Thank you for sending this paper for our consideration.  


Sarah S. Long, M.D.
Associate Editor

William F. Balistreri, M.D.


Why? Why are the Pediatricians, and the Global Warmists,  So Confused About the Science?

We stipulate that we have proved in post 1 that Pediatric practice is delusional about the actual state of the scientific literature.
The question we must next address is, why?

Global Warmism is a similar delusion , and has been for decades, although its now been somewhat outed by two decades of no warming and the dump of a bunch of emails showing insiders conspiring to “hide the decline” and to persecute dissenters. These communities have other things in common: both have featured an essentially religious intolerance of dissent as heresy and other religious aspects  (See eg Crichton’s Caltech Lecture) as well as ad hominem attacks and actions to persecute or remove from the academic community dissenters, and in both cases calls for laws against dissent.

A third example bearing some resemblance, within the very technical heart of physics, is given by the reception of the discovery of quasi-crystals, as shown in this interview with their discoverer (10 minute video).  Note even this third example features a religious style intolerance of dissent, including purging a scientist for refusing to recant the rational interpretation of a photograph he could point to and had published.

In each of these scientific cases, and in the number of historical cases discussed by Crichton in the above link, the scientific literature process worked to the extent that it did result in the truth being discovered and published. Thus in each of these cases any competent scientist could eventually read the technical literature and come to the conclusion that it overwhelmingly favored the correct (yet unpopular) hypothesis, if he was open minded and not somehow possessed by crowd psychology, presuming he looked at both sides of the debate and read and understood the articles seeking the answers to physical questions. (This is my subjective opinion, but I wouldn’t consider someone a competent scientist and open minded/not posessed if he or she failed this test.)

However, in each of these cases, the beliefs, or at least statements and actions, of the substantial majority of pediatricians in the first case or scientists in the relevant field in the second, are oblivious to the rational interpretation of the scientific literature.

This raises the questions:
(1) How can they be so confused?
(2) How can we model and understand the actual decision processes and dynamics being represented in these examples?
(3) What else in the world is this confused? What am I confused about?
(4) What can be done to avoid this kind of state of confusion in the future? Preferably to fix the world, but if not at least so rational individuals can detect it? (I speak as someone who previously vaccinated my kids.) Proposed answers to this we will leave to later posts.

Our normal expectation that these collections of individuals have determined their beliefs and practices by a logical, scientific process, is empirically proven wrong. Instead the observed facts are explained much better by the model espoused by Gustav Le Bon in his 1895 book The Crowd, the first work on group psychology, and arguably the most insightful. Although largely forgotten today,  this work has had extraordinary influence. By their own accounts it was on Theodore Roosevelt’s bedside table, and  dogeared by Mussolini. Lenin and Stalin took from it, and “Hitler’s indebtedness to Le Bon bordered on plagiarism” in the words of historian and Hitler-biographer Robert G. L. Waite. Sigmund Freud wrote a book discussing Le Bon, which we will quote from below, and Edward Bernays, the father of modern public relations, acknowledged his deep debt, as Goebbels did of Bernays’ reflected insights. So this wouldn’t be the first predictive power displayed by Le Bon’s model: every one of the above luminaries was very happy with their practical applications of Le Bon.

I will suggest that the Vaccinists, as I will call them, and the Global Warmists (incidentally, I believe I may have been among the first to employ the term Global Warmist), are psychological crowds in the sense of Le Bon and discuss the characteristics they obtain from this. Then I will briefly discuss dynamics and forces causing Le Bon crowd-like behavior from more modern perspectives.

Le Bon described the common features of crowds, and also tried to list a few subtypes of crowds. The Vaccinists and the Global Warmists each seem to surround and reflect an influential subcrowd of the type that Le Bon called a caste. “The CASTE represents the highest degree of organisation to which the crowd is susceptible… the caste is composed of individuals of the same profession, and in consequence similarly educated and of much the same social status.

In the words of Gustav Le Bon:

Under certain circumstances, and only under those circumstances, an agglomeration of men presents new characteristics very different from those of the individuals composing it. The sentiments and ideas of all the persons in the gathering take one and the same direction, and their conscious personality vanishes. A collective mind is formed, doubtless transitory, but presenting very clearly defined characteristics. The gathering has thus become what, in the absence of a better expression, I will call an organised crowd, or, if the term is considered preferable, a psychological crowd. It forms a single being, and is subject to the Law of the Mental Unity of Crowds…

The most striking peculiarity presented by a psychological crowd is the following: Whoever be the individuals that compose it, however like or unlike be their mode of life, their occupations, their character, or their intelligence, the fact that they have been transformed into a crowd puts them in possession of a sort of collective mind which makes them feel, think, and act in a manner quite different from that in which each individual of them would feel, think, and act were he in a state of isolation.”…

“Juries are seen to deliver verdicts of which each individual juror would disapprove, … parliamentary assemblies adopt laws and measures of which each of their members would disapprove in his own person. Taken separately, the men of the Convention were enlightened citizens of peaceful habits. United in a crowd, they did not hesitate to give their adhesion to the most savage proposals, to guillotine individuals most clearly innocent, and, contrary to their interests, to renounce their inviolability and to decimate themselves.”…

“It is not necessary that a crowd should be numerous for the faculty of seeing what is taking place before its eyes to be destroyed and for the real facts to be replaced with hallucinations unrelated to them….

“To return to the faculty of observation possessed by crowds, our conclusion is that their collective observations are as erroneous as possible, and that most often they merely represent the illusion of an individual who, by a process of contagion, has suggestioned his fellows.”…

After describing numerous documented examples where crowds of witnesses were bizarrely wrong, Le Bon continues:

“The events with regard to which there exists the most doubt are certainly those which have been observed by the greatest number of persons. To say that a fact has been simultaneously verified by thousands of witnesses is to say, as a rule, that the real fact is very different from the accepted account of it.”…

“By the mere fact that an individual forms part of a crowd, his intellectual standard is immediately and considerably lowered….

“The inferior reasoning of crowds is based, just as is the reasoning of a high order, on the association of ideas, but between the ideas associated by crowds there are only apparent bonds of analogy or succession. The mode of reasoning of crowds resembles that of the Esquimaux who, knowing from experience that ice, a transparent body, melts in the mouth, concludes that glass, also a transparent body, should also melt in the mouth…
The characteristics of the reasoning of crowds are the association of dissimilar things possessing a merely apparent connection between each other, and the immediate generalization of particular cases. It is arguments of this kind that are always presented to crowds by those who know how to manage them. They are the only arguments by which crowds are to be influenced. A chain of logical argumentation is totally incomprehensible to crowds…”

“Crowds being only capable of thinking in images are only impressed by images. It is only images that terrify or attract them and become motives of action….

“It would be superfluous to add that the powerlessness of crowds to reason aright prevents them displaying any trace of the critical spirit, prevents them, that is, from being capable of discerning truth from error, or of forming a precise judgement on any matter.”…

“How is the imagination of crowds to be impressed?… the feat is never to be achieved by attempting to work upon the intelligence or reasoning faculty, that is to say, by way of demonstration. It was not by means of cunning rhetoric that Antony succeeded in making the populace rise against the murderers of Caesar; it was by reading his will to the multitude and pointing to his corpse…

“appearances have always played a much more important part than reality in history, where the unreal is always of greater moment than the real”…

It is not,then, the facts in themselves that strike the popular imagination, but the way in which they take place and are brought under notice. It is necessary that by their condensation, if I may thus express myself, they should produce a startling image which fills and besets the mind. To know the art of impressing the imagination of crowds is to know at the same time the art of governing them…

We have shown that crowds do not reason, that they accept or reject ideas as a whole, that they tolerate neither discussion nore contradiction, and that the suggestions brought to bear on them invade the entire field of their understanding and tend at once to transform themselves into acts…

When these convictions [of crowds] are closely examined,…, it is apparent that they always assume a particular form which I can not better define than giving it the name of a religious sentiment…
Intolerance and fanatacism are the necessary accompaniments of the religious sentiment. They are inevitably displayed by those who believe themselves in the possession of the secret of earthly or eternal happiness. These two characteristics are to be found in all men grouped together when they are inspired by a conviction of any kind. The Jacobins of the Reign of Terror were at bottom as religious as the Catholics of the Inquisition, and their cruel ardour proceeded from the same source. The convictions of crowds assume those characteristics of blind submission, fierce intolerance, and the need of violent propaganda which are inherent in the religious sentiment, and it is for this reason that it may be said that all their beliefs have a religous form.

Whether the feelings exhibited by a crowd be good or bad, they present the double character of being very simple and very exaggerated… a throng knows neither doubt nor uncertainty.

Experience alone can fix in the minds of crowds truths become necessary and destroy illusions grown dangerous– Experience is only effective on the condition that it be frequently repeated.

I see in both Vaccinism and Global Warmism, the science captured by a series of images painting a stirring vision, but with logical holes that the crowd simply is blind to. I see in the religious intolerance against skeptics in global warmism and vaccinism as well as in persecutions, the religious position Le Bon described. I see in two decades of no warming, experience that is maybe finally changing the minds of global warmists.

Why do crowds adopt crowd think?

We will look at this question from a few perspectives.

  1. What changes occur in individuals that lead to different behavior?
  2. What system effects lead to the behaviors?
  3. Why was this evolutionarily useful?

Before addressing the first, Le Bon reminds us:

it is necessary in the first place to call to mind the truth established by modern psychology, that unconscious phenomena play an altogether preponderating part not only in organic life, but also in operations of the intelligence. The conscious life of the mind is of small importance in comparison with its unconscious life. The most subtle analyst, the most acute observer, is scarcely successful in discovering more than a very small number of the unconscious motives that determine his conduct. Our conscious acts are the outcome of an unconscious substratum created in the mind in the main by hereditary influences. This substratum consists of the innumerable common characteristics handed down from generation to generation, which constitute the genius of a race. Behind the avowed causes of our acts there undoubtedly lie secret causes that we do not avow, but behind these secret causes there are many others more secret still, of which we ourselves are ignorant. The greater part of our daily actions are the result of hidden motives which escape our observation.”

Psychophysics experiments back this up, for example the work of Gur and Sackheim demonstrating that people’s galvanic skin response knows things about the world not revealed to the consciousness. Trivers argued that this provides evidence our conscious is merely the salesman of our self who can deal with the outside world better if he is kept in the dark about some matters.
Also the conformity experiments of Solomon Asch showed that crowd effects reach to effect many people’s visual perception.

Le Bon describes 3 changes that happen to the individuals in crowds:

First, “the individual forming part of a group acquires, solely from numerical considerations, a sentiment of invincible power which allows him to yield to instincts which, had he been alone, he would perforce have kept under restraint.”

Freud interprets this, in his commentary, as “[he] throws off repressions of his unconscious instincts.

Second, per Le Bon: “Contagion… must be classed among those phenomena of a hypnotic order. In a group every sentiment and act is contagious, and contagious to such a degree that an individual readily sacrifices his personal interest to collective interest. This is an aptitude very contrary to his nature, and of which a man is scarcely capable, except when he makes a part of a group.”

Third: Suggestibility …
Such also is approximately the state of the individual forming part of a psychological group. He is no longer conscious of his acts. In his case, as in the case of the hypnotised subject, at the same time that certain faculties are destroyed, others may be brought to a high degree of exaltation. Under the influence of a suggestion, he will undertake the accomplishment of certain acts with irresistable impetuousity. This impetuousity is the more irresistable in the case of groups than in that of the hypnotised subject, from the fact that, the suggestion being the same for all the individuals of the group, it gains in strength by reciprocity.
We see, then, that the disappearance of the conscious personality, the predominance of the unconscious personality, the turning by means of suggestion and contagion of feelings and ideas in an identical direction, the tendency to immediately transform the suggested ideas into acts; these we see are the principal characteristics of the individual forming part of a group. He is no longer himself but has become an automaton who has ceased to be guided by his will.”

Freud says of this last “I have quoted this passage so fully in order to make it quite clear that Le Bon explains the condition of an individual in a group as being actually hypnotic, and does not merely make a comparison between the two states. We have no intention of raising any objection at this point”.
Freud says of the whole picture: ” let us now … turn to the group mind, as it has been outlined by Le Bon. It shows not a single feature which a psycho-analyst would find any difficulty in placing or deriving from its source. Le Bon himself shows us the way by pointing to its similarity with the mental life of primitive people and of children.

Why do crowds adopt crowd think?
(1) An evolutionary adaptation: crowds can be readily put into unified action, which may allow progress and certainly facilitates war. Le Bon felt much progress came from this.
(2) A part of or by-product of the religious impulse, why ever we have that.
(3)  Most individuals can’t think for themselves, or don’t want to, plus its expensive, took me months of reading the vaccine literature, or even those who want to and can, in a world of division of labor can’t possibly think everything through for themselves. I was capable of thinking through vaccines for myself, but never did while I previously vaccinated my children. So one false but confident or enthusiastic opinion can propagate a long way.
(4) The few who reason out the correct answer, can do little to convince others who aren’t open to rational argumentation, they are just mirroring the consensus. As Le Bon put it “The individualities in the crowd who might possess a personality sufficiently strong to resist the suggestion are too few in number to struggle against the current. At the utmost, they may be able to attempt a diversion by means of different suggestions.
(Do you think my article in post 1 will change anything? Not according to Le Bon, rational argumentation will never successfully persuade a crowd.)
(5) Moreover, given the religious intolerance, thinking for yourself can be dangerous or harmful.
(6) Perception is likely a race process within the brain/mind, where different interpretations of perceptual data recruit support and suppress alternatives. If someone hands you an interpretation of data, even basic perceptual data like vision of an image, that gives their interpretation a big head start. This may explain the bizarre visual hallucinations of crowds that Le Bon documents, and/or the crowd-perceptual hallucinations reported by Asch?
(7) Likewise, a big part of perception of the crowd may be a race as well. In addition to the tendency of individuals to be suggestible, and the desire to conform, there is simple laziness or inability to form an independent opinion. But if almost everybody is trusting, if the wrong answer is appealing because of the right images, it may win out, and the few individuals who actually have thought through to the right answer can do nothing to stem the tide.
(8) Milgram authority experiment => blindly accept authority, which leads again to propagation of erroneous ideas.
(9) Then of course there’s the possibility that the crowd will be deliberately manipulated by people or interests, as has been demonstrated by Teddy Roosevelt, Hitler, Mussolini, etc, as mentioned above. Al Gore? This of course has been happening since before Mark Anthony read Caesar’s will, but since the publication of Le Bon provided a guide book, seems to have become a lot more common.

They’re the National Academy. I’m Just Some Blogger on the Internet

I found another survey, from the National Academies Press, by Committee on the Assessment of Studies of Health Outcomes Related to the Recommended Childhood Immunization Schedule; Board on Population Health and Public Health Practice; Institute of Medicine of the National Academies,

The Childhood Immunization Schedule and Safety:
Stakeholder Concerns, Scientific Evidence, and Future Studies (2013)
237 pages.

So why did they reach a different conclusion than me?
Well, first off, they didn’t cite a single paper I cited except Smith and  Woods.
They didn’t consider the animal data at all, even though  animal studies can reliably establish causality while epidemiological studies are inherently plagued by confounders and can never establish causality or lack thereof.
They made no effort to compare vaccinated to unvaccinated.
They made no attempt to look at aluminum adjuvants, to seek epidemiological studies that would be particularly pertinent to the question of whether they are causing damage.
They made no mention, I don’t believe, of facts like infants get 100’s of times as much aluminum from vaccines as from diet (after factoring in the fact that the body is tuned so that 99.75% of dietary aluminum passes right through). (For citations see previous post.) The physics or biology or toxicology is not discussed, they are looking at epidemiology alone.
They made no evident attempt to examine the papers they cited to understand if they were so plagued by confounders as to be worthless, or possibly even indicating the opposite of what they claimed.

Basically, the paper describes how they went through a large, committee-based, group think process rather than any individual sitting down, looking at the science, saying what are the important questions here, and asking what is the actual answer to these questions. They went through the literature systematically by a specifically described committee process first deciding on search terms etc before considering the science, and their process apparently threw out all the most interesting papers and questions.

Does this remind anyone of the IPCC?

If we want society to reach better decisions, we need to provide a more rational review process than giant committees. More on this later.

Example 1: Pediatric Practice is Opposite The Published Scientific Evidence On Early Vaccine Safety

The title sounds like a troll, but I will make it precise and document it with more than two dozen citations below, each linked. The precise statement will be falsifiable by a comment if I’m wrong.

The last few years I’ve come to realize that much of what I always implicitly thought true, is in fact a mirage, and come to understand much about why the world is the very different way it is, and something about how we might all better reach enlightenment.  I hope to explain this in some technical detail, and in return spark comments that enlighten me. I will begin with an example in the field of medical science, but examples in other fields will follow later, as well as discussion of why such crazy examples exist, and general first principle discussions in natural philosophy. By natural philosophy I mean the methods and rationality of physics applied to all, including philosophy and the affairs and inner workings of people.

I begin by posting the draft of a review article I intend to submit for publication in The Journal of Pediatrics, after a few days to let any readers out there post cogent comments or citations I should incorporate. If and when I get referee reports and the like back, I will post those too, even if they make me look stupid, as well as any responses I send back.

   The Published Data Shows Early Adjuvanted Vaccines are Dangerous

Abstract: We survey numerous publications on injections of  antigens or vaccine relevant quantities of aluminum salts into infant animal models, all of which report that they induce autoimmune disease or  brain damage if they occur during critical periods in development or are sufficiently repeated. We survey epidemiological studies bearing on the same issues, and find they support similar conclusions. We are unable to find cogent support in the peer-reviewed literature for the safety of injecting vaccines into infants. We make a few predictions about what other proposed epidemiological analyses would show. We remark on previous surveys that have failed to include any of the evidence surveyed here.

In 2002 the National Vaccine Program Office (NVPO) convened an expert group to study safety issues with adjuvants in vaccines. Among their conclusions:

pervasive uncertainty [from] missing data on pharmocokinetics and toxicities of aluminum injected into humans… There seems to be abundant data concerning risk levels for ingested aluminum, but scant data about risk levels for injected aluminum. The oral minimum risk level, for example, appears to be in the range of 2–60 mg/kg of aluminum per day but there are no comparable data for injected aluminum.”[1]

Doctors had been injecting aluminum adjuvants into children for 70 years, committees of doctors and government officials had decided numerous times to inject more aluminum into younger children, but as late as 2002 nobody had empirical data on toxicities of injected aluminum [1].

Since 2002 there has been extensive research. Infants get hundreds of times as much aluminum from vaccines as they do from breast milk [2, sec 4.2; 3]. Although some had suggested adjuvants would be safe because “most of the aluminum that enters the body is eliminated quickly” by the kidneys [4], this doesn’t apply to the particular salts of aluminum used in vaccines, particularly when they are bound up with antigens [2,sec 4.2]. Indeed this appears to be a design feature in making vaccines effective. Injections into infant animals of simple antigens, never mind antigen-aluminum combos, caused long-term brain damage when the injections occurred during critical periods in development, even when such injections would have been harmless at other times [2,sec 4.4; 5; 6]. A purpose of the adjuvant is to provoke a stronger response from infants’ immature immune systems than they would normally be capable of [7], indicating that, in fact, injecting adjuvanted vaccines may be more stressful than injecting the antigens that cause the brain damage in animal experiments [2 sec 4.4].  Immunizing mice 8 times with an antigen was reported to cause systemic autoimmunity [8], as did hyper-immunizing them for tetanus [9].  An H1n1 vaccine caused narcolepsy in some children by instigating an autoimmune attack on part of their brains [10].   An entire issue of Lupus [11,table of contents at ] was recently devoted to ‘ASIA’ – autoimmune/inflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants [12], with at least 9 papers each presenting data indicating numerous autoimmune problems are caused by vaccine adjuvants.  Injections of aluminum into infant rats and mice in amounts comparable to what human infants receive resulted in brain inflammation and damage [13, 2 sec 4.5], and in an experiment where an analog of the aluminum content of the US vaccine series, and of the Swedish vaccine series, were injected into infant mice, the US series resulted in huge behavioral deficits (and 50% heavier adult mice) and the Swedish series resulted in lesser problems [14].

Also there have been epidemiological studies. Aluminum adjuvant levels are highly correlated with autism within countries across time and across countries [2], they are correlated across the 50 states with a 1% rise in vaccine compliance rate being associated with 680 extra cases of autism or language impairment (SLI)[15], Hep B shots (given early, with lots of aluminum) are highly correlated with autism [16] and with learning disability [17], the number of vaccines in a country’s schedule is highly correlated with infant mortality [18]. For each 7 vaccines added to a country’s schedule, there  is associated a rise in  the infant mortality rate of 1 per 1000, regressed over the 34 countries with lowest infant mortality rate. The US currently has 26 recommended vaccines before one year of age, and an IMR of 6.22 [18]. Some of the above studies are largely equivalent to the existence of a hidden factor (which might or might not be rising vaccines) causing rising autism at the same time as rising vaccines (strangely enough like the arguments most often given for vaccine effectiveness), but the ones adding in geographic dispersion each add in another independent degree of evidence.

I’ve so far found  only a handful of relevant papers that have been or might be seen as evidence for the other side, as discussed below. Every single published paper I’ve found in the scientific literature that reports empirical data on injections of aluminum or antigens into animal models, reports data that includes causing autoimmune disease or developmental brain damage. Every epidemiological study I’ve seen that reports data relevant to whether injecting  vaccines containing aluminum adjuvants into infants reports data suggesting its damaging, with a few exceptions that have been claimed one time or another to support safety. I will review these below.

DeStefano et al [20] has been cited as reporting: “The Risk of Autism Is Not Increased by ‘Too Many Vaccines Too Soon’”[21]. Unfortunately this paper, as indicated in its title, “Increasing Exposure to Antibody-Stimulating Proteins and Polysaccharides in Vaccines Is Not Associated with Risk of Autism”, compares patients who received more antigens rather than patients who receive more aluminum adjuvants. This compares one group of vaccinated patients to another, and there is no reason to believe either group had more aluminum, nor in fact much reason to believe they had more or earlier vaccines, nor does the paper make such a claim. So they wouldn’t find a connection even if adjuvant aluminum were the sole cause of autism.

According to table 1 in DeStefano, DTP has 3004 antigens, while no other vaccine except typhoid, which hardly appears in the data set, has a large number. So what their study effectively compares are high-antigen patients, those who got DTP, who score over 3004 antigens, and low antigen patients, who got other vaccines such as DTaP but did not get DTP, who score several dozen antigens if they got everything else but typhoid. Their claimed results indicate that DTP isn’t dramatically more likely to produce autism than DTaP, in patients who also got other vaccines. What’s particularly frustrating about this is it looks to me like if they just reanalyzed their data to weight by adjuvant content rather than antigens, replace table 1 with aluminum table and process, they would have a more pertinent result.

Every health comparison between vaccinated populations and unvaccinated populations I’ve seen, except as discussed below, the unvaccinated populations were much healthier. For example, here is a chart comparing chronic disease rates of a large German government survey of their vaccinated population to an unofficial, self-volunteered, survey of over 13,000 unvaccinated children.[22]


Something over 1/4 of the US population has at least one chronic disease, but much fewer unvaccinated people seem to. But perhaps these results are fully explained by hidden factors, maybe the unvaccinated are generally skeptical of doctors, and so get diagnosed less, or maybe only the healthy ones fill out surveys. This is always true of epidemiological studies as well. It’s hard to rule out hidden factors.

Two studies compared vaccinated to unvaccinated in developing nations, one in rural Guinea-Bissau in the 1990’s[23], and one in the Philippines in the early 1980’s[19] Note that in both these places the early vaccine schedule consists of BCG (or TB), DTP, and OPV, in the first months of life, and measles or MMR at 18 months. The only vaccine in this list with injected adjuvant is DTP.  These surveys found large unvaccinated populations, but the unvaccinated were clearly more deprived than the vaccinated– as shown by data like access to clean water and mothers’ education. So hidden factors appear to clearly favor the vaccinated.

In rural Guinea-Bisseau, scientists polled 15,351 mothers of 6 month olds to see which infants were vaccinated, and then came back a year later to see who was still alive. Kids who’d gotten at least one vaccine had a relative mortality of .74 compared to kids who’d gotten none. After cluster, age, and other vaccines were adjusted for, BCG was associated with mortality (0.55 (0.36 to 0.85)). However, recipients of at least one dose of DTP  had relative mortality (1.84 (1.10 to 3.10))  and recipients of one dose of OPV had relative mortality 1.81 (1.07 to 3.05). Recipients of measles vaccine had a mortality ratio of 0.48 (0.27 to 0.87). When deaths from measles were excluded from the analysis the mortality ratio was 0.51 (0.28 to 0.95).[23]

A second study in Guinea-Bisseau reports that having previously gotten DTP in addition to OPV more than doubled mortality for kids in the pediatric ward up to 5 years of age compared to kids who only got OPV, from 6% to 15%.[24]

These results suggest that DTP, and possibly OPV,  are doing harm. A hypothesis suggested by the above animal data on early injections, is that DTP is damaging the immune systems of the recipients so that they die of various causes. Moreover, BCG is a scratch, not an injection, and it’s effectiveness is controversial [25]. A hypothesis consistent with these facts is that BCG vaccine is serving largely as a placebo, doing neither harm nor good but merely a proxy for propensity to get vaccinated, a hidden factor representing parental circumstances and child raising skills. If that is the correct explanation, then the true increased mortality compared to a placebo for DTP in Guinea-Bisseau would be at least 3. Since measles deaths were not a factor,  and MMR is given at 18 months and does not contain adjuvants, MMR could have a similar role here.

In the Philippines, Bloom et al looked at scores on intelligence test results at about 12 years of age for a  population surveyed on vaccines at 24 months. They found a sample of only 85 children who had received all of DPT, measles, polio, and TB, and  a control sample of 1022 children who had received none of them, out of a total survey of 1975 children. Note the survivorship bias in the data. Any children who died before age 12  either from receiving the vaccines or from not receiving them, were not counted, and its unclear whether children who developed severe problems like autism would have been included either. They attempted to deal with the  hidden factor bias by choosing matched members of the unvaccinated for the vaccinated, based on fitting a simple linear regression to features like mother’s education and water supply in home. They then found that the fully vaccinated scored about half a standard deviation higher on cognitive tests and were about the same height and weight as the fully unvaccinated, although they note “the matching of treatment and control groups may be imperfect if there are unobserved confounding factors that affect both vaccination and cognitive development. We therefore do not see our results as definitive.”

A problem with this is there seems to be an evident confounding factor. It seems likely that virtually every parent in the Philippines, or at least virtually every intelligent, educated parent motivated to invest in their children, would have as an important goal vaccinating their children. If basic intelligence has any meaning, it is highly connected to ability to succeed at difficult real world tasks on which other, less intelligent people, might fail; and this task of getting children vaccinated further folds in motivation to invest in children. Thus succeeding in this task seems in and of itself as strong a proxy for propensity to produce smart children as one could think to devise. By choosing to consider only fully vaccinated children, Bloom et al have selected a group that is fully 1.5 to 2 standard deviations ahead of the mean at this proxy, the top 85 out of 1975 individuals in the distribution, and the controls are all in the lower half of the bell curve, so the  mean vaccinated are perhaps 2.5 standard deviations ahead of the mean control in this measure of propensity to produce smart children. That they are finding only .5 standard deviation increase in test scores and no benefit in height from this factor suggests the explanation that the vaccines are causing a 2 standard deviation loss compared to a placebo. I would suggest they reanalyze their data to deal with hidden factors as in the Guinea-Bisseau studies, by comparing individuals who got at least 1 DTP shot to individuals who got no vaccines, and that they compare individuals who got only BCG to individuals who got DTP. I predict if they do, they will find results like the Guinea-Bisseau studies showing that the early adjuvanted vaccination is causing damage.

Another study[26] compared outcomes in a largely unvaccinated population in Papua, New Guinea, reporting almost opposite results to the Guinea-Bisseau study, eg they found DTP greatly decreased mortality rates.  This study attempted to control for confounding factors using the method of propensity scores,  “an efficient estimator of the
adjustment estimand, formed by an arbitrary set of covariates S; it makes no statement
regarding the appropriateness of S, nor does it promise to correct for any confounding
bias, or to refrain from creating new bias where none exists.”[27,p 349] The set of covariates they corrected for did not contain the type of proxies for parental circumstances and abilities that the above two studies controlled for such as whether there is water or a toilet in the home, or maternal education or vaccine status. As with each of the above studies, it appears highly likely that parents with a high prior propensity to vaccinate their children also have a high propensity to feed them well and maintain sanitary circumstances. Furthermore, they binned by set of vaccines given, so that a patient who had only BCG would contribute person-days to the BCG bin until they died or got another vaccine, say DTP, in which case they began to contribute person days to the BCG+DTP bin. This method inherently biases the bins for fewer vaccines to be over-weighted with data for younger patients relative to bins for vaccine supersets, and since in their data the mortality rate for the youngest patients was far higher than for older ones, this injects a substantial bias into their reported results.

We found one other study[28] that is sometimes presented[29] as evidence for vaccine safety. Smith and Woods compared neuro-psychological results for patients who’d gotten all vaccines on time, compared to patients who hadn’t, and found no substantial differences. This study has essentially the same crucial confounder as the Philippines study in that demonstrated ability to give all the vaccines on time is a real world intelligence test and intuitively a strong proxy for prior propensity to produce smart children. In this case they roughly compared the upper half of their distribution to the lower half, so arguably started about a standard deviation ahead according to this prior propensity. Note also they are comparing one group of vaccinated children to another, who might even have gotten vaccines earlier in some cases, just not at the right times. Note also that some vaccines might have been postponed because the child was in some way unwell, or because the patient had had a bad reaction to prior vaccinations, the latter of which actually serves to bias the lower vaccine group to contain vaccine casualties if such exist.

Two other papers are sometimes suggested as defending vaccine aluminum[30,31]. Mitkus et al and Keith et al model the aluminum level in infants blood, and compare it to an MRL based on feeding post-weaning mice aluminum almost until they look visibly sick, and dividing the amount it took by 30. Both papers concur that infants receive hundreds as times as much aluminum in their blood from vaccines as from diet. Keith found that the aluminum levels would briefly spike over the MRL but for the most part remained below it. Mitkus changed some of the underlying assumptions and found that aluminum levels stayed below the MRL. Two points should be noted about these papers. First, neither reported any empirical data whatever. They are models. Second, the MRL’s are not informed in any way about the toxicity of injected aluminum in neonates.

We note in passing that reference [29], Vaccine Safety: Examine the Evidence by the American Academy of Pediatrics, does not mention any of the papers surveyed here that suggest risk, and thus appears more as an advocacy piece than concerned with fully informing patients. It surveys numerous papers suggesting MMR does not cause autism. There are also numerous papers suggesting it does. This issue is beyond the scope of this review, which is concerned with vaccines given in the first year of life, particularly those containing adjuvants, neither of which apply to MMR.

Likewise,  The Childhood Immunization Schedule and Safety: Stakeholder Concerns, Scientific Evidence, and Future Studies from the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies [32], selected its papers for review in a manner that somehow missed every single paper cited herein, except for [28]. They provide some additional citations to epidemiological papers not reviewed here that suggest vaccines don’t cause auto-immune problems, presuming their results are not explained by confounding factors, but no additional citations that are reassuring on the subject of brain damage or aluminum adjuvants. All of their attention regarding brain damage was focused on thimerosal.

It is widely believed that medical interventions are allowed on the market only when they have been proved safe, and that Doctors take an oath to “First, do no harm.” Our survey has found that not only is there no proof of vaccine safety in the peer-reviewed literature, the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence suggests that early vaccines are causing damage. It’s past time for medical practice to take note.


[1] Vaccine 20 (2002) S1–S4 Conference report Workshop summary Aluminum in vaccines,d.cGU

[2] Tomljenovic L, Shaw CA. Do aluminum vaccine adjuvants contribute to the rising prevalence of autism? J Inorg Biochem. 2011 Nov;105(11):1489-99

[3] Infants’ exposure to aluminum from vaccines and breast milk during the first 6 months,  Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology Volume 20, Issue 7, November 2010, Pages 598-601 Dórea JG, Marques RC


Childrens Hospital of Pennsylvania, Vaccine Education Center, Q&A Volume 4 2012, Q&A Aluminum in Vaccines: What You Should Know

[5] M.A. Galic, K. Riazi, J.G. Heida, A. Mouihate, N.M. Fournier, S.J. Spencer, L.E. Kalynchuk, G.C. Teskey, Q.J. Pittman, The Journal of Neuroscience 28 (2008) Postnatal Inflammation Increases Seizure Susceptibility in Adult Rats

[6] Metabolic Brain Disease, Volume 26, Issue 3, September 2011, Pages 237-240, Peripheral immune challenge with viral mimic during early postnatal period robustly enhances anxiety-like behavior in young adult rats Konat, G. W.,  Lally, B. E. , Toth, A. A.,Salm, A. K.

[7] Vaccine. 2001 May 14;19(25-26):3331-46. Neonatal and early life vaccinology. Siegrist CA.

[8] Self-Organized Criticality Theory of Autoimmunity, Ken Tsumiyama, Yumi Miyazaki,Shunichi Shiozawa,,December 31, 2009

[9]Lupus.2012 Feb;21(2):195-202. doi: 10.1177/0961203311429816. Vaccine model of antiphospholipid syndrome induced by tetanus vaccine. Dimitrijević L, Živković I, Stojanović M, Petrušić V, Živančević-Simonović S.

[10] Alberto K. De la Herrán-Arita, Birgitte Rahbek Kornum, Josh Mahlios, Wei Jiang3, Ling Lin1, Tieying Hou, Claudia Macaubas, Mali Einen, Giuseppe Plazzi, Catherine Crowe, Evan W. Newell, Mark M. Davis, Elizabeth D. Mellins, and Emmanuel Mignot.  CD4+ T Cell Autoimmunity to Hypocretin/Orexin and Cross-Reactivity to a 2009 H1N1 Influenza A Epitope in Narcolepsy. Sci Transl Med 18 December 2013, Vol. 5, Issue 216, p. 216

[11] Lupus February 2012 vol. 21 no. 2 table of contents at

[12] J Autoimmun. 2011 Feb;36(1):4-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jaut.2010.07.003. Epub 2010 Aug 13.‘ASIA’ – autoimmune/inflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants. Shoenfeld Y, Agmon-Levin .

[13]X. Li,H. Zheng, Z. Zhang,M. Li, Z.Huang, H.J. Schluesener, Y. Li, S. Xu,Nanomedicine: Nanotechnology, Biology and Medicine 5 (2009) 473–479 Glia activation induced by peripheral administration of aluminum oxide nanoparticles in rat brains

[14] Administration of aluminum to neonatal mice in vaccine-relevant amounts is associated with adverse long term neurological outcomes  C.A. Shaw, Y. Li , L. Tomljenovic, Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry, V 128,  November 2013, Pages 237–244

[15] J Toxicol Environ Health A. 2011;74(14):903-16. A positive association found between autism prevalence and childhood vaccination uptake across the U.S. population. Delong G.

[16] Hepatitis B vaccination of male neonates and autism diagnosis, NHIS 1997–2002 CM Gallagher, MS Goodman – Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A, 2010

[17]  Hepatitis B triple series vaccine and developmental disability in US children aged 1–9 years C Gallagher, M Goodman – Toxicological and Environmental Chemistry, 2008,d.cGU

[18] Hum Exp Toxicol. 2011 Sep;30(9):1420-8. doi: 10.1177/0960327111407644. Epub 2011 May 4. Infant mortality rates regressed against number of vaccine doses routinely given: is there a biochemical or synergistic toxicity? Miller NZ, Goldman GS.

[19] David E. Bloom, David Canninga & Erica S. Shenoy, The effect of vaccination on children’s physical and cognitive development in the Philippines, Applied Economics
Volume 44, Issue 21, 2012 p 2777-2783,d.cGU

[20] “Increasing Exposure to Antibody-Stimulating Proteins and Polysaccharides in Vaccines Is Not Associated with Risk of Autism” by Frank DeStefano, Cristofer S. Price, and Eric S. Weintraub,  Journal of Pediatrics (, DOI 10.1016 2013.02.001


Journal of Pediatrics editorial, March 29, 2013,  “The Risk of Autism Is Not Increased by ‘Too Many Vaccines Too Soon’”


[23] Routine vaccinations and child survival: follow up study in Guinea-Bissau, West Africa Commentary: an unexpected finding that needs confirmation or rejection BMJ 2000; 321:1435 Ines Kristensen, Peter Aaby, Henrik Jensen.

[24] Vaccine. 2004 Aug 13;22(23-24):3014-7. Oral polio vaccination and low case fatality at the paediatric ward in Bissau, Guinea-Bissau. Aaby P, Rodrigues A, Biai S, Martins C, Veirum JE, Benn CS, Jensen

[25] P.E.M. Fine, Variation in protection by BCG: implications of and for heterologous immunity The Lancet, Volume 346, Issue 8986, P1339 – 1345, 18 November 1995

[26] Benefits of routine immunizations on childhood survival in Tari, Southern Highlands Province, Papua New Guinea, Deborah Lehmann,John Vail, Martin J Firth,  Nicholas H de Klerk and  Michael P Alpers, Int. J. Epidemiol. (2005) 34 (1): 138-148. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyh262

[27]Judea Pearl, “Understanding propensity scores“. Causality: Models, Reasoning, and Inference (Second ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-89560-6,d.cGU
[28] On-time Vaccine Receipt in the First Year Does Not Adversely Affect Neuropsychological Outcomes, Michael J. Smith, Charles R. Woods, Pediatrics Vol. 125 No. 6 June 1, 2010 pp. 1134 -1141 (doi: 10.1542/peds.2009-2489),d.cGU


American Academy of Pediatrics, April 2013, Vaccine Safety: Examine the Evidence

[30] Mitkus RJ, King DB, Hess MA, Forshee RA, Walderhaug MO., Updated aluminum pharmacokinetics following infant exposures through diet and vaccination, Vaccine 29(51) 9538-43 2011.

[31] Keith LS, Jones DE, Chou CH., Aluminum toxicokinetics regarding infant diet and vaccinations. Vaccine. 2002 May 31;20 Suppl 3:S13-7.

[32] The Childhood Immunization Schedule and Safety: Stakeholder Concerns, Scientific Evidence, and Future Studies (2013) Committee on the Assessment of Studies of Health Outcomes Related to the Recommended Childhood Immunization Schedule; Board on
Population Health and Public Health Practice; Institute of Medicine of the National Academies,