Free ebook. Turtles, all the way down: vaccine science and myth
This book is a red-pill against vax psy-ence and a challenge to the Vaxi-Nazis.
Why turtles?
In the form of "rocks all the way down", the saying dates to at least 1838, when it was printed in an unsigned anecdote in the New-York Mirror about a schoolboy and an old woman living in the woods:
"The world, marm," said I, anxious to display my acquired knowledge, "is not exactly round, but resembles in shape a flattened orange; and it turns on its axis once in twenty-four hours."
"Well, I don't know anything about its axes," replied she, "but I know it don't turn round, for if it did we'd be all tumbled off; and as to its being round, any one can see it's a square piece of ground, standing on a rock!"
"Standing on a rock! but upon what does that stand?"
"Why, on another, to be sure!"
"But what supports the last?"
"Lud! child, how stupid you are! There's rocks all the way down!"
An updated story added the turtles, based on the Hindu myth of a flat world supported by elephants standing on a giant tortoise:
"And what does the second turtle stand on?"
"Well, my dear man" said the elderly woman with victorious smile. "It's turtles all the way down".
The book uses that analogy to prove that the “science” of vaccines is a psy-op based on many turtles.
With vaccines, it’s ninja turtles all the way down =)
Why anonymous?
"Turtles" has been written anonymously, initially in Hebrew in 2019, by doctors from Israel who dare not reveal their identity for fear of personal attack and professional sanction. They spell out the inconvenient truth that vaccines have never been properly tested and are not "safe and effective". Hitherto this mantra has never been challenged by any authority. The book has been translated into English by Zoey O'Toole and Mary Holland J.D. (ChildrensHealthDefense.org).
FREE ebook here:
Free PDF download here, here or in Telegram
Free Epub download here
Please share to save lives!
In print, and other languages
https://theturtlesbook.com/international-editions/
Original in Hebrew
צבים כל הדרך למטה – חיסונים: מדע ומיתוסים
Purchase here.
If you find the pdf/epub please post the link in comments at bottom.
For this or any other free ebooks, use Telegram and uncensored search engines such as yandex.com or mojeek.com
Praise on the book
Dr. Pierre Kory, M.D.
"One of the best scientific books for lay people that I've ever read..."
Russell L. Blaylock M.D., Neurosurgeon, Author of The Liver Cure
“This is a wonderful book – indeed, a masterpiece – and one that really needed to be written. Clearly written and very comprehensive, it is an invaluable source of knowledge for all truly interested individuals, parents as well as physicians. The title may seem puzzling at first, but once you read the book you'll realize it is a stroke of genius. I congratulate the authors on a work extremely well done.”
Meryl Nass M.D.
"Turtles All The Way Down: Vaccine Science and Myth is an important book, because it fills a gap that has long begged to be filled. It explains the science behind vaccines, distilling down a huge amount of literature, making a solid understanding of the science accessible to any committed reader. Until now, books on vaccines were either too technical for the average reader, or too simplified, or were not up to date on the current issues facing the vaccine enterprise. Every parent should have this book in their library."
Stephanie Seneff Ph.D., Senior Research Scientist, MIT, Author of Toxic Legacy
“While the media is saturated with messaging that vaccines are ‘safe and effective,’ an increasing number of parents are growing skeptical of this narrative. This book is a comprehensive and exceptionally well documented look into the ‘science’ behind vaccine safety, exposing the fact that most of the supporting evidence is based on shoddy research biased by vested interests. This is arguably the most thorough and persuasive book on the market on this important topic.”
James Lyons Weiler Ph.D., IPAK-EDU.org
"If you are in the habit of quoting CDC as an authority on vaccine safety and efficacy, this book will break you of that habit. Our society is engaged in an existential battle between those willing to acknowledge the evidence on vaccine safety and those who make claims based on falsified and fraudulent data. In just over 500 pages, the exquisitely referenced ‘Turtles’ presents reality-based fact after fact, demolishing false claim after false claim made by vaccine proponents until the truth becomes inescapable."
Neil Z. Miller, Medical researcher, Author of Miller’s Review of Critical Vaccine Studies
“Turtles All the Way Down: Vaccine Science and Myth is a well-documented and persuasive guidebook to vaccination. The book could be, and should be, a game changer. I congratulate the authors on a work well done!”
Nati Ronel, Professor of Criminology, and Eti Elisha, Senior Criminologist, in Harefuah Medical Journal, Sep. 2019
“We have found the book to be well written, serious, scientific and important… We sincerely recommend it as a scientific, medical, and public ‘must read’. This book should be central to a scientific, rational, logical, skeptical, and critical discussion on routine vaccination… The authors should be congratulated on their vast scientific in-depth endeavor as well as on their courage to think outside the ‘establishment box’.”
Beth Lambert, Author of A Compromised Generation and Brain Under Attack
“In the complexity of the modern world, where media manipulation is ubiquitous, it can be difficult to discern fact from fiction, truth from propaganda. To truly understand an issue, we can no longer just trust what we are told, we must first verify through our own research and exploration. This is your opportunity to research and explore a topic of enormous importance to society. There is powerful truth told in this book, rigorously researched, meticulously documented, and written with impeccable integrity. History will judge Turtles All The Way Down: Vaccine Science and Myth as an important anchor to truth at a time when so little of what we read and watch can be trusted.”
Dr. Gil Yosef-Shachar M.D.
“I strongly recommend that you read the most important book ever written about vaccines. The book presents hundreds of facts, backed by solid scientific references, which will leave you speechless. The authors present an unprecedented analysis of the world of vaccines. The book shatters myths that we grew up on, one by one. And it does so elegantly and logically. It reads almost like a fiction thriller – when I read it, I could not put it down. It presents everything the medical establishment knows and does not want you to know. An entire world is about to be revealed to you. It is no exaggeration to say that this book is about to start a revolution.”
Patricia Lemer M.Ed., Licensed Professional Counselor, Author of Outsmarting Autism: Build Healthy Foundations for Communication, Socialization, and Behavior at All Ages, Chair Emeritus, Epidemic Answers
"This impeccably researched and documented book formulates a cohesive and clear view of the vaccine science that is scattered in numerous scientific papers and government documents. It is a real eye-opener, guaranteed to change your thinking. You may find it hard to believe what you read, but with the documentation right there, in front of your eyes, the conclusions are inescapable."
Dr. Haim Rosenthal M.D.
“Turtles All the Way Down: Vaccine Science and Myth is an extraordinary book, as its name implies. This is a must-read for anyone who wants an in-depth introduction to the subject of vaccines to make informed decisions for themselves and their family. The authors deserve many compliments for their comprehensive and thorough work, based mainly on sources from the scientific literature and the websites of health authorities. The book presents its arguments in clear and easy-to-understand language so that a medical education is not required in order to read it and benefit from it. However, I also strongly suggest that medical professionals of all fields delve into it. Personally, I learned a lot from reading the book and I highly recommend it.”
Jeremy R. Hammond, Independent Researcher, Journalist, Author of The War on Informed Consent: The Persecution of Dr. Paul Thomas by the Oregon Medical Board
“This book is a phenomenal resource for parents navigating the decision-making process about whether or not to vaccinate their children or for any truth-seeker daring to journey down the rabbit hole of vaccine science. Extraordinarily well written and organized, this book is the perfect primer to quickly empower the reader with a clear understanding of how the public has been bamboozled with the scientifically meaningless claim that all vaccines recommended by the CDC are ‘safe and effective’. Anyone who reads this book will come away with a firm understanding of the gross inadequacies of vaccine studies and the institutionalized corruption that enables the so-called ‘public health’ establishment to sustain the illusion that public vaccine policy is evidence-based."
Lisa Joyce Goes, The Thinking Moms’ Revolution
“This is the book we’ve been waiting for.“
Table of Contents
Foreword
Introduction
Who Is This Book For?
How to Read This Book
And Finally: A Warning and a Recommendation
1 Turtles All The Way Down: Vaccine Clinical Trials
The Vaccine Approval Process
The Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT)
The Control Group in a Clinical Trial
External Control Group
Clinical Trials in Children
A Problem and a Solution
Fake Placebo
How Were Vaccines on the Schedule Tested?
Mere Coincidence or Deliberately Flawed Design?
The Clinical Trials of the Rotavirus Vaccines
Unethical Trials
Childhood Vaccine Clinical Trials: A Summary
Counter Arguments
Summary
2 The Science of Vaccine Adverse Events: A Missing Link and an Empty
Toolbox
Isaac’s Story
David’s Story
Fictional Science
Sixty Years of Non-Research
The IOM 2011 Report
The Missing Causal Link
The Empty Toolbox
Counter Arguments
Summary
3 Deficient by Design: Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting Systems
VAERS
Underreporting Bias
Meaningless Analysis
Slade 2009: A VAERS HPV Vaccine Safety Study
Deficient by Design
Stop Calling Us, Lazarus
Counter Arguments
Summary
4 Epidemiology 101
Cigarette Smoking and Lung Cancer
Correlation and Causal Link
Determination of Causal Links in Medicine
Characteristics of Epidemiological Studies
Types of Observational Studies
Sources of Error: Biases and Confounders
Capabilities and Challenges
Individual, Group, and Population
Summary
5 Purposely Biased Science: Epidemiology and Vaccine Safety
Back to the 1990s
Epidemiology to the Rescue
Opportunistic Retrospective Observational Studies
The Pure Science Myth
Establishment-Serving Vaccine Science
Institutionalized Research Falsification
Five “Doctored” Vaccine Studies
Madsen 2002: MMR Vaccine and Autism
DeStefano 2013: Vaccine Antigens and Autism
Grimaldi 2014: Gardasil and Autoimmune Injury
McKeever 2004: Vaccines and Allergic Disease
Fombonne 2006: MMR Vaccine and Autism
Medical Journals and Peer Review
Counter Arguments
Summary
6 The Studies That Will Never Be Done
Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated (VU) Studies
Overall Health Study: Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated
The Establishment Avoids Conducting VU Studies
The IOM 2013 Report
Formal Admission
Is It Really Impossible to Conduct VU Studies?
What to Investigate, Then? The Parents…
Evermore Studying What to Study
Will Never Be Done: The Real Reason
Counter Arguments
Summary
7 Unsubstantiated Vaccination Guidelines
Multiple Vaccines in a Single Visit
Untested Vaccine Combinations
Spacing Out Vaccinations
The Shneyer 2009 Study
10,000 Vaccines in One Day
Vaccinating a Baby with a Mild Illness
Counter Arguments
Summary
8 The Disappearance of Disease
The Decline in Infectious Disease Mortality
The Decline in Infectious Disease Morbidity
Real Reasons for the Decline in Infectious Disease
An Open Secret: The Real Contribution of Vaccines
The Rise of Chronic Disease in Children
Chronic Illness vs. Infectious Disease
A State of Emergency
Counter Arguments
Summary
9 Herd Immunity
What is Herd Immunity?
Natural Immunity
Herd Immunity and Disease Eradication
Herd Immunity and Vaccination Policy
The Moral Basis for Mandatory Vaccination
Theoretical Model and Practical Application
Herd Immunity and Routine Vaccinations
Tetanus Vaccine
Polio Vaccine
Pertussis (Whooping Cough) Vaccine
Diphtheria Vaccine
Influenza Vaccine
Hepatitis A Vaccine
Hepatitis B Vaccine
Rotavirus Vaccine
Pneumococcal Vaccine
Hib Vaccine
Varicella (Chickenpox) Vaccine
Rubella Vaccine
Mumps Vaccine
Measles Vaccine
Routine Vaccines and Herd Immunity: A Summary
Counter Arguments
Summary
10 The Mysteries of Polio
Polio’s Story: The Concise Institutional Version
Unsolved Mysteries
Polio Takes the Stage
The “Improved Hygiene” Theory of Polio
The Improved Hygiene Theory vs. Reality
Improved Hygiene and Polio in the Third World
Polio-like Illnesses
An Alternative Explanation: Pesticides
Infectious Disease? Contagious Disease?
The Healthy Carrier: Wickman’s Discovery
Landsteiner’s Virus
Polio in Domestic Animals
Polio and Pesticides
Polio Outbreak Patterns: Four More Mysteries
Unexplained Surge: Polio Post-WWII
DDT
Dr. Biskind Goes into Battle
Interim Summary: Polio in the Early 1950s
The Salk Polio Vaccine
The Polio Vaccine: A Prior Morbidity Decline
The Polio Vaccine: Doubtful Efficacy
Echovirus, Coxsackievirus, and No-Virus
Salk Vaccine: Cannot Prevent Spread of Virus
The Cutter Incident: A Turning Point
Polio and Pesticides: A Re-evaluation
Polio in the Developing World
One Up, One Down: Polio and AFP in the 3rd World
Nineteen Polio Mysteries
Summary
11 The Vaccine Hoax
Book Summary
If Vaccines Were Safe
Institutionalized Fraud
The Third Level of the Discussion
Medical Tyranny: Shutting Down Criticism
The Vaccine Judgment of King Solomon
Real Science and Vaccine “Science”
Edition Identifiers
Open Library
OL42851623M
ISBN 10
9655981045
ISBN 13
9789655981049
17 Questions
to ask your doctor about vaccines, based on the book:
Was the vaccine you are recommending tested in a pre-licensure clinical trial with a (real) placebo control group? If not, how do you (or anyone else, for that matter) calculate its true rate of adverse events?
Is it morally acceptable to conduct a clinical trial in infants for a new vaccine, where the “control group” receives an untested compound, i.e., the vaccine-sans-antigen, which is likely to cause irreversible side effects and has no potential benefit?
Are you familiar with the VAERS system? Have you ever filed a case with VAERS?
If your patient experiences an adverse health event following vaccination, do you check VAERS for reports of similar symptoms before deciding how to proceed with the case? Do you report it to VAERS?
Do you think healthcare professionals should be required by law to report adverse health events following vaccination, similar to their obligation to report cases of notifiable infectious diseases?
If our child experienced a health problem following vaccination, what medical tests are at your disposal to decide whether the condition was actually caused by the vaccine?
We fear that our child could be adversely affected by a particular vaccine. What medical tests can you perform in order to determine whether or not she is at high risk of being injured by that vaccine?
Do you know who funds most vaccine safety research? Are you familiar with the process used to allocate medical research grants?
Would you expect pharmaceutical companies and government agencies to fund vaccine safety studies that could potentially find serious faults in the vaccines they manufacture, license, and recommend to the public?
Are you aware that studies published in leading medical journals which ostensibly confirm the safety of vaccines suffer from serious methodological flaws and are fraught with authors’ conflicts of interest?
Are you familiar with any medical study that compared the overall health of vaccinated children to that of unvaccinated children?
In the absence of studies comparing the overall health of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated children, what is the scientific evidence for the safety and benefit of the vaccine program?
In the absence of a study comparing the overall health of children who vaccinated according to the official schedule to that of children who received no vaccines, would you still tell parents their children are better off getting all routine vaccinations? If so, on what grounds?
Do you know of any studies that have examined the safety of the simultaneous administration of 9 vaccine injections against 13 different diseases to a 15-month year-old infant?
Are you familiar with any studies that have shown that spacing out vaccines does not reduce the number and severity of side effects?
Do you believe that administering 10,000 vaccines in one day to an infant is safe? If you do, can you provide studies that have demonstrated the safety of this procedure?
Do you know of any studies that examined the safety of the recommendation to vaccinate infants with mild illness? If not, what is the scientific evidence on which the CDC relies in determining that this would not increase the risk for vaccine injury?
12-point summary
Research Methodology Gap: While Randomized Control Trials (RCTs) are considered the gold standard for medical research, current vaccine safety studies have significant limitations, particularly in evaluating long-term effects and multiple vaccine combinations. Pre-licensure trials focus primarily on short-term outcomes and individual vaccines rather than cumulative effects of the entire vaccination schedule.
Historical Disease Decline: Research by Thomas McKeown and others demonstrates that the majority of decline in infectious disease mortality occurred before widespread vaccine implementation, primarily due to improvements in sanitation, nutrition, and living conditions. This challenges the conventional narrative attributing disease reduction solely to vaccines.
Safety Monitoring Limitations: The current vaccine adverse event reporting system (VAERS) relies on passive reporting, making it difficult to establish causality and potentially missing important safety signals. The voluntary nature of reporting and inability to confirm causal relationships represent significant limitations in post-market surveillance.
Schedule Evolution: The US childhood vaccination schedule has expanded dramatically from a single smallpox vaccine to 28 doses for 14 diseases by age two, without comprehensive studies examining the cumulative effects or optimal timing of these combinations.
International Variations: Significant differences exist between vaccination schedules across developed nations, with several Western European countries maintaining more conservative approaches to certain vaccines, suggesting different risk-benefit assessments internationally.
Multiple Vaccine Administration: Concerns exist about the safety of administering multiple vaccines simultaneously, particularly regarding the cumulative effects of adjuvants and other ingredients. The source indicates limited testing of many vaccine combinations currently recommended.
VU Study Potential: Vaccinated-unvaccinated (VU) studies could provide crucial insights into overall vaccination program impacts, but face resistance despite their potential to address important safety and efficacy questions through retrospective analysis.
Polio Complexity: Historical understanding of polio demonstrates the complexity of disease transmission and potential environmental factors, including the "Pesticides Theory," challenging simplified explanations of disease occurrence and prevention.
Scientific Assumptions: Early research assumptions, such as those made by Landsteiner and Wickman regarding polio, may have inadvertently limited exploration of alternative factors in disease occurrence and prevention.
Individual Susceptibility: Current systems lack adequate methods for identifying individuals who might be more susceptible to vaccine reactions, representing a significant gap in personalized vaccination approaches.
Evidence Gaps: The childhood vaccination schedule as a whole has never been properly studied for safety or efficacy, a fact acknowledged by the Institute of Medicine in 2013. This represents a crucial gap in understanding the overall impact of vaccination programs.
Research Independence: The source emphasizes the need for more independent, transparent, and methodologically sound research to address numerous unanswered questions about vaccine safety, particularly regarding long-term outcomes and cumulative effects.
50 Questions & Answers
1. What are the fundamental principles and methodology of randomized controlled trials (RCTs)? Random assignment of subjects to experimental or control groups serves as the core principle of RCTs, ensuring groups are as similar as possible at the start to minimize bias. This randomization helps establish a foundation for determining the effectiveness of medical interventions with greater reliability.
The methodology involves carefully controlling all aspects from participant selection through data collection. Researchers analyze data from both groups to determine if the intervention produced statistically significant effects. RCTs are considered more reliable than other study types due to their reduced susceptibility to bias.
2. What specific challenges exist in conducting RCTs for vaccine safety? Cost and time requirements present significant hurdles, particularly when studying rare side effects or long-term outcomes. The complexity increases when researchers must account for various factors that could influence results while maintaining scientific rigor.
Strict inclusion and exclusion criteria can limit the ability to generalize findings to broader populations. Ethical considerations further constrain research design, especially when dealing with potentially harmful substances or vulnerable populations, making it challenging to establish appropriate control groups.
3. How does blinding work in vaccine trials, and why is it important? Blinding conceals treatment assignment information from participants, researchers, or both to minimize bias. In single-blind studies, participants remain unaware of their group assignment while researchers know, whereas double-blind studies keep both parties unaware of treatment assignments.
This approach prevents conscious or unconscious bias from influencing study outcomes. Blinding reduces the likelihood of participants reporting symptoms differently based on their treatment group and prevents researchers from inadvertently influencing data collection, interpretation, or reporting based on preconceived notions about treatment effectiveness.
4. What role do control groups play in vaccine research? Control group selection represents a critical aspect of ensuring scientific validity and ethical integrity in vaccine studies. Ideally, control groups receive a placebo - an inert substance indistinguishable from the tested vaccine - allowing researchers to isolate specific vaccine effects from potential placebo effects.
Ethical considerations must be carefully weighed when using placebos, especially for diseases with serious consequences. In some cases, researchers may need to use an active control group receiving standard treatment or an alternative vaccine when withholding proven effective treatment would be unethical. The choice requires justification and transparent reporting.
5. How are adverse events measured and documented in vaccine trials? The source material primarily addresses adverse event reporting through VAERS rather than specific trial documentation methods. VAERS relies on passive reporting where healthcare providers, vaccine recipients, or their guardians voluntarily submit reports of suspected adverse events following vaccination.
The system collects comprehensive information including vaccine type, event timing, patient demographics, medical history, and adverse event nature. This data undergoes analysis to identify patterns or clusters warranting further investigation.
6. What are the limitations of pre-licensure vaccine trials? Pre-licensure trials focus primarily on individual vaccines or limited combinations administered simultaneously, failing to evaluate long-term and cumulative effects of routine vaccinations on recipient health. The narrow scope of these trials leaves significant gaps in understanding potential interactions between multiple vaccines over time.
Additionally, strict inclusion criteria and controlled conditions may not reflect real-world vaccination scenarios. These limitations make it difficult to identify rare adverse events or effects on vulnerable subpopulations before widespread vaccine implementation.
7. How do three-arm trials differ from traditional RCTs? Three-arm trials incorporate an additional control group beyond the standard two-group design, providing more comprehensive data and addressing some limitations of traditional trials. This structure enables researchers to make more nuanced comparisons, such as comparing a new vaccine formulation against both a standard vaccine and a placebo.
The additional arm allows for direct comparison of both new and standard vaccines to placebo, offering more robust safety and efficacy assessment. However, these trials require larger sample sizes and face increased logistical challenges compared to traditional two-arm studies.
8. What ethical considerations impact vaccine trial design? Ethical considerations primarily center around the use of control groups and the potential withholding of proven effective treatments. Researchers must carefully balance scientific rigor against participant welfare, particularly when studying vaccines for serious diseases where leaving control groups unprotected could pose significant risks.
The challenge extends to vulnerable populations and the need to protect participant rights while gathering necessary safety data. These ethical constraints often influence crucial decisions about control group selection, study duration, and monitoring protocols.
9. How is long-term safety assessed in vaccine trials? According to the source material, comprehensive long-term safety assessment remains a significant gap in vaccine research. Traditional pre-licensure trials typically focus on immediate or short-term effects, failing to adequately evaluate long-term health impacts of vaccination programs.
The absence of systematic long-term safety studies, particularly regarding cumulative effects of multiple vaccines, represents a key limitation in current vaccine safety assessment. This gap in knowledge particularly affects understanding of potential chronic health impacts and delayed adverse events.
10. What role does statistical significance play in vaccine trial interpretation? The source material does not directly address the specific role of statistical significance in vaccine trial interpretation. However, it mentions that researchers analyze data from both experimental and control groups to determine whether interventions produce statistically significant effects.
This analysis helps establish whether observed differences between vaccinated and control groups represent genuine effects rather than random variation. However, the source emphasizes that statistical significance alone may not capture the full complexity of vaccine safety and efficacy.
11. How are confounding factors controlled in vaccine research? Randomization serves as the primary method for controlling confounding variables in vaccine trials. This process helps ensure that potential confounding factors are distributed equally between experimental and control groups, minimizing their impact on study outcomes.
However, certain confounding factors, particularly in observational studies, remain challenging to control. These include differences in healthcare access, lifestyle factors, and genetic predisposition, which can influence health outcomes independently of vaccination status.
12. What are the key differences between observational and experimental vaccine studies? Observational studies examine patterns of disease occurrence and health outcomes in populations, providing insights into potential associations between vaccines and adverse events. These studies can analyze large datasets and identify trends that might not be apparent in smaller clinical trials.
Experimental studies, particularly RCTs, offer more controlled conditions but face limitations in studying rare side effects or long-term outcomes. While observational studies help assess vaccines in real-world settings, they struggle to establish causality due to potential confounding factors and biases.
13. How has the understanding of infectious disease transmission evolved historically? Early understanding of disease transmission focused primarily on direct contact between infected individuals. However, research by figures like Wickman revealed the role of healthy carriers in disease transmission, particularly for conditions like polio.
This evolution in understanding challenged simplistic transmission models and highlighted the complexity of disease spread. The source notes that despite decades of research, significant questions remain about transmission patterns for diseases like polio.
14. What role did improved living conditions play in disease reduction? Improvements in sanitation, hygiene, nutrition, and general living conditions played a crucial role in reducing infectious disease mortality, particularly during the 19th and early 20th centuries. This decline occurred before the widespread introduction of vaccines, suggesting these factors were primary drivers of improved public health.
The implementation of public health measures such as sewage systems, clean water supplies, and proper waste disposal significantly reduced disease transmission. Better nutrition strengthened immune systems, while improved housing conditions decreased overcrowding and limited pathogen spread.
15. Who was Thomas McKeown and what were his key findings? Thomas McKeown was a British physician and demographer who conducted extensive research on mortality decline in England and Wales during the 19th and 20th centuries. His analysis concluded that improvements in living standards, particularly nutrition, were the primary drivers of mortality reduction, with medical interventions playing a relatively minor role.
McKeown's 1972 study, examining mortality trends in four European countries, found similar patterns suggesting that decline in mortality was primarily due to factors other than medical interventions. His work challenged the prevailing view that medical advances were the main cause of improved public health outcomes.
16. How did the polio narrative evolve over time? The understanding of polio underwent significant changes, from initial theories about transmission through healthy carriers to later debates about environmental factors. Early research by Wickman and Landsteiner established foundational assumptions about viral transmission, which shaped subsequent research directions.
However, alternative theories emerged, including the "Pesticides Theory" linking polio outbreaks to DDT exposure. This perspective challenged conventional explanations and highlighted the complexity of polio's epidemiology, particularly the unexpected surge in cases during the post-World War II period despite improving living conditions.
17. What evidence supports the historical decline in infectious diseases? Historical mortality data from multiple countries demonstrates significant declines in infectious disease deaths before the introduction of vaccines. Records from England, Wales, and other European nations show substantial reductions in mortality from various diseases during the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
McKeown's analysis of English mortality data from 1901 to 1971 revealed that over half the decrease in infectious disease mortality occurred before 1931, prior to widespread antibiotic use or vaccination. Similar patterns were observed across different countries and diseases, suggesting broader public health improvements drove these declines.
18. How has vaccine development changed over the past century? The source material focuses more on historical disease patterns than vaccine development evolution. However, it notes that vaccine recommendations expanded significantly from a single smallpox vaccine to the current schedule including multiple vaccines against numerous diseases.
Modern vaccination programs evolved from individual disease-specific campaigns to comprehensive childhood immunization schedules. This evolution brought new challenges in testing vaccine combinations and understanding their cumulative effects.
19. What was Dr. Morton Biskind's contribution to polio research? Dr. Morton Biskind identified potential connections between DDT exposure and health problems, including what he termed "virus X syndrome." His observations noted similarities between DDT poisoning symptoms and those reported in polio cases, suggesting environmental factors might play a role in disease manifestation.
Despite facing opposition from the medical establishment and chemical industry, Biskind continued advocating for recognition of DDT's potential health hazards. His work contributed to alternative theories about polio's causation and challenged conventional viral-only explanations.
20. How did early polio researchers approach disease transmission? Early polio research was heavily influenced by Ivar Wickman's assumption about healthy carriers' role in transmission and Karl Landsteiner's work establishing the viral nature of the disease. These foundational assumptions directed subsequent research toward investigating viral transmission patterns and carrier states.
However, this focus may have limited investigation of other potential factors in polio's spread and manifestation. The source suggests that early researchers' assumptions potentially overshadowed alternative explanations, such as environmental factors' role in disease occurrence.
21. What role did Karl Landsteiner and Ivar Wickman play in polio research? Karl Landsteiner achieved the first successful isolation of poliovirus, establishing the viral nature of polio and directing subsequent research toward virological investigations. His work became a cornerstone of polio research, fundamentally shaping scientific understanding of the disease.
Ivar Wickman, through extensive epidemiological studies in the early 20th century, developed the theory that healthy carriers played a primary role in polio transmission. These two researchers' foundational assumptions heavily influenced the direction of polio research, though the source suggests their focus may have inadvertently limited exploration of alternative factors.
22. How has the reporting of vaccine adverse events evolved? VAERS emerged as a passive reporting system for monitoring vaccine safety post-market. The system relies on voluntary reporting from healthcare providers, vaccine recipients, or their guardians to identify potential safety signals or concerning trends.
This evolution in adverse event monitoring reflects recognition of the need for ongoing safety surveillance beyond pre-licensure trials. However, the passive nature of the system creates inherent limitations in data collection and interpretation.
23. How does the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System work? VAERS collects voluntary reports of suspected adverse events following vaccination from healthcare providers, recipients, and guardians. The system gathers comprehensive information including vaccine type, timing, patient demographics, medical history, and adverse event details.
Analysts review this data to identify potential patterns or clusters that might warrant further investigation. This surveillance system serves as a post-market safety monitoring tool, though it cannot establish causality between vaccines and reported events.
24. What are the limitations of VAERS data? VAERS data suffers from limitations inherent to passive reporting systems, including potential underreporting, especially for mild or less common events. The voluntary nature of reporting means not all adverse events following vaccination are captured in the system.
Additionally, VAERS reports cannot establish causality between vaccines and reported adverse events. Reports may reflect coincidental timing rather than actual vaccine effects, requiring additional research and investigation to confirm potential links.
25. How are vaccine safety signals identified and investigated? Safety signals emerge through analysis of VAERS data patterns or clusters of reported events. When potential signals are identified, they undergo further investigation to determine whether they represent genuine safety concerns or coincidental associations.
This process requires integration of multiple data sources beyond VAERS, including epidemiological studies and controlled clinical trials. The investigation process aims to establish whether reported adverse events have a causal relationship with vaccination.
26. What role do epidemiological studies play in vaccine safety? Epidemiological studies examine patterns of disease occurrence and health outcomes in populations, providing insights into potential associations between vaccines and adverse events. These studies can analyze large datasets to identify trends that might not be apparent in smaller clinical trials.
However, epidemiological studies face limitations in establishing causality. Observed associations between vaccines and adverse events could be influenced by confounding factors or biases, requiring careful interpretation and additional supporting evidence.
27. How are long-term safety outcomes monitored? The source material indicates significant gaps in long-term safety monitoring of vaccines. Pre-licensure trials typically focus on short-term outcomes, while post-market surveillance through systems like VAERS may not adequately capture delayed or chronic effects.
This limitation in long-term monitoring represents a key concern, particularly regarding the potential cumulative effects of multiple vaccines and their impact on chronic health conditions. The source emphasizes the need for more comprehensive long-term safety studies.
28. What is the process for investigating potential vaccine-related injuries? The source material does not provide specific details about the process for investigating individual vaccine-related injuries. However, it discusses the general approach of using multiple data sources and investigation methods to evaluate potential vaccine safety concerns.
This includes analysis of VAERS reports, epidemiological studies, and additional research to determine whether reported adverse events have a causal relationship with vaccination. The investigation process requires careful consideration of alternative explanations and contributing factors.
29. How does post-marketing surveillance contribute to vaccine safety? Post-marketing surveillance through systems like VAERS helps identify potential safety signals that might not have been apparent during pre-licensure trials. This ongoing monitoring can detect rare adverse events or patterns that emerge only with widespread vaccine use.
However, the source emphasizes limitations in current post-marketing surveillance systems, particularly regarding their ability to establish causality and capture long-term effects. The passive nature of reporting systems may result in incomplete safety data.
30. What methods are used to analyze VAERS data? VAERS data analysis involves examining patterns and clusters of reported adverse events to identify potential safety signals. This includes reviewing the timing, frequency, and nature of reported events across different populations and vaccine types.
The analysis must account for the limitations of passive reporting and potential confounding factors. Researchers use this data alongside other sources to evaluate potential safety concerns, though the source emphasizes the need for careful interpretation given the system's limitations.
31. How are causality assessments conducted for adverse events? The assessment of causality between vaccines and reported adverse events requires a comprehensive approach considering multiple factors. While VAERS collects reports of adverse events, these reports alone cannot establish causation, necessitating additional investigation through epidemiological studies and clinical research.
Determining causality involves analyzing temporal relationships, biological plausibility, consistency across reports, and the presence or absence of alternative explanations. The source emphasizes that current methods may not adequately capture all causal relationships, particularly for long-term or delayed effects.
32. What role do healthcare providers play in vaccine safety monitoring? Healthcare providers serve as primary reporters to the VAERS system, submitting information about adverse events following vaccination. Their position on the front lines of vaccine administration makes them crucial observers of potential safety concerns.
However, the voluntary nature of reporting means not all adverse events are captured, and provider reporting practices may vary. The source suggests this inconsistency in reporting contributes to limitations in safety monitoring systems.
33. How has the childhood vaccination schedule evolved? The vaccination schedule expanded significantly from a single smallpox vaccine to include up to 28 vaccine doses for 14 different diseases by age two. This evolution began with the widespread distribution of the DPT vaccine in the late 1940s, followed by the polio vaccine in the mid-1950s and subsequent additions.
The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), established in 1964, has shaped the US vaccination schedule, continuously adding new vaccine recommendations. This expansion occurred without comprehensive studies examining the effects of new vaccines on existing schedule components.
34. What factors influence vaccination schedule development? The source indicates that when new vaccines are added to the schedule, no studies examine their effects on other vaccines already in the schedule. Additionally, research evaluating different schedule variations to ensure optimal timing and combinations is notably absent.
The development process lacks sufficient understanding of subpopulations that may be particularly susceptible to vaccine side effects. There is also a shortage of data and diagnostic tools for early identification of children who might be at higher risk for adverse reactions.
35. How are multiple vaccines tested for simultaneous administration? Despite CDC assertions about testing new vaccines alongside existing schedule vaccines, most combinations have not undergone comprehensive safety testing. The source reveals that the CDC website does not specify which vaccine combinations on the US childhood schedule have been tested.
A World Health Organization document claims vaccine combinations have been studied before and after licensing but fails to provide specific details about testing methods or timing. The source suggests this effectively enrolls American infants in a large-scale vaccine trial without parental consent or awareness.
36. What evidence supports current vaccination schedules? The source emphasizes that the childhood vaccination schedule as a whole has never been properly studied for safety or efficacy, a fact acknowledged in a 2013 Institute of Medicine report. Pre-licensure trials focus on individual vaccines or limited combinations rather than evaluating long-term and cumulative effects.
Studies examining the long-term impact of the entire vaccination program on children's health remain notably absent. The source indicates this represents a significant gap in understanding the overall safety and effectiveness of current vaccination schedules.
37. How do international vaccination schedules differ? Several Western European countries maintain different vaccination schedules compared to the United States. For example, countries like Norway, Sweden, France, and others do not include the varicella vaccine in their childhood vaccination programs, while Australia and Switzerland only recommend it for children over 10 years old.
The UK administers fewer doses of certain vaccines compared to the US schedule, such as three doses of the DTaP-equivalent vaccine in the first 18 months versus four doses in the US. These variations suggest different approaches to risk-benefit assessment across nations.
38. What considerations go into vaccine spacing decisions? The source indicates a lack of scientific evidence supporting either the recommended vaccination schedule or alternative spacing approaches. Health authorities generally discourage deviating from the recommended schedule, though no comprehensive research demonstrates the optimal timing between vaccines.
Parents who desire to space out vaccines often face opposition from medical professionals who maintain that spacing offers no benefit and may leave children vulnerable to disease for longer periods. However, the source notes that this position lacks robust scientific support.
39. How are vaccine combinations evaluated for safety? The evaluation of vaccine combinations appears inadequate according to the source. While the CDC claims new vaccines are tested alongside others on the recommended schedule, documentation of these studies remains limited. The source questions the comprehensiveness of combination testing.
References cited to support combination safety often focus on efficacy rather than safety concerns, and many studies are outdated given the addition of new vaccines to the schedule. This raises questions about the thoroughness of safety evaluations for current vaccine combinations.
40. What role do adjuvants play in multiple vaccine administration? The source expresses concern about the long-term health effects of aluminum adjuvant accumulation in the human body, noting these effects remain poorly understood. The impact of multiple vaccines containing adjuvants administered simultaneously lacks thorough investigation.
The potential adverse biological effects of combined vaccine ingredients, including adjuvants, on infant bodies have not undergone in-depth study. This represents a significant gap in understanding the safety of multiple vaccine administration.
41. How is individual susceptibility to vaccine reactions assessed? The source indicates significant gaps in understanding and identifying individuals who may be more susceptible to vaccine reactions. Current systems lack adequate diagnostic tools or methods for early identification of children who might be at higher risk for adverse events.
This limitation in assessing individual susceptibility represents a crucial gap in vaccine safety practices. The inability to identify vulnerable subpopulations beforehand means potentially susceptible individuals receive the same vaccination schedule as the general population.
42. What factors influence the timing of vaccine administration? The source material suggests that the current timing of vaccine administration lacks comprehensive scientific validation. While health authorities promote specific schedules, research examining the optimal timing of different vaccines or their combinations remains limited.
The determination of vaccination timing appears to prioritize practical considerations, such as ensuring completion of recommended doses, rather than being based on studies demonstrating optimal developmental stages for vaccine administration. The source indicates this represents another area where scientific evidence is lacking.
43. What is the rationale for conducting vaccinated-unvaccinated studies? Vaccinated-unvaccinated (VU) studies could provide crucial insights into the overall impact of vaccination programs on public health. These studies would allow direct comparison of health outcomes between vaccinated and unvaccinated populations, potentially identifying both benefits and risks that current research methods might miss.
The source argues that VU studies are essential for comprehensive and unbiased evaluation of vaccine safety and effectiveness. Such research could help identify potential long-term health consequences and adverse effects that might not be apparent in shorter-term studies.
44. What are the main obstacles to conducting VU studies? The medical establishment cites ethical concerns as a primary barrier, arguing that withholding vaccines from a control group would be unethical. However, the source counters that retrospective VU studies using existing medical records would avoid ethical dilemmas.
Additional obstacles include claims about feasibility, cost, and potential selection bias. The source suggests these arguments are largely unfounded, particularly regarding retrospective studies, and may reflect reluctance to conduct research that could challenge existing vaccination policies.
45. How might VU study findings impact public health policy? VU study results could potentially lead to significant changes in vaccination policies and practices. If studies demonstrated that vaccinated children experience better health outcomes, it would reinforce current vaccination policies and potentially increase public confidence.
Conversely, if studies revealed health concerns or unexpected patterns, it might necessitate reevaluation of current practices. The source suggests this potential for policy disruption might contribute to reluctance in conducting these studies.
46. What methodological challenges exist in VU study design? Designing VU studies requires careful consideration of potential confounding factors, such as lifestyle differences between vaccinated and unvaccinated populations. The unvaccinated group might have different health behaviors or environmental exposures that could influence outcomes.
Statistical analysis must account for these variations while maintaining scientific rigor. The source acknowledges these challenges but argues they can be addressed through proper study design and analysis methods.
47. How do researchers address selection bias in VU studies? The source acknowledges that selection bias presents a significant challenge in VU studies, as parents who choose not to vaccinate may differ in various ways that could affect health outcomes. However, it maintains that careful study design and statistical analysis can address these concerns.
The potential for bias requires researchers to carefully document and account for differences between groups, including factors like healthcare access, lifestyle choices, and socioeconomic status. These considerations must be incorporated into study design and data analysis.
48. What ethical considerations impact VU study implementation? While prospective randomized VU studies raise ethical concerns about withholding vaccines from control groups, retrospective studies using existing medical records avoid these ethical dilemmas. The source argues that ethical arguments against VU studies often overlook this distinction.
The source suggests that ethical considerations should also include the potential harm of not conducting VU studies, as this leaves important questions about vaccine safety and effectiveness unanswered. This represents a different ethical perspective that considers the broader public health implications.
49. How might VU studies contribute to vaccination science? VU studies could provide valuable insights into the cumulative effects of vaccination programs that are difficult to assess through other research methods. These studies might identify both positive and negative health outcomes associated with different vaccination approaches.
Such research could help identify susceptible subpopulations, optimize vaccination schedules, and improve understanding of vaccine-related health impacts. The source suggests this knowledge could lead to more personalized and effective vaccination strategies.
50. What role could VU studies play in addressing vaccine hesitancy? VU studies might help address public concerns about vaccine safety by providing more comprehensive data about long-term health outcomes. Transparent research comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated populations could either confirm vaccine safety or identify areas needing improvement.
The source suggests that conducting and openly sharing results from VU studies could help restore public trust in vaccination programs. This transparency might be particularly important given growing public interest in vaccine safety research.
The way out of this mess:
(the following items could be develped simultaneously)
1. Let’s make local organic consumer networks/coops, allowing people to buy REAL organic at the price of poisoned supermarket food. You don’t need to invest any money. It could build up from existing businesses. The higher the purchasing power the easier is to get retail prices at the level of wholesale, due to economies of scale.
Expand the net-coop to all sorts of local goods and services. Distributed supply and marketplaces reduce the risk of persecution.
2. Community media, including readio (the only thing that will work with the interenet lockdown). Teach people about food tainting and the whole agenda 2030 global government plot to slow-murder the population.
3. Community currency, with intrinsic value (tokens backed by goods and services, metal foil in plastic bills, etc.)
4. Community healthcare with dentists, herborists, pharmacists and MDs. As in 2021, the unhaxxed will be banned from hospitals. Who will remove your infected appendix?
5. Legal battle against water and food poisoning, chemtrails, macro-towers (they can be replaced with mini-routers with 100x less radiation as in Switzerland), etc.
6. Politics. Petitions to support legal presentations. Build county, State and National networks of freedom communities: win elections and change the system towards a direct-democracy townhall republic.
7. Community education:
a) Becoming an agent of change. Teach everyone to teach.
b) Homeschools or parent/teachers coop.
Most freedom fighters are old.
No children, no future for all.
8. Oath of allegiance, defending human life from conception till natural death, while rejecting freemasonry, communism, nazism, racism, genderism (gender ideology).
How would you improve this?
Please keep praying for the victory of truth and true freedom, plus the conversion of authorities and all those helping the global tyranny:
The PLAN revealed
1 October 2022
This research took many many hours (including late night work), that will save you that amount of reading and organizing ideas. If you like it, please consider a paid subscription:
Are you prepping?
They are manufacturing a the huge infrastructure and financial crisis !
Have food and water for 3 weeks !
Yellow alert: global cyber-storm
20 December 2024
Due to the urgency, I’m not including the usual footnotes supporting everything I write. I’m working on the promised pieces. In the meantime, I’ll be releasing some articles I had been baking for a while, which needed polishing.
20 laws we need to exit Extermination Planet
Laws to exit planet prison
No Free Speech without Reach
Why was Bill Gates the mentor of Zuckerberg?
Zuckerberg really flipping?
15 Jan
What Has Happened To Mark Zuckerberg?
How Rumsfeld forced the approval of lethal Aspartame.
Artificial sweeteners, MSG, PFAS, Glyphosate ... go organic!
Why is food poisoning legal?
26 November 2023
This article would be another tool you could share to keep waking-up the still-trusting sleepwalkers: some reject discussing injections, but they’d be open to food.
Solutions for "this" Democracy?
Rethinking science
19 December 2023
Unless we change it, we’re doomed to the next PLANdemic. And yet, nothing has changed, only got worse! This isn’t pessimism: just a realistic call to ACTION in the medical and scientific freedom communities.
Rethinking education for the real 21st century:
Why not earning $60,000 per year for educating your own children?
Call to action
1. Please share in social networks!
10 shares = waking up more people + especial gratitude:
Waking others up SAVES lives or livelihoods.
The more the awakened, the sooner this nightmare will be over !
2. Please subscribe
Scientific Progress is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, please consider becoming a free or paid subs:
3. Show your love in the tip jar =)
1 dollar makes a difference !
4. Please consider “buy me a coffee”:
5. Please reconsider a paid subscription:
6. Please consider commissioning an article for the topic of your preference:
7. Pray
Most important of all: let’s pray for each other and the conversion of our enemies !
The evil we see in the material world is just the echo from the spiritual battle between God and Satan and their followers, either human or angelic.
Darkness grows because the light of faith is fading. Faith is the root of a plant that needs the sun of love and the water of prayer. God is love: ask for more faith in love.
This is the reason the public is losing faith in medicine. After reading “ Turtles”, these obvious false statements are nauseating. 🙈
https://www.aap.org/en/news-room/fact-checked/fact-checked-childhood-vaccines-are-carefully-studiedincluding-with-placebosto-ensure-theyre-safe-and-effective/
Thanks! I have this book & love it!