Uncovering the Cover-up of Vaccine Effectiveness and Safety
Richard Gale & Gary Null, PhD
Progressive Radio Network, September 29, 2025
The two pillars upon which the entire edifice of vaccinology rest are that vaccines are safe and effective. We are told by our medical and federal authorities, physicians, pharmacists and health care practitioners that vaccines work by stimulating the body’s immune system to create specific antibodies. These antibodies in turn will protect us from the infectious disease specific to a given vaccine.
This central premise is virtually never challenged. Hundreds of millions of Americans simply accept that all vaccines are scientifically proven to confer immunity against disease. However, independent research presented for each major vaccine raises serious questions that challenge the concept of antibody generation as a reliable factor to assure viral and bacterial immunity.
The Decline of Epidemic Diseases: Getting to the Truth
The dramatic decline of infectious disease mortality during the 19th and 20th centuries is often attributed primarily to vaccines. However, historical and epidemiological research consistently shows that mortality from measles, diphtheria, whooping cough, tuberculosis, and other major pathogens began to fall long before vaccines were widely introduced. Instead, sanitation, proper sewage disposal, clean water, improved nutrition, indoor plumbing, less-crowded living conditions, elimination of child labor and better hygiene were the real reasons that infectious rates waned.
The earliest evidence comes from the work of Thomas McKeown and his colleagues in the 1960s, who showed that improved living standards, and in particular better nutrition, accounted for most of the mortality reductions in England and Wales during the 19th century.[1] Clean water and sewage disposal systems also played a decisive role in the control and demise of typhoid fever, as documented in early public health reforms, which was documented in 1908.[2] These findings laid the foundation for what would become known as the “McKeown thesis.” Subsequent studies further confirm and expand this perspective.
Analyses of US mortality trends show that the steepest declines in infectious disease deaths occurred well before mass immunization programs during the first half of the 20th century. Later studies demonstrate that public health measures such as sanitation, clean water, and hygiene were the most significant contributors to these trends.[3] For example, two researchers, Cutler and Miller, published quantitative evidence that in the US water purification alone explained nearly half of the decline of infectious disease in urban mortality.[4]
In addition, the introduction of antibiotics further accelerated mortality declines. Diseases such as tuberculosis and pneumonia, which were once leading causes of death, dropped rapidly following the availability of sulfa drugs and penicillin; this was confirmed by a 2015 mega-analyses known as Population Health Metrics.[5] More important, however, is the Nobel Laureate Sir Angus Deaton’s sweeping historical overview reinforcing the theory that medical technology and innovations, such as vaccines, only mattered after baseline improvements in nutrition and sanitation associated with poverty and poor living conditions had greatly reduced disease severity.[6]
More recent reviews continue to support McKeown’s narrative, including further evidence highlighting the links between social and economic conditions to long-term declines in infectious disease mortality.[7] If we are to be intellectually honest, while immunization has had a notable impact, it is just one tool in a broader context of public health, where clean water, sanitation, proper nutrition and healthy foods, antibiotics and a variety of other non-pharmaceutical interventions continue to save more lives globally.[8]
Taken together, this body of evidence demonstrates that vaccines were not the original cause of the great declines in infectious disease mortality. Instead, the data reveal a layered historical process: first, sanitation, nutrition, and hygiene; then, antibiotics and better medical care; and only afterward, vaccines adding further protection. Understanding this chronology helps us appreciate the full spectrum of public health progress—and ensures we do not overlook the fundamental role of living conditions in protecting human health.
The following graphs show that large drops in disease death rates occurred long before vaccines were introduced. From 1900 to 1963, when the measles vaccine was introduced, death rates from measles had declined from 13.3 per 100,000 to 0.2 per 100,000, or a 98% decrease. From 1900 to 1949, death rates from whooping cough declined from 12.2 per 100,000 to 0.5 per 100,000 (96% decrease). From 1900 to 1949, death rates from diphtheria declined from 40.3 per 100,000 to 0.4 per 100,000 (99%). These graphs demonstrate clear and major changes in the severity of diseases well before any vaccines were introduced.[9]
Figure 1. Death rates from Measles
Figure 2. Death rates from Diphtheria
Figure 3. Death rates from Pertussis
The data suggest that public health interventions, such measures as improved hygiene, infected being being isolated are more effective and less expensive interventions to contain epidemics of respiratory viruses, with estimates of effect ranging from 55% to 91%.[10]
Despite all of the strong evidence supporting hygienic improvements and public health measures as central factors of disease prevention, the press rarely recommends measures people can adopt to best protect themselves against viral or bacterial disease, aside from vaccination. One of the most disingenuous studies to reinforce the vaccine narrative is a University of Pittsburgh study commissioned and funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and published in The Lancet in 2021.[11]
The Gates-Pittsburgh study makes sweeping claims that vaccines “saved 37 million lives” between 2000 and 2019, with another 32 million projected to be saved by 2030. The study was also heavily promoted in mainstream media as definitive “proof” of vaccines’ life-saving power. For example, The Guardian and BBC highlighted Gates’ role in funding and quoted the study as showing vaccination to be “one of the greatest success stories in modern medicine.” These numbers, repeatedly amplified by the media, create an impression of vaccines’ absolute efficacy. The study itself reveals it was not a measurement of reality but rather a projection that is entirely dependent on the assumptions baked into its mathematical models.
Gates’ central flaw lies in his study’s premise. Its argument rests on the assumption that, without vaccines, mortality rates for diseases such as measles, rotavirus, HPV, pneumococcus, etc would have persisted at historical levels. This is ahistorical. For more than a century, the epidemiological evidence cited above demonstrates that mortality from infectious diseases began steep declines long before vaccines were available. By ignoring these historical realities, the Gates-funded study effectively rewrites history.
While the findings may sound impressive, the methodology is entirely model-based. In other words, no real-world mortality data was directly analyzed to prove causation. Instead, the researchers assumed that in the absence of vaccines, mortality rates from certain pathogens would have remained at pre-vaccine levels. This ignores over a century of evidence, as cited above, showing that the greatest declines in infectious disease mortality was largely due to sanitation, nutrition, antibiotics, and public health infrastructure.
Moreover, attributing tens of millions of “lives saved” to vaccines requires ignoring many potential confounders such as improved neonatal care, reduced overcrowding, better hygiene practices, and socio-economic development. Each of these initiatives have independently reduced infectious disease burden. The Pittsburgh model also treats antibody production as synonymous with immunity despite the growing evidence that T-cell responses and overall immune resilience, which is associated with nourishment, comorbidities, hygiene, etc., are equally or more critically important.
Finally, the political and financial context of Gates’ study cannot be ignored. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is one of the world’s most powerful vaccine advocacy organizations in the world. A study underwritten by the Foundation and conducted to quantify vaccines-related “lives saved” was never a neutral exercise. Its conclusions were foreordained by its very design; attributing mortality declines exclusively to vaccines inevitably produce fabricated numbers of “lives saved by vaccines.”
In this light, the Gates study parroted by opponents of vaccine hesitancy should be read as an advocacy document wrapped in academic modeling. It presents a carefully curated narrative that elevates vaccines as the dominant driver of preventative health while disregarding the overwhelming historical evidence that public health infrastructure and natural immunity play far greater roles in reducing mortality.
Deconstructing the Science of Antibodies
Vaccines were originally developed to harness one part of the immune system, which is the production of antibodies or humoral immunity. For example, when an antibody attaches to a virus, it can prevent the virus from entering and infecting cells. However, the body’s immune system is far greater than that targeted by a vaccine. In addition to humoral immunity, there is also cell-mediated immunity, which involves T cells, macrophages, natural killer cells, and chemical signals known as cytokines. Unlike antibodies, which act outside of the body’s cells, these cellular defenses target and destroy infected cells from within in order to prevent an infection from spreading.
Natural infection usually stimulates both of these immune systems. When a flu or measles virus enters through the respiratory tract, the body mobilizes a wide-range of defenses. Antibodies block free-floating virus particles, and T cells and macrophages locate and eliminate cells that have been infected. This “dual response” not only clears the infection but also creates memory in both B cells, which make antibodies, and T cells. For over two decades, immunologists warned vaccines very rarely produce full “infection immunity”. According to RM Zinkernagel at the University Hospital of Zurich Institute of Experimental Immunology, “We have not succeeded in generating truly protective vaccines against persistent infections because we cannot imitate ‘infection immunity’ that is long-lasting, generating protective T- and B-cell stimulation against variable infections without causing disease by either immunopathology or tolerance.”[12]
This is particularly true for chronic or persistent infections wherein long-lived T-cell responses are crucial. Studies show that long-term cellular memory is a cornerstone of durable immune protection.[13] In contrast, antibodies wane over time, and their presence does not guarantee immunity. For example, Neidich and colleagues observed that vaccinated adults who had no measurable antibodies were still at higher risk of influenza, which suggests antibodies alone cannot explain protection.[14]
Multiple investigations into influenza and measles have confirmed this. During the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic, individuals with strong T-cell responses were less likely to develop symptomatic illness regardless of their antibody levels.[15] Similarly, protection against measles depends heavily on T-cell activity, not just antibody presence.[16] These findings underscore that vaccines designed only to stimulate antibody production may not always provide the reliable or complete protection.
Since children before their 6th birthday receive 31 mandated vaccines, excluding flu and covid shots, vaccinating infants is especially worrisome. Babies enter the world with an immune system that is basically functional but still immature. Unlike adults, infants are largely unable to produce the full spectrum of antibodies required for long-term immunity. During the first year, infants rely heavily on maternal antibodies. The antibodies the infant acquires, such as immunoglobulins, are passed down from mother to child through breastmilk.[17]
Despite the well-documented biological dependence on maternal immunity, the CDC’s childhood vaccination schedule calls for more than a dozen injections during the first six months of life. This is concerning because vaccines are designed to stimulate antibody production in populations that are not fully capable of mounting robust immune responses on their own. A far more serious problem in favoring vaccine-induced antibodies over cell-mediated immunity is the occurrence of imbalances that lead to autoimmunity and the body mistakenly attacking itself. When vaccines over stimulate antibody production without the presence of sufficient T cell regulation, there can be an abnormal immune response.[18] Adjuvants, such as aluminum, that are added to vaccines to increase the immune response frequently contribute to this imbalance and a leading causes of a large variety of adverse vaccine reactions, including autoimmune disease. Studies show that injected vaccines emphasize antibody production and only weakly activate cellular defenses. In older children and adults, these imbalances in immune activation have been associated with autoimmune conditions and other abnormalities of immune regulation.[19] Therefore, if vaccines are capable of skewing immune responses in fully developed systems, we need to ask what the consequences are when this same pressure is applied to infants’ delicate physiology whose immune systems are still developed.
Independent researcher Steve Kirsch conducted an analysis of the CDC’s vaccine safety data, parent surveys and independent studies. His data analysis shows strong association between early or multiple vaccinations and increased autism risk with particular concern over thimerosal mercury exposure, which is still found in flu vaccines. CDC researchers, including Thomas Verstraeten and William Thompson, had early identified signals linking vaccines with thimerosal and the MMR vaccine to autism but the agency suppressed or destroyed evidence to obscure these findings. Kirsch’s surveys of thousands of parents and studies comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated children observed that the latter group consistently appears healthier with lower rates of chronic conditions.[20] Broader concerns include the role of vaccine-induced antibody reliance in potentially fostering autoimmune issues and the absence of any credible NIH-funded studies directly comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated children.
A notable caveat that throws a wrench into the pro-vaccine narrative relates to genetic research. Certain people have inherited conditions that prevent them from producing antibodies; nevertheless, if their T cell immunity is intact, they can still control and successfully fight infections.[21] In such cases, vaccination is largely useless.
Taken together, this research paints a clear picture: vaccine-induced immunity, which primarily emphasizes antibodies, is only part of the body’s natural defense strategy. Natural infection, by contrast, engages both antibody and T-cell responses, creating a much broader and more lasting immunity.
Measuring the Flu Vaccine’s Efficacy: Junk Science at its Worst
Every flu season, millions of Americans visit their physician’s office or local pharmacy to receive a flu shot. Recipients are given one of a handful of influenza vaccines on the market. The same vaccine with 15 ug of hemagglutinin antigen per flu strain and ~25 ug of ethylmercury will be injected into three year old children, athletes weighing 200 pounds, and frail, immunocompromised elderly patients. After 36 months, regardless of age, weight, medical history, a previously compromised immune system or any other adverse health factor, all are given the same exact chemical cocktail. Furthermore, we are told to accept that this one-size-fits-all approach will predictably result in the production of a number of protective antibodies that will ward off a flu infection.
Once the flu season concludes, vaccinated persons who made it through the season without contracting a diagnosed flu infection are categorized by our health officials as having been successfully immunized. And these statistics then stand as proof of the vaccine’s efficacy. Meanwhile, very little if any attention is paid to the numerous other factors that have been shown to influence immunity, including, quality of diet, additional nutrient profile notably vitamin D and zinc, exercise, stress management, exposure to environmental toxins, sleep patterns and biochemical and genetic makeup.
A person who chooses to be vaccinated and follows a healthy lifestyle by eating a balanced wholesome diet, minimizing exposure to environmental toxins, engaging in regular exercise and practicing de-stress techniques is far less likely to fall sick. It is therefore impossible and frankly unscientific to make any absolute claims that vaccines are the sole protective cause against infectious illness. On the other hand, an unvaccinated individual who eats the standard American diet, suffers from multiple nutrient deficiencies, and leads a sedentary, high-stress lifestyle, has a higher risk of developing a significantly compromised immune system condition. If such a person comes down with an infectious illness, how can it be blamed on the absence of a vaccine and not the unhealthy lifestyle?
When assessing the impact of vaccines, removing the body’s many other biomolecular principles and functions from the equation is fallacious, The claim that a vaccine can prevent disease without looking at many other critical health factors in a person’s life is contrary to any objective, measurable gold standard for assessing either health or illness. It is no different than if a person took vitamin C and subsequently didn’t come down with a cold, that it was exclusively the vitamin C intake that deserves all the credit for being unscientific.
There is also important evidence that flu vaccination makes one more susceptible to contracting other non-influenza respiratory illnesses. Although published in 2012, a double blind placebo controlled clinical study vaccinated vs. unvaccinated challenges the belief that a flu shot should be recommended during a pandemic. The University of Hong Kong followed the health conditions of vaccinated and unvaccinated children between the ages of 6-15 years for 272 days. The trial concluded the flu vaccine holds no health benefits. In fact, those vaccinated had a 550% higher risk of contracting non-flu virus respiratory infections. It was the dramatic number of incidences of non-influenza infections found in the flu-vaccinated group (105 cases, which included coronavirus, rhinovirus, coxsackie, and echovirus as opposed to the placebo group). The results suggest that receiving the flu shot increases the risk of contracting another infectious virus such as Covid-19.
Similarly, the U.S. Armed Forces Health Surveillance Branch at Wright Patterson Air Force Base investigated viral interference associated with the flu shot; in other words, does the flu vaccine make a recipient more susceptible to other non-influenza respiratory viral infections? The study’s conclusions state “Vaccine derived virus interference was significantly associated with coronavirus and human metapneumovirus.”
There is strong evidence suggesting that all clinical trials carried out by vaccine manufacturers fall short of demonstrating vaccine efficacy accurately. And when they are shown to be efficacious, it is frequently in the short term and offers only partial protection. According to an article in the peer-reviewed the Journal of Infectious Diseases, the only way to evaluate vaccines is to scrutinize the epidemiological data obtained from real-life conditions. In other words, researchers simply cannot — or will not — adequately test a vaccine’s effectiveness and immunogenicity prior to its release onto an unsuspecting public. (1)
An excellent example was published earlier this year. The Cleveland Clinic conducted a large-scale study covering over 53,000 of its employees during the 2024–2025 influenza season. The study is regarded as one of the most comprehensive real-world evaluations of the flu vaccines’ effectiveness to date. Among these workers, over 43,800 (82%) were vaccinated and about 9,500 (18%) were not; this provides a clear comparison group within a single healthcare system. The researchers tracked molecularly confirmed influenza cases over a 6 month period. The Clinic’s findings were striking: the incidence of influenza infection was higher among vaccinated employees with an estimated vaccine effectiveness of minus 26.9%. In other words, vaccinated individuals were more likely to test positive for flu than their unvaccinated peers. With its large sample size, rigorous tracking, and real-time analysis, this study provides strong evidence that the flu vaccine’s performance cannot be assumed and must be continually reevaluated.
Another less discussed finding about the flu vaccine’s dismal efficacy was determined by Kaiser Permanente Northern California in 2019. Reviewing 45,000 medical records of patients who tested positive for influenza, researchers charted a trend that the “risk of contracting the flu climbs about 16 percent for every 28 days after vaccination. Therefore, if the efficacy of a particular season’s vaccine is poor to begin with, immune protection would potentially wane within a month in some patients.
The Cochrane Collaboration, at one time perhaps the world’s foremost group of unbiased researchers, conducted a series of meta-analyses on the effectiveness of the influenza vaccine. They found that vaccinating adults against influenza did not affect the number of people hospitalized nor decrease lost work hours. In fact, the Cochrane researchers stated that their results might be overly optimistic due to the fact that 24 out of 90 studies were funded by the vaccine manufacturers which produced results favorable to their product. [22] According to Dr. Tom Jefferson of the Cochrane Collaboration, it makes little sense to keep vaccinating against seasonal influenza based on the evidence.
Dr. Jefferson’s conclusions are backed by former Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine medical statistician and now senior editor at the British Medical Journal Peter Doshi. In a BMJ article, Doshi questions the flu vaccine paradigm stating:
Closer examination of influenza vaccine policies shows that although proponents employ the rhetoric of science, the studies underlying the policy are often of low quality, and do not substantiate officials’ claims. The vaccine might be less beneficial and less safe than has been claimed, and the threat of influenza appears overstated.[23]
The CDC currently recommends that elderly Americans receive a flu shot, stating that “vaccination is especially important for people 65 years and older because they are at high risk for complications from flu.”[24] Unfortunately, this serious warning flies in the face of a significant body of evidence showing that the flu shot does not reduce mortality among seniors. One particularly compelling National Institutes of Health study not only reported that the flu vaccine did nothing to prevent deaths from influenza among seniors, but flu mortality rates in fact increased as a greater percentage of seniors received the shot.[25] According to a co-author of the study, Dr. Tom Reichert, the research team revisited the data several times, but no matter how they analyzed the “incendiary material”, the conclusion was clear: flu shots don’t improve mortality rates in the elderly population.[26]
Finally, a study by Dr. Danuta Skowronski in Canada reported that individuals with a history of receiving consecutive seasonal flu shots over several years had an increased risk of becoming infected with H1N1 swine flu. Commenting on his findings, Skowronski stated, “policy makers have not yet had a chance to fully digest them [the study’s conclusions] or understand the implications.” He continued, “Who knows, frankly? The wise man knows he knows nothing when it comes to influenza, so you always have to be cautious in speculating.”
Since immunity hinges on more than vaccination status, it stands to reason that the only way to make a fair determination about the effectiveness of the current vaccine schedule would be to carry out such an analysis using gold standard scientific methodology and protocol. Why has this never been done? To understand this unanswered question we must look back at vaccinology’s history and the scientific evidence that would implicate our national vaccine campaign as a dangerous and deceptive experiment upon the public.
Covid-19 mRNA Vaccines
The debate over administering mRNA COVID-19 vaccines to children should no longer be controversial because of the extremely low risk of severe illness in this age group and the high risks of vaccine adverse effects. Many countries, such as Sweden, Denmark, Norway, the UK, and Germany do not recommend vaccinating children; their rationale is the lack of clarity as to whether the minimal benefits outweigh the serious risks. For example, in 2022, the Swedish Public Health Agency explicitly stated that because children were at very low risk of illness from SARS-2, the marginal benefits of vaccination don’t justify the risks. Similar reasoning guided Denmark’s decision to discontinue general vaccination for children under 18 years of age. South Africa on the other hand never acknowledged a need to vaccinate children under 12. These policies reflect a growing shared international rationale that the SARS-2 virus poses a far smaller health threat to children than to adults, and the vaccines carry a non-negotiable risk of adverse outcomes, including cardiac death.
The scientific literature now conclusively supports this cautious approach. One of the earliest and most influential studies examined 1,626 reports of myocarditis after mRNA vaccination. The study identified adolescent boys, particularly those aged 12 to 17, as having the highest incidence and especially after the second vaccine dose. Most cases required hospitalization and there are still many uncertainties about long-term recovery.[27] Israeli researchers reported complementary findings; young men aged 16 to 19 faced an estimated 1 in 6,000 risk of myocarditis following their second dose of Pfizer’s vaccine.[28] This study was pivotal because, outside of the US, it shaped international perceptions of mRNA vaccines’ lack of safety.
Cardiac MRI analyses of vaccine-associated myocarditis reveal that even many weeks after diagnosis, some patients will continue to exhibit lasting inflammation and permanent scarring. In other words, the vaccines can dramatically increase the prospects of future cardiovascular complications.[29] This aligns with broader epidemiological findings from Denmark showing elevated myocarditis and pericarditis risk in 12 to 17 year old boys long after vaccination.[30]
Together, these findings explain why high-income countries with robust healthcare systems have decided to no longer recommend universal mRNA vaccination for children.
In more recent years, studies consistently affirm that the mRNA vaccines are immunogenic – capable of inducing or increasing the frequency of genetic mutations that may create permanent changes or cellular damage in an organism’s DNA. For children this presents very worrisome long-term risks. Although no peer-reviewed studies have reached a consensus to show that mRNA vaccines integrate into the human genome or disrupt genetic development in children, there are serious concerns regarding immune imprinting, altered T-cell immune responses and myocarditis-linked inflammatory adverse effects.
In 2023, Japanese researchers conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of myocarditis and myopericarditis after mRNA vaccination in adolescents and young adults. They found that disease incidence was significantly higher in males under 30, particularly after the second dose.[31] Similarly, a more recent global systematic review stratified by age and sex concluded that young men bore the highest attributable risk of myocarditis and pericarditis after mRNA vaccination.[32]
Several studies highlight concerns about immune interference in children. One study examining immune responses in children receiving Pfizer’s Comirnaty mRNA vaccine found that repeated exposures to boosters can lead to immune imprinting, whereby the immune system becomes primed or biased toward the vaccine strain rather than any future SARS-2 variants.[33] Similarly, another study reported that in adolescents, despite increased post-vaccine antibody levels, neutralizing antibodies against viral variants significantly reduced protection against future strains.[34]
Vaccinated adolescents were found to developed lower CD8+ T-cell responses compared to natural SARS-2 infections; consequently, mRNA vaccine-induced protection disrupts the body’s more robust cellular immune responses.[35] Another concern showed that repeated vaccination could contribute to a phenomenon known as “immune exhaustion” in T cells, although this was observed only in animal models.[36]
Critics argue that the federal government’s insistence on vaccinating children, despite these genetic uncertainties, is not aligned with a transparent benefit-risk analysis. The internationally recognized physicist and physician Dr. John Ioannidis at Stanford University has emphasized that mortality and severe outcomes from COVID-19 infections in healthy children are exceedingly rare and, therefore, there are only very marginal minimal benefits of vaccination compared to the vaccines’ high risks.[37] Moreover, regulatory decisions to prioritize rapid FDA authorization and commercial distribution instead of rigorous long-term safety evaluations, confirm that the Covid-19 policies were more influenced by pharmaceutical lobbying and financial interests rather than public health.[38] This criticism parallels analyses of almost all vaccines launched during the past two decades that were prioritized by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices decisions. Vaccine policy decisions in the US are less shaped by medical science than by the influence of private vaccine interests.
But the scientific literature’s warnings about the health risks of the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines in children, adolescents, and young adults have increasingly moved beyond myocarditis to broader concerns including reproductive health and emerging concerns about accelerated or turbo cancers. Myocarditis remains the most consistently documented risk; however, other voices, notably in Japan and elsewhere, are warning of additional life-altering dangers in younger populations with much lower baseline risks from COVID-19.
Beyond myocarditis, animal studies show that transient ovarian and testicular inflammation following lipid nanoparticle delivery via Pfizer’s Covid-19 vaccine can have long-term reproductive effects. While analyzing spontaneous reports of confirmed myocarditis and pericarditis signals, Kobayashi and his Japanese colleagues noted the vaccine’s impacts on fertility after lipid nanoparticles migrate to reproductive organs.[39]
Recently, the term “turbo cancer,” which refers to unusually aggressive post-vaccine malignancies, has entered the medical debate. In his testimony to the People’s Vaccine Inquiry, British oncologist Dr. Angus Dalgleish presented the case that immune dysregulation and suppression of the body’s tumor surveillance mechanisms after repeated mRNA vaccination can contribute to rapid-progressing cancers. This is particularly the case in younger people. [40]Although these claims are not fully accepted, they are gaining increasing attention due to a growing number of clinical and pathology case reports. Japanese medical experts are citing the possibility of cancer risks from sustained immune modulation following repeated mRNA vaccinations. For instance, Japanese clinicians reported their concerns to the Japanese government’s regulatory meetings and medical journals about mRNA’s long-term effects that compromise the body’s oncological immune defenses. A more recent South Korean study following 300,000 residents over the course of 30 months has identified signals that the mRNA vaccines are increasing the risk of breast, bladder and colorectal cancers.[41]
The accumulation of ever-increasing studies now highlight an evolving and indisputable pattern: myocarditis is well-established as a risk in younger males, reproductive disorders cannot be dismissed, and “turbo cancer,” although not conclusively proven, is a very serious expert warning. The Japanese cases are noteworthy because the country has much stronger pharmaco-vigilance alerts and are more cautious than the United States. The Japanese healthcare system genuinely cares about its population. This cautious stance underscores how different national health authorities weigh evidence and risk perception. It should encourage us to look outside our own American medical establishment and media for more objective truths about vaccines.
Early during the Covid-19 vaccine rollout, public messaging was emphasizing the vaccines’ efficacy to curb transmission and thereby achieve herd immunity. However, there was never any truth to this propaganda nor was there ever any sound research by either Pfizer or Moderna to support this claim. Clinical studies, real-world surveillance reports, and testimony from pharmaceutical officials and whistleblowers have demonstrated that the mRNA vaccines do not reliably prevent infection or transmission.
The companies’ initial randomized clinical trials were never designed to test for the prevention of transmission. For example, Pfizer’s pivotal trial, published in New England Journal of Medicine, assessed symptomatic infection but completely ignored infectiousness.[42] Similarly, Moderna’s trial focused on clinical disease prevention and failed to investigate transmission endpoints.[43] Both companies later confessed that they never measured whether vaccinated individuals could carry and spread the SARS-2 virus.
Now evidence from observational studies confirms that breakthrough infections among vaccinated individuals are not rare occurrences; in fact, the vaccinated even transmit the virus to other vaccinated persons. A CDC outbreak investigation during the Delta wave in Massachusetts demonstrated that 74% of cases occurred in fully vaccinated persons, and viral load levels were similar regardless of vaccination status.[44] Likewise, a Lancet study tracked household transmission in the UK and found that vaccinated individuals infected with the virus were just as likely as unvaccinated individuals to transmit infection to close contacts.[45] Subsequent studies reinforce these findings and show high rates of breakthrough infection and transmission among vaccinated persons.
This controversy reached its peak in October 2022 when Pfizer executive Janine Small testified before the European Parliament. In response to questions, she admitted that Pfizer never tested whether its vaccine prevented transmission before it entered the market. Small stated: “We had to really move at the speed of science to know what is taking place in the market… regarding transmission, we had to do everything at risk,” which highlights the degree of Pfizer’s negligence to simply get its vaccine on the market and bypass rigorous efficacy and safety monitoring.[46] Moreover, “the speed of science” is not science. It is a reckless recipe for errors and catastrophes as the mRNA vaccine has shown to be the case.
Taken together, the mounting evidence leaves little doubt that the US federal health agencies and the government at large have utterly failed in their most basic duty to safeguard public health. Despite the clear scientific warnings of myocarditis, reproductive risks, immune dysfunction, oncological signals and the inability of Pfizer’s and Moderna’s mRNA vaccines to prevent transmission, the corporate medical establishment presses forward lobbying for childhood vaccination policies. Instead of heeding the cautious and transparent approaches taken by nations such as Sweden, Denmark, and Japan, our regulators and medical journals ignore mountains of evidence while promoting a narrative designed to protect pharmaceutical profits and political credibility rather than American lives. This deliberate neglect of science in favor of expediency and corporate influence represents not just a policy misstep but also a profound betrayal of public trust. By prioritizing private interests over the health and safety of its youngest citizens, the government has revealed the extent to which its health apparatus has been captured and to place the responsibility on the public to bear the costs of decisions made in bad faith and without any credible accountability.
Measles and Pertussis
Despite decades of claims that the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine would eliminate measles in the US, evidence shows that outbreaks continue to occur in highly vaccinated populations. This is despite that as of 2022–2023, national kindergarten MMR vaccination coverage has remains high, at about 93%.[47]
In 2019, the U.S. experienced 22 outbreaks totaling 1,274 confirmed cases, which was the largest case loads since 1992.[48] In 2020, amid COVID restrictions, cases dropped sharply to 13 cases but shot up again the following year to 49 cases and 121 cases in 2022.[49] Notably, the CDC reports acknowledge that many of these cases occur among vaccinated individuals. This indicates that vaccine failure, rather than noncompliance alone, is playing a major role in ongoing transmission.
Research over the past decade increasingly recognizes that MMR-induced immunity wanes faster than previously assumed. A major CDC-supported study confirmed that “waning immunity to measles is a potential contributor to outbreaks, even in highly vaccinated populations”.[50] Other research found that while the MMR induces strong initial antibody titers, protection declines significantly for some individuals thereby leaving them susceptible to infection despite full compliance.[51] This phenomenon helps explain why outbreaks frequently occur on college campuses, in military settings, and other communities with a greater than 95% vaccination coverage.
By contrast, natural infection with wild measles virus continues to confer lifelong immunity. A classic long-term follow-up study confirmed that once infected, individuals retain durable protection that doesn’t wane with age.[52] More recent immunology research reinforces that wild measles infection establishes long-lasting T-cell and B-cell memory that far outlasts vaccine-induced immunity.[53]
In 2021, the Cochrane Database network released a systematic review that evaluated 138 studies involving over 23 million participants to assess the safety and effectiveness of MMR vaccines in children. Although the report stated the vaccines were effective in preventing measles, it also identified a clear association between the MMR vaccine and febrile seizures. Febrile seizures can occur naturally in about 3% of healthy children under age five, but the Cochrane scientists estimated the attributable risk from MMR vaccination to be approximately 1 per 1,150 doses. This a measurable increase in seizure risk among vaccinated children.[54]
For measles specifically, there has yet to be any evidence that repeated or mass vaccination campaigns are driving the evolution of vaccine-resistant strains or making strains more virulent. However, this is not the case for other pathogens. Pertussis (Bordetella pertussis) and pneumococcus, vaccine-driven strain replacement and the appearance of more virulent or resistant strains have been documented. For example, the emergence of pertactin-deficient B. pertussis strains has now been strongly associated with widespread pertussis vaccination.[55] This provides a theoretical framework that some pathogens can adapt under vaccine pressure, though this has not yet been shown in measles.
Despite the mandatory administration of pertussis shots and boosters, scientific evidence shows the vaccine does not effectively confer immunity against pertussis. A study published in Clinical Infectious Diseases puts it, “pertussis is currently the least well-controlled vaccine-preventable disease despite excellent vaccination coverage and 6 vaccine doses recommended between 2 months of age and adolescence.”[56]
The ineffective nature, and perhaps utterly uselessness and frankly dangerous risks, of the pertussis vaccine was brought into sharp focus during the large 2010 whooping cough outbreak in California with over 9,100 people cases, many of them children. A study assessing the vaccine’s efficacy concluded that an extraordinarily high 80% of all children who contracted the illness were fully vaccinated.[57]
One explanation for the pertussis vaccine’s remarkable lack of efficacy can be found in a study undertaken at Penn State’s Center for Infectious Disease Dynamics. The team found that rather than inhibit bacterial growth, the whooping cough vaccine promotes the colonization of pertussis’ causal bacterial agent Bordetella parapertussis. Based on their findings, the researchers posited that the vaccine itself may be contributing to the marked resurgence of whooping cough cases compared to the previous decade.[58]
In addition to the pertussis vaccine’s ineffectiveness, there is evidence that the DPT vaccine is giving rise to more virulent pertussis strains. During a meeting of the CDC’s Board of Scientific Counselors for Infectious Diseases, officials pointed out that these new emerging strains lack pertactin (PRN), the antigen currently used in pertussis vaccines. The meeting reported, “vaccinated patients had significantly higher odds than unvaccinated patients of being infected with PRN- deficient strains.”[59] Another study surveyed the incidence of whooping cough in eight states. The survey found that fully vaccinated children were two to four times more likely to contract a PRN-deficient strain than the unvaccinated population.[60]
A further reason for the pertussis vaccine’s failure to control communal infection is because vaccinated children may become asymptomatic carriers of the pathogen; this is the same problem that was discovered with the mRNA vaccines’ failures during the Covid-19 pandemic. Consequently, DPT vaccinated populations can be infected with the whooping cough but not present symptoms.[61] The serious downside to this is that asymptomatic carriers transmit the disease to unvaccinated individuals, especially infants who run the highest risk of suffering complications from pertussis. It also lends credence to research implicating vaccinated older siblings, not parents, as the primary source of infection for whooping cough among infants. This research runs counter to the entire notion of herd immunity, which states that older populations must be immunized in order to protect infants who are not old enough to receive the vaccine.[62]
Calling for Science-Based Vaccinology
It is certainly reasonable and responsible to suggest that if a vaccine were proven to be safe and effective by a gold standard of science, it would be an important health service for every child and adult. However, at this moment no such assurance can be made based upon quality science. At the very least we should require unbiased, independent, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of every vaccine, both individually and collectively with no input from vaccine manufacturers or their colleagues, associates or consultants. To ensure a healthier future, it is crucial that we stand up today and demand a new paradigm of vaccine science and immunology based on independent, science-based medicine.
NOTES
[1] McKeown T, Record RG. Reasons for the decline of mortality in England and Wales during the nineteenth century. Population Studies, 1962;16(2), 94–122
[2] Whipple GC. Typhoid fever: Its causation, transmission and prevention. Cambridge University Press, 1908.
[3] Armstrong GL, Conn LA, Pinner RW. Trends in infectious disease mortality in the United States during the 20th century. JAMA), 1999;281(1), 61–66.
[4] Cutler D, Miller G. The role of public health improvements in health advances: The twentieth-century United States. Demography, 2005;42(1), 1–22.
[5] Garenne M. Demographic evidence of the decline of mortality from infectious diseases in Europe: The role of nutrition and sanitation. Population Health Metrics, 2015;13(1), 23.
[6] Deaton A. The Great Escape: Health, wealth, and the origins of inequality. Princeton University Press, 2013
[7] Baron S, Howard CR. The legacy of the McKeown thesis: The impact of social and economic conditions on infectious disease mortality. J Epidemiol & Comm Health, 2015;69(5), 423–426.
[8] Holmes L. Applied Public Health Essentials: Guidelines for Public Health Conceptualization, Assessment and Application. 2025.
[9] Vital Statistics of the United States 1987. Volum II, Mortality Part A, US Dept of Health and Human Services.
[10] Jefferson T, Physical Interventions to Interrupt or Reduce the Spread of Respiratory Viruses: Systematic Review. BMJ. 2009 Sep 21; 339.
[11] Xiang Li, et al. Lives Saved with Vaccination for 10 Pathogens Across 112 Countries in a Pre-COVID-19 World. The Lancet. (2021), Vol. 2021;397(10287), 398–408.
[12] Zinkernagel RM Protective ‘immunity’ by pre-existent neutralizing antibody titers and preactivated T-cells but not by so-called ‘immunological memory’. Immunological Review 2006, Jun, 211;310-319.
[13] Sallusto F, et al. From vaccines to memory and back. Immunity, 2010;33(4), 451–463
[14] Neidich SD, et al. Increased risk of influenza among vaccinated adults who are seronegative for influenza antibodies. Clin Infectious Dis, 2017;65(12), 1905–1911.
[15] Sridhar S, Begom S, Bermingham A, et al. Cellular immune correlates of protection against symptomatic pandemic influenza. Nature Medicine, 2013;19(10), 1305–1312.
[16] de Vries RD, Rimmelzwaan GF. The role of T-cell immunity in measles virus infection. Seminars in Immunopathol, 2016;38(6), 767–777.
[17] Siegrist CA. Neonatal and early life vaccinology. Vaccine, 2001;19(25–26), 3331–3346.
[18] Fujinami RS, von Herrath MG, et al. Molecular mimicry, bystander activation, or viral persistence: infections and autoimmune disease. Clin Microbiol Rev, 2006;19(1), 80–94.
[19] Ibid.
[20] Kirsch S. The link between vaccines and autism has been clear for over 25 years since the CDC did the VSD study. September 27, 2025. https://kirschsubstack.com/p/the-link-between-vaccines-and-autism
[21] Casanova JL, Su HC. A global effort to define the human genetics of protective immunity to pathogens. Cell, 2020;181(6), 1194–1199.
[22] Jefferson T, et al. Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy adults. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2010;7, Art. CD001269.
[23] Doshi P. Influenza: Marketing Vaccine by Marketing Disease. BMJ 2013;346, F3037.
[24] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “What You Should Know and Do this Flu Season If You Are 65 Years and Older” http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/disease/65over.htm
[25] Glezen WP, Simonsen L. Commentary: Benefits of Influenza Vaccine in US Elderly–new Studies Raise Questions. Internat J Epidemiol. 2006;35(2), 352-53.
[26] Attkisson, S. “Govt. Researchers: Flu Shots Not Effective in Elderly, After All” https://sharylattkisson.com/govt-researchers-flu-shots-not-effective-in-elderly-after-all/
[27] Oster ME, Shay DK, Su JR, et al. Myocarditis cases reported after mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination in the US from December 2020 to August 2021. JAMA, 2022;327(4), 331–340.
[28] Mevorach D, Anis E, Cedar N, et al. Myocarditis after BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine against COVID-19 in Israel. NEJM, 2021;385(23), 2140–2149.
[29] Schauer J, Buddhe S, Colyer J, et al. Persistent cardiac MRI abnormalities in adolescents after COVID-19 mRNA vaccination. Pediatrics, 2022;150(5), e2022057110.
[30] Hansen JV, Jorgensen LH, et al. Nationwide study of cardiac adverse events in children and adolescents after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination in Denmark. Euro Heart Journal, 2022;43(48), 5075–5085.
[31] Yasuhara J, Masuda K, et al. Myopericarditis after COVID-19 mRNA vaccination among adolescents and young adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Pediatrics, 2023;177(3), 282–292.
[32] Kitano T, Salmon DA, Dudley MZ, et al. Age- and sex-stratified risks of myocarditis and pericarditis attributable to COVID-19 vaccination: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Epidemiologic Reviews. 2025.
[33] Dowell AC, et al. Immunogenicity of the BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccine in children aged 5–11 years. Nature Communications, 2022;13(1), 1–10.
[34] Juul-Madsen, H. R., et al. Limited breadth of neutralizing antibodies after mRNA vaccination in adolescents. Frontiers in Immunology, 2023;14, 1122334.
[35] Chalkias S, et al. Cellular and humoral immune responses following mRNA vaccination in adolescents. J Infectious Dis, 2022;226(7), 1235–1245
[36] Cohen KW, et al. Immune cell dynamics after repeated mRNA vaccination. Nature Immunology, 2022;23(10), 1627–1637.
[37] Ioannidis JPA. COVID-19 vaccination in children and young adults: A risk-benefit perspective. Euro J Clinical Investigation, 2022;52(9), e13723.
[38] Doshi P. COVID-19 vaccines and treatments: We must have raw data, now. BMJ, 2021;376, o102.
[39] Kobayash H., et al. Risks of myocarditis and pericarditis following vaccination with SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines in Japan: an analysis of spontaneous reports. Therap Innovation Regul Sci, 2023;57(4), 732–742.
[40] Malik DDP, Dalgleish A. Doctors for Patients UK statement on vaccine safety. People’s Vaccine Inquiry, October 2024.
[41] Hulscher N. Second massive population study finds Covid-19 vaccines increase risk of six major cancers. Focal Points. September 27, 2025. https://www.thefocalpoints.com/p/breaking-second-massive-population
[42] Polack FP, et al. Safety and efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 vaccine. NEJM, 2020; 383(27), 2603–2615.
[43] Baden LR, et al. Efficacy and safety of the mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. NEJM, 2021;384(5), 403–416.
[44] Brown CM, et al. Outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 infections, including COVID-19 vaccine breakthrough infections, associated with large public gatherings, Barnstable County, Massachusetts, July 2021. MMWR, 2021;70(31), 1059–1062.
[45] Singanayagam A, et al. Community transmission and viral load kinetics of the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals. The Lancet Infect Dis, 2021;22(2), 183–195.
[46] De Vries R. Pfizer did not test transmission prevention of COVID vaccine, executive admits. Reuters. October 11, 2022.
[47] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Vaccination coverage with selected vaccines and exemption rates among children in kindergarten, 2022–23 school year. MMWR. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 72(41), 1109–1116.
[48] Patel M, Lee AD, Redd SB, et al. National update on measles cases and outbreaks, US January 1 October 1, 2019. MMWR. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 2020;68(40), 893–896.
[49] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Measles cases and outbreaks. CDC Measles Surveillance Data, 2024.
[50] Lewnard JA, Grad YH. Vaccine waning and mumps re-emergence in the United States. Science Translational Medicine, 2018;10(433), eaao5945.
[51] Mina MJ, Kula T, et al. Measles virus infection diminishes preexisting antibodies that offer protection from other pathogens. PLoS Pathogens, 2017;13(9), e1006346.
[52] Amanna IJ, Carlson NE, Slifka MK. Duration of humoral immunity to common viral and vaccine antigens. Immunity, 2007;27(2), 367–377.
[53] Slifka MK, Amanna IJ. How advances in immunology provide insight into improving vaccine efficacy. Frontiers in Immunology, 2014;5, 18.
[54] Di Pietrantonj C, et al. Vaccines for measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella in children. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2021 Nov 22;11(11):CD004407.
[55] Mooi FR, van der Maas NAT, De Melker HE. Pertussis resurgence: waning immunity and pathogen adaptation – two sides of the same coin. Epidemiol Infect. 2014;142(4):685–694.
[56] Martin SW, Pawloski, M. Williams, K. Weening, C. Debolt, X. Qin, L. Reynolds, C. Kenyon, G. Giambrone, K. Kudish L. Miller D. et al. Pertactin-Negative Bordetella Pertussis Strains: Evidence for a Possible Selective Advantage. Clin Infect Dis. 2014;60(2): 223-27.
[57] Stobbe M. Study: Whooping Cough Vaccination Fades in 3 Years. Yahoo Finance. September 19, 2011.
[58] Long GH, Karanikas ET, Harvill AF, et al. Acellular Pertussis Vaccination Facilitates Bordetella Parapertussis Infection in a Rodent Model of Bordetellosis. Proc Royal Society Biological Sci. 2010;277(1690): 2017-025.
[59] “Meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors, Office of Infectious Diseases Centers for Disease Control and Prevention” http://www.cdc.gov/maso/facm/pdfs/BSCOID/2013121112_BSCOID_Minutes.pdf
[60] Martin SW, Pawloski M, Williams K, et al. Pertactin-Negative Bordetella Pertussis Strains: Evidence for a Possible Selective Advantage. Clin Infect Dis. 2014;60(2): 223-27.
[61] Skoff TH, Kenyon N, Cocoros J, et al. Sources of Infant Pertussis Infection in the United States. Pediatrics 2015;136(4): 635-41.
[62] Haelle T. Measles Cases Are Spreading, despite High Vaccination Rates. What’s Going On? Washington Post, June 23, 2014.
