Brian Hooker, a bioengineer and chemist who holds a PhD from Washington University, teamed up with Robert F. Kennedy Jr to scour the science and uncover all the well-controlled studies comparing the incidence of heart problems and more between vaccinated and unvaccinated. Here’s what they discovered, as adapted from their new book Vax-Unvax
At this writing, only 69.4 percent of the US populace is “fully vaccinated” for Covid-19 (without accounting for boosters),1 despite billions of dollars in advertising, systematic media propaganda, incentives, coercive measures, mandates and numerous photo ops of government officials and celebrities receiving the shot.
The FDA authorized Pfizer’s BNT162b2 Covid-19 vaccine under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for the US starting December 10, 2020. Other Covid-19 vaccines distributed in the US under EUA include the Moderna mRNA-1273 vaccine, the Johnson & Johnson Janssen vaccine, and the Novavax Nuvaxovid and Covovax vaccines. Full FDA approval was given to Pfizer (Comirnaty) and Moderna (Spikevax) vaccines.
The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are based on mRNA technology, Novavax vaccines are based on recombinant protein technology and the Johnson & Johnson vaccine is based on human adenovirus technology. As of May 7, 2023, the Johnson & Johnson Janssen vaccine is no longer available in the US.
In Europe, the Oxford-AstraZeneca AZD1222 vaccine is based on the modified chimpanzee adenovirus ChAdOx1; and in China, the Sinovac CoronaVac vaccine is an inactivated virus vaccine.
Fallout of the Covid vaccines
Officials have distributed Covid-19 vaccines in the US for approximately 30 months, as of this writing, and the rates of adverse events are extremely high. Medical personnel and patients have reported just over 951,000 adverse events for the vaccines (Pfizer, Moderna, Johnson & Johnson, and Novavax) in the US alone.2
In fact, in three years, Covid-19 shots have caused 97 percent of all adverse events reported to the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) since the introduction of this program in 1986. The media is now beginning to acknowledge certain adverse events, albeit with the obligatory disclaimer regarding how “rare” vaccine injuries are.
Before the pandemic, we began searching for publications in which researchers studied the health outcomes of vaccinated versus unvaccinated populations among all the common vaccines given. We have so far identified over 100 peer-reviewed articles from open, peer-reviewed, scientific and medical literature.
In addition, many other research papers support the conclusions of these studies.3 Our book Vax-Unvax: Let the Science Speak is a compendium of these studies.
We also included relevant research studies published by other reputable sources. We then summarized each of the “vax vs unvax” studies and included bar graphs that illustrate the most pertinent results for each of the different vaccines and vaccine components.
Many researchers have published studies investigating links between different types of Covid-19 vaccines and serious adverse events including myocarditis (inflammation of the heart muscle), pericarditis (inflammation of the fluid sac surrounding the heart), blood-clotting disorders, shingles (a reactivation of the chickenpox virus in adulthood), hearing loss, hospitalizations and death.
In this case, we were also able to find numerous credible studies of vaccinated vs unvaccinated individuals.
Here, then, is a summary of the most common side effects we found in this comprehensive list of the best studies of the Covid jab where investigators directly compared vaccinated individuals to unvaccinated controls.
Most common adverse events
Bell’s palsy
Bell’s palsy is a neurological disorder that causes paralysis or weakness on one side of the face. Facial paralysis can vary from patient to patient and can be mild or severe.
Patients typically recover some or all of their facial functions within a few weeks to six months. However, facial weakness and paralysis can be permanent.
Most often, practitioners reported the onset of facial nerve palsy three to four days following mRNA vaccination. Patients who received Pfizer’s vaccine showed the highest incidence of Bell’s palsy compared to all other vaccines reported in VAERS.4
In Hong Kong, Dr Eric Yuk Fai Wan, affiliated with the Centre for Safe Medication Practice and Research at the University of Hong Kong, published a study in The Lancet Infectious Diseases in 2022 using patient data from the Hong Kong Covid-19 Vaccine Adverse Event Online Reporting system.
Patients receiving Pfizer’s vaccine had a 75 percent higher risk, and those receiving the Chinese CoronaVac mRNA vaccine were nearly two and a half times more likely to develop Bell’s palsy than unvaccinated patients (see graph, below left).5
These kinds of results also appeared in Israel. Dr Rana Shibli at Lady Davis Carmel Medical Center in Haifa, Israel, and his team retrieved data on the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccination from December 2020 through April 2021, and on the incidence of Bell’s palsy, from the database of the largest healthcare provider in Israel, which included over 2.5 million vaccine recipients.6
They compared the number of observed cases of Bell’s palsy that occurred within 21 days after the first vaccine dose and within 30 days after the second dose to expected cases, based on 2019 rates. The study, published in The Lancet Regional Health—Europe, concluded that the first vaccine dose was associated with a 36 percent higher risk of Bell’s palsy.
But the risk increased with age, particularly among women. Women aged 45–64 showed a 71 percent higher risk, and those aged 65 or above were two and a half times more likely to develop the palsy. There also appeared to be an increased risk with the second jab.
In a 2023 study, Dr Wan and his team at the University of Hong Kong used data from population-based electronic health records of individuals 16 years or older in Hong Kong to assess the diagnosis of Bell’s palsy in hospitalized patients within 28 days of receiving the Pfizer Covid vaccine between March 2021 and July 2021.7
Vaccination with the Pfizer shot (first or second dose) yielded more than one and a half times the incidence of a Bell’s palsy diagnosis. But the scientists also found the odds of being diagnosed more than doubled during the first 14 days after the second dose (see graph, below right).
Overall, in a study published in the International Journal of Infectious Diseases, Dr Kenichiro Sato and his team at the University of Tokyo found an 84 percent higher risk of Bell’s palsy following the Pfizer vaccine, compared to the unvaccinated, and a 54 percent higher risk after any mRNA vaccine.4
Heart problems
Myocarditis is a severe illness indicating damage to the myocardium (heart muscle). Young adult men are at the highest risk, although women may also develop myocarditis. Almost 20 percent of all sudden deaths in young people are due to myocarditis. The survival rate for myocarditis is 80 percent after one year and 50 percent after five years.8
A 2021 study by Dr Min Seo Kim at Korea University in Seoul compared cardiac adverse events from the mRNA Covid-19 vaccine to those from flu vaccines using the World Health Organization’s VigiBase for adverse events.9
Overall, individuals receiving Covid-19 mRNA vaccines showed a 12.72 times higher incidence of cardiac hypertensive crisis (a sudden, dangerous rise in blood pressure) and a 7.94 times higher incidence of supraventricular tachycardia (an abnormally fast or irregular heartbeat in the upper heart chambers) than those receiving the flu vaccine (see graph, below left).
Other research has focused on sex or particular age groups. For instance, Dr Francisco Taz Tsun Lai and his team at the Hong Kong-based Centre for Safe Medication Practice and Research looked at the Pfizer shot given to adolescents aged 12–18.10 Those who received the first dose of the Pfizer vaccine had a 9.15 times greater risk of myocarditis compared to unvaccinated adolescents.
But the statistics leapt up with the second jab. Those who received the second dose had a 29.61 times greater risk of myocarditis compared to unvaccinated adolescents within 28 days of vaccination (see graph, below right). After their second dose of the Pfizer vaccine, they had a 2.06 times greater risk of sleep disturbances/disorders compared to unvaccinated adolescents.
Norwegian research backed up these results. In a study published in JAMA Cardiology in 2022, Dr Øystein Karlstad and his team at the Norwegian Institute of Public Health examined more than 23 million Nordic country residents aged 12 and older.11
Researchers observed the highest risk in boys and men aged 16–24. After the second Moderna mRNA vaccine dose, the rate of myocarditis was 13.83 times higher than in the corresponding unvaccinated group, and after the Pfizer mRNA vaccine, it was 5.31 times as high (see graph, below left).
Britain showed the same results. Researchers from the Nuffield Department of Primary Health Care Services in Oxford examined individuals in England aged 13 and older for disease incidence before and after Covid-19 vaccination.12
Men receiving the second dose of the Moderna mRNA-1273 vaccine showed the highest levels of myocarditis—almost 15 times more men developed it after the vaccine than after a Covid infection.
And in America, a 2022 study by Dr Anthony Simone at the Kaiser Permanente Los Angeles Medical Center examined all Kaiser Permanente Southern California patients who received one to three doses of mRNA Covid-19 vaccines between December 14, 2020, and February 18, 2022.13 It found the risk of myocarditis within seven days of the second vaccine was 10.23 times higher than in the baseline period, and the risk of myocarditis within seven days of the third vaccine (booster) was 6.08 times higher than in the baseline period (see graph, below right).
To establish the “baseline period,” the researchers examined the incidence of myocarditis among the patients one to two years before the first dose of Covid vaccine. This study showed the second and third jabs had the greatest effect: no statistically significant risk was associated with the first dose.
In Hong Kong, the focus of heart issues was with the Pfizer jab and hospitalized patients. Researchers from the University of Hong Kong looked at 160 hospitalized patients aged 12 and older in Hong Kong given the Pfizer jab from February to August 2021 with carditis (heart inflammation) and elevated troponin levels (indicating a heart attack has occurred).14 Compared with 1,533 control unvaccinated patients, the vaccine recipients had 3.57 times greater odds of carditis than unvaccinated patients.
And for male vaccine recipients, the odds were 4.68 times greater. Once again, the risk was found to be higher after the second dose of the Pfizer jab than after the first.
In Israel, a study of Israeli Ministry of Health data published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that the incidence of myocarditis within 30 days after the second dose of the Pfizer mRNA vaccine was 2.35 times higher than in unvaccinated people, and highest among boys aged 16–19 years at 8.96 cases per 10,857, or roughly one in 1,000 (see graph, below left).15
The researchers determined that the rate of myocarditis in the general unvaccinated population was one in 10,857, making the incidence among the adolescent boys nearly nine times higher.
Meanwhile, in Italy, researchers from the National Centre for Drug Research and Evaluation at the Istituto Superiore di Sanità in Rome tracked myocarditis and pericarditis in teenagers from age 12 and in adults up to age 39 after receiving mRNA vaccines and published their findings in PLOS Medicine in 2022.16
In the study, boys and men receiving the first or second dose of the Moderna mRNA vaccine had approximately a 12 times greater risk of myocarditis or pericarditis within seven days of vaccination than at any time between December 27, 2020, and September 30, 2021, other than during the 21 days after their first or second dose.
And in California, a team of scientists from Kaiser Permanente Northern California and the CDC looked at participants from eight integrated healthcare delivery systems in the CDC’s Vaccine Safety Datalink. It found a significantly greater risk of myocarditis or pericarditis within seven days after participants received the first or second dose of the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccines than within the baseline period of the study from December 14, 2020 to January 15, 2022, before they received a shot (see graph, below right).17
Investigators showed that myocarditis or pericarditis was significantly associated with Covid-19 vaccination in eight different studies identified.18
Thrombocytopenia and thrombosis
Thrombocytopenia is a deficiency of platelets in circulating blood and can lead to spontaneous bleeding. Cerebral venous thrombosis occurs when a blood clot blocks blood flow away from the brain and can be a cause of stroke.
Studies have linked these illnesses with Covid-19 vaccines as well.
The prestigious journal Nature Medicine published a British study carried out by researchers affiliated with Victoria University of Wellington in New Zealand and the Usher Institute at the University of Edinburgh.19 It included more than 2.5 million people over age 18 in Scotland who were vaccinated between December 2020 and April 2021, this time with the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine.
That shot was associated with a 5.77 times higher risk of thrombocytopenic purpura (an autoimmune clotting disorder), an increased relative risk of arterial blood clots and an increased relative risk of excessive bleeding anytime in the first 27 days after the shot (see graph, below, top left).
Nordic countries offered evidence of a similar scenario. Dr Jacob Dag Berild at the Norwegian Institute of Public Health studied the effects of three Covid vaccines (AstraZeneca, Pfizer and Moderna) in Norway, Finland and Denmark.20
The team examined hospital registries from the three Nordic countries to measure the incidence of thrombocytopenia and cerebral venous thrombosis (blood clots in the brain) within 28 days following these vaccines.
They observed the highest risks for patients receiving the AstraZeneca Covid-19 vaccine, with a 4.29 times higher risk of thrombocytopenia and a 12.04 times higher risk of cerebral venous thrombosis within 28 days after the shots (see graph, below, bottom left).
Shingles
Another side effect linked to the Covid jabs, according to the research, is shingles, a painful, sometimes serious condition resulting from the reactivation of the herpes zoster virus that causes chickenpox. Anyone who’s had chicken pox or the varicella vaccine may be at risk of this reactivation when their immune system is compromised or suppressed.
Dr Wan and his team at the University of Hong Kong examined patients who’d been hospitalized for shingles after receiving the Chinese CoronaVac or the Pfizer jab.21
The study, published in The Lancet Regional Health—Western Pacific, revealed that patients who received the Pfizer vaccine were more than five times more likely to develop shingles in the first 27 days after the first shot (see graph, below, bottom right), while those who’d received CoronaVac were 2.67 times more likely to contract shingles after 13 days.
Hearing loss
Besides shingles, many of those receiving the Pfizer vaccine experienced sudden loss of hearing. Patients with sudden sensorineural hearing loss can experience tinnitus. It can also lead to permanent hearing loss.
Dr Yoav Yanir from Lady Davis Carmel Medical Center in Haifa, Israel, published findings in JAMA Otolaryngology—Head & Neck Surgery showing that the first and second doses of the Pfizer shot led to 35 percent and 23 percent higher risks of sudden hearing loss respectively (see graph, below, top right).22
Risks were greatest, 92 percent higher, after the first dose in girls and women aged 16 to 44 and were 68 percent higher in women older than 65. In boys and men of the same ages, the greatest risk occurred after the second dose, making them nearly two and a half times more likely to lose their hearing.
Covid-19 vaccines vs flu vaccines
Many side effects unique to the Covid vaccines are shown in bold relief when you compare the incidence of these effects to those of standard flu vaccines.
In a German study published in Frontiers in Public Health, Dr Diego Montano at the University of Tubingen in Germany compared adverse events reports from EudraVigilance (European Database of Suspected Adverse Drug Reactions) and VAERS for Covid-19 and flu vaccines.23 These were then adjusted to account for the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) estimates of the total number of each type of vaccine administered.
Death, hospitalization and life-threatening reaction reports per unit of Covid-19 vaccine given far eclipsed those for the influenza vaccine (see graph, below, top right). The authors also reported significant relative risks of thrombosis, coagulation and sexual organ reactions associated with Covid-19 vaccines.
Adverse events in the elderly
These adverse events and others also show up in those over age 65. An FDA-sponsored prospective study tracked US Medicaid claims data for over 30 million patients aged 65 and older from December 2020 through January 2022.24
Weekly sequential testing revealed four outcomes that stood out enough to raise alarm following Pfizer vaccination compared to pre-Covid-19 vaccine historic levels: pulmonary embolism (blood clot in the lungs), with a risk 54 percent higher than before vaccination between one and 28 days after vaccination; acute heart attack, with a risk 42 percent higher; and abnormal blood clotting throughout the body, with a risk 91 percent higher (see graph, below, bottom).
Immune thrombocytopenia (low blood platelets due to autoimmune attack) showed a risk 44 percent higher than before vaccination for up to 42 days after vaccination.
Serious adverse events
Other studies directly compared vaccine recipients to placebo control recipients, notably one published in Vaccine by a senior editor of The BMJ at the University of Maryland and a scientist from the Thibodaux Regional Health System in Louisiana. It used data from the phase 3 clinical trials for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines.25
This time the researchers were looking for serious adverse events as follows:
Death, life-threatening at the time of the event
Inpatient hospitalization, or prolongation of existing hospitalization
Persistent or significant disability/incapacity
A congenital anomaly/birth defect
A medically important event based on medical judgment
The Pfizer vaccine showed a 36 percent higher risk of serious adverse events, while those who received the Moderna jab showed a 6 percent higher risk (see graph, below, top left). Overall, recipients of either of the mRNA vaccines had a 1.16 times greater risk of serious adverse events compared to unvaccinated controls. The result was marginally statistically significant.
But other data emerged that was even more interesting. The study authors also completed a risk-benefit assessment of both vaccines. They found that the Pfizer vaccine showed an excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest of 10.1 per 10,000 vaccinees while preventing Covid-19 hospitalizations in 2.3 per 10,000 vaccinees compared to the placebo group.
In other words, you are about five times more likely to have a reaction to the Pfizer shot than to prevent a reaction to Covid-19 serious enough to land you in the hospital.
Likewise, the Moderna vaccine showed an excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest of 15.1 per 10,000 vaccinees while preventing Covid-19 hospitalizations in 6.4 per 10,000 vaccinees compared to the placebo group.
Again, the risk of a serious side effect from the Moderna shot was more than double the protective effect of the shot.
Why aren’t the necessary studies being conducted?
One reason regulators give to dismiss a more rigorous approach in studying the long-term health effects of any shots in the childhood and adult vaccination schedule is that vaccine adverse events are “one-in-a-million,” and thus we should stop promoting fear of vaccine injury. The government derives its one-in-a million figure by comparing the number of compensated vaccine injuries by the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP) to the total number of vaccines given in the US.
Unfortunately, most vaccine-injured people don’t even know the NVICP exists, and even fewer get compensated. The Lazarus study, carried out by Ross Lazarus of Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, which the CDC funded and then abandoned—likely because the agency didn’t like the results—stands in stark contrast to the one-in-a-million figure.
Specifically, researchers in the Lazarus study found the rate of adverse events was one in 3,823 among a population of about 375,000 individuals given 1.4 million routine vaccines.1
Over the three-year study period, that translated to a one in 10 chance of experiencing an adverse reaction to a vaccine, a far cry from the mythical “one-in-a-million” rhetoric touted by the pharmaceutical industry and government health agencies. The Lazarus study suggests that federal officials and the pharmaceutical industry must pay urgent attention to this astronomical rate of adverse events.
Still, the CDC and FDA steadfastly refuse to study health outcomes in vaccinated versus unvaccinated populations.
Public health experts assert they can’t feasibly do so because it would be unethical to complete a randomized, controlled trial (RCT) in which researchers withhold lifesaving vaccines from a blinded placebo control group.2 Their argument is a sham. Pharmaceutical companies typically use this method during the FDA approval process to test new drugs or biologics when no comparable treatment exists.
For example, the FDA requires randomized controlled clinical studies for certain cancer treatments,3 heart medications4 and respiratory drugs,5 and no one appears to question the ethics of withholding potentially lifesaving remedies from blinded placebo control groups. It is, in fact, standard practice.
Furthermore, researchers can complete many other types of analyses besides RCTs using existing populations of vaccinated and unvaccinated children and adults. According to the Cochrane Collaboration, an international organization that examines the evidence for individual medical drugs and procedures, these analyses produce results equal in reliability.6
These include analyses that are prospective (looking at health effects in the future) or retrospective (looking at past medical data and history).
Adapted from Vax-Unvax: Let the Science Speak, by Robert F. Kennedy Jr and Brian Hooker (Skyhorse Publishing, 2023)
Resources
See Healthy shopping: Supplements for Covid vaccine injury for useful supplements and resources for those suffering from Covid vaccine side effects.
Kids, Vaccines and Autism: What You Need to Know
The government is hiding the truth from you.
April 23, 2024
By
This article originally appeared on The Defender and was republished with permission.
Guest post by Brenda Baletti, Ph.D.
When the parents of Yates Hazlehurst took their normal, happy 11-month-old to the doctor on Feb. 8, 2001, for an ear infection, the clinic gave Yates his 12-month shots — the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR), Prevnar, Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib), and Hepatitis B vaccines — even though Yates had an ear infection and was not yet quite 1 year old.
Twelve days later, Yates developed a high fever, rash and vomiting. In the months that followed, he stopped speaking in meaningful language, became obsessed with numbers and letters and his behavior became erratic and difficult to contain.
He also developed physical health problems, including gastrointestinal issues and different infections.
Stay Vigilant with VNN.
Get the uncensored truth sent straight to your inbox daily.
On June 3, 2002, after many doctor visits, a psychologist diagnosed Yates with autism spectrum disorder.
Dr. Jean-Ronel Corbier, the neurologist who evaluated Yates and diagnosed him with “regressive autism,” theorized Yates’ autism was a response to the MMR vaccine.
Dr. Andrew Zimmerman, a pediatric neurologist at the Center for Autism and Related Disorders at Johns Hopkins’ Kennedy Krieger Institute, tested Yates for a mitochondrial disorder that he thought might have made Yates vulnerable to vaccine-induced regressive autism, particularly when vaccinated while ill.
After they learned that Yates’ condition was vaccine-related, the Hazlehurst family in 2003 filed a claim with the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), which adjudicates vaccine injury claims.
Also known as the “vaccine court,” the program was designed by Congress in 1986 to address the risks of “unavoidably unsafe” vaccines by both insulating vaccine manufacturers from liability for vaccine injuries and compensating families whose children are injured by vaccines.
Although they didn’t realize it at the time, the Hazlehursts’ story was nearly identical to that of thousands of families across the country, whose once healthy children quickly descended into silence or erratic behavior and severe physical illnesses that often accompany autism following their childhood vaccines — either thimerosal/mercury-containing vaccines or the MMR vaccine.
Many parents filed claims with the vaccine court, seeking financial resources to pay for their children’s medical bills and lifetime care.
By 2002, the number of families filing claims with the VICP alleging vaccine-induced autism had increased exponentially from the beginning of the program.
To deal with this massive influx of claims, the Office of Special Masters combined what would become 5,000-plus claims into the Omnibus Autism Proceeding. The program selected six “test cases” to determine whether vaccines cause autism and, if so, under what conditions.
Yates’ case was the second test case.
The omnibus dragged on for almost 10 years. During that time, families and autism advocacy organizations fought for access to government information — which was never forthcoming — on vaccine safety and side effects, did their own scientific research, sought experts to inform their cases, combined resources to keep the cases going, and fought a public relations battle with a national media that eventually turned against them.
Simultaneously, the public health agencies and the vaccine court itself covered up data showing that vaccines can cause autism. The chief special master presiding over the proceedings, the media, Big Pharma and the U.S. Supreme Court opined that a win for the families in the omnibus would risk public confidence in vaccines and threaten to bankrupt the compensation fund.
In 2009 and 2010, the proceedings ended when the vaccine court rejected the plaintiffs’ medical theories about how vaccines cause autism and dismissed all six “test case” claims and subsequently, all of the cases pending in the omnibus.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the decisions upon review in the two cases that appealed, including Yates’ case.
Those decisions, and the Supreme Court decision in the Bruesewitz v. Wyeth case that followed in 2011, effectively closed the door to the thousands of families seeking compensation to help with the astronomical costs of raising their children living with vaccine-induced autism.
A simultaneous smear campaign in the media transformed their public perception from “sympathetic families” to “crazy conspiracy theorists” as Rebecca Estepp, the mother of a child with autism and a petitioner in the omnibus told The Defender.
But a new legal action filed by Rolf Hazlehurst, the senior staff attorney for Children’s Health Defense (CHD) and Yates’ father, could reopen the omnibus proceedings, overturn the ruling in Yates’ case and perhaps even find the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 unconstitutional if Hazlehurst’s motion prevails.
After years of investigation — and a key revelation by one of the key expert witnesses for the government who said his opinion was suppressed and misrepresented — Hazlehurst compiled evidence that he alleges shows the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) attorneys who represented the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in vaccine injury cases repeatedly defrauded the judicial system — from the VICP to the U.S. Supreme Court.
That fraud led to thousands of families of vaccine-injured children being denied the right to compensation and the right to have their cases heard, according to the motion.
“Watching my child regress into autism due to vaccine injury was horrible for me, my family and our son,” said CHD Executive Vice President Laura Bono.
“Learning that his claim in vaccine court was fraudulently dismissed literally added insult to injury. The injustice to the thousands of children in the Omnibus Autism Proceeding and those who have been injured since — along with their suffering families — cannot be overstated.”
‘The censorship machine went right to work’
By the early 1990s, autism rates had begun to rise and parents whose children had regressed into autism after vaccination were starting to connect through the internet, creating chat groups to share their experiences and theories about how the vaccines harmed their children, doing research and speaking out in public — and confronting the public health agencies and the pharmaceutical companies.
At the time, autism prevalence rates were estimated to be about 1 in 1,000 children — up from 4.5 in 10,000 in the 1960s. Today, that rate is 1 in 36.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) attributed the rise in prevalence to better reporting and diagnostics. However, many researchers take issue with this argument, pointing out that most cases are clustered in recent generations of children.
As parents began to speak out and confront public health agencies and Big Pharma, the country was listening, Bono told The Defender.
Parents were invited to speak in congressional hearings on the issue. Emmy award-winning local and national television news segments, magazines and newspapers discussed the soaring rates of autism and its possible link to vaccines. They told the families’ stories and criticized the government for its lacking support for parents and researchers investigating the issue.
Celebrity parents like Jenny McCarthy appeared on “The Oprah Winfrey Show” discussing the link between vaccines and autism. New York Times contributing author David Kirby wrote an acclaimed book, “Evidence of Harm: Mercury in Vaccines and the Autism Epidemic: A Medical Controversy,” in 2005 on the parents’ story that was set to become a feature film from Participant Media produced by Nick Wechsler and Ross Bell.
Estepp, who has also long advocated for families navigating autism and the omnibus proceedings, told The Defender she was interviewed hundreds of times by sympathetic journalists.
Rita Shreffler, also the mother of a child with autism and former executive director of the National Autism Association, said that at the time, press releases drafted by autism organizations with news or scientific findings linking vaccines and autism were regularly posted on national press release sites like PR Newswire.
“It was everywhere,” Bono said. “People were listening, and they got it. We were dealing with the media and it was making sense to them, and we were getting great feedback as the lawsuits were going forward.”
However, Bono said, as the omnibus hearings got underway, everything changed.
“The censorship machine went right to work. The movie David Kirby announced was shut down by Participant and we couldn’t get the rights back and [when he finally did after five years] no film company would touch it.
“The Omnibus Autism Proceeding was over, and autism was deemed not due to vaccines … Parents stopped being able to get media interviews.”
Today, most of the former press releases, news articles and videos cannot even be located online. Search engine searches about the relationship between vaccines and autism link to pages of news stories proclaiming definitively that no such link exists and “the science” is settled.
Covering up evidence of vaccines’ dangers
As parents’ concerns gained traction in the mid-90s, public health institutions launched their own research into the connection between vaccines and neurodevelopmental disorders, including autism and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder or ADHD — studies that would become the basis for denying a link between vaccines and autism.
In 1999, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) concluded a risk assessment of thimerosal in vaccines and found no “evidence of harm.” Yet, despite those findings, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the CDC issued a statement calling for thimerosal to be removed from vaccines “as soon as possible.”
By the end of 2001, thimerosal could no longer be used in vaccines administered to children under age 6, except for the flu vaccine — although vaccines already produced with thimerosal stayed on the shelves.
The Institute of Medicine also published a series of reports, finalized in 2004, that purported to survey the scientific literature and found the evidence favored “a rejection of the claim of a causal relationship” between thimerosal-containing vaccines or MMR vaccines and autism.
However, while those studies were ongoing, in 2000, the CDC brought together vaccine makers and the public health officials who regulate, mandate and distribute vaccines behind closed doors at the Simpsonwood Retreat and Conference Center in Norcross, Georgia.
Transcripts from the Simpsonwood meeting revealed they discussed a link between mercury-based thimerosal in vaccines and brain injuries, including autism, and debated strategies for keeping the information from the public.
The CDC in 2004 published a study in Pediatrics finding no risk of autism from the MMR vaccine. Ten years later, a CDC senior scientist, Dr. William Thompson, invoked federal whistleblower status to release the raw data sets that he said the CDC ordered him to conceal.
That data showed that African American boys who received the MMR vaccine before age 3, as the CDC recommends – were 3.36 times more likely to receive an autism diagnosis than those who received the vaccine after 3 years of age.
How the ‘vaccine court’ fails parents and children with autism
Many parents early in the epidemic were unaware there was a national program to shield manufacturers and compensate families whose children had been injured by vaccines.
The VICP or “vaccine court,” was established when Congress passed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986.
Congress passed the law in response to a previous crisis around Wyeth’s (now Pfizer’s) diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis (DPT) vaccine. In the late 1970s and 1980s, serious and widespread concern grew about the safety of the shot, because many children were suffering seizures, serious brain injury or death following DPT vaccination.
Between 1980 and 1986, people claiming vaccine injury brought over $3 billion worth of damage claims to U.S. civil courts against vaccine manufacturers, most of which were for the DPT vaccines.
After lawsuits against Wyeth revealed the company knew of the risks, juries began authorizing large payouts to some DPT-injured children — which threatened to bankrupt the vaccine insurance industry, as manufacturers began to exit the industry.
The publicity also generated public concerns about vaccine adverse events.
By 1985, only four vaccine makers remained to produce the vaccines that all states had mandated in 1981, and Congress anticipated a vaccine supply crisis.
Parents of children injured by the DPT vaccine also began organizing in a national nonprofit called Dissatisfied Parents Together (now the National Vaccine Information Center) to demand safer vaccines and a system to compensate families of injured children.
In 1986, Congress passed the law, giving the pharmaceutical industry broad protection from liability and creating a framework to compensate children injured by compulsory vaccines through a no-fault administrative system, on the premise that vaccines were important for public health but also “unavoidably unsafe.”
A report that accompanied the act and explained its intentions indicated that Congress intended to generously compensate the victims of vaccine injury, ensure the vaccine supply and improve vaccine safety.
Awards for vaccine injuries are paid out from a fund generated by a small surcharge on each vaccine.
The VICP is administered by HHS with court-appointed “special masters” — typically lawyers who previously represented the U.S. government — who manage and decide the individual claims.
The U.S. Court of Federal Claims appoints special masters who serve four-year terms. Attorneys may represent the petitioners, and the DOJ represents HHS.
VICP proceedings are more informal than a typical courtroom. In the so-called “vaccine court” there is no judge or jury, and the rules of evidence, civil procedure and discovery do not apply.
Entitlement to compensation is based on the Vaccine Injury Table — the list of vaccines, known associated injuries and the time periods in which they must occur.
If a petitioner suffers a known injury within the short period prescribed by the table, it is presumed that a vaccine caused the injury. The petitioner is then eligible for compensation without proof of causation. This is called a “table injury”
However, if a petitioner files for an “off-table injury” — an injury not listed on the table or that didn’t manifest within the specified time frame — the petitioner must prove by “a preponderance of evidence” that the vaccine caused the injury. Evidence includes medical records and expert witness testimony.
Claims must be filed within three years of the first symptom or two years of death. This timeline poses a major challenge to many families, Estepp told The Defender. Three years isn’t from the time of diagnosis — it is from the onset of symptoms. That means “any notation a pediatrician makes in a medical chart can start the clock, even without parents’ knowledge,” she said.
Bono said that excludes many families like hers — who didn’t even know about the program until much later — from ever receiving compensation.
And even if they make their claims on the required timeline, proving an off-table injury is difficult. Petitioners must provide a medical theory of the cause, a sequence of cause and effect, and show a temporal relationship between vaccine and injury. And whether they can do so with the proper “preponderance of evidence” is up to the special master alone to decide.
Autism is not listed on the vaccine injury table.
The Omnibus Autism Proceeding: ‘They wiped us off the map’
In 2002, the Office of the Special Masters established the Omnibus Autism Proceeding to address the claims brought by parents who believed the MMR vaccine, thimerosal-containing vaccines or a combination of both caused their children’s autism.
The omnibus settled on a method where it would apply the findings of six test cases selected by a Petitioners Steering Committee to other similar cases. The hearings did not begin until in 2007, five years after the omnibus was convened.
Estepp contends that the cases took years partly because the DOJ and HHS consistently fought the petitioners’ lawyers’ attempts to access basic information, like governmental records and data on vaccines and adverse events.
For example, they refused petitioners access to the CDC’s Vaccine Safety Datalink, where the agency tracks vaccine injuries.
In the first test case, Cedillo v. HHS, Michelle Cedillo’s parents reported that Michelle developed normally until 16 months of age when she was diagnosed with “severe autism and profound mental retardation,” along with other health issues after receiving the MMR vaccine.
In the Cedillo case, Zimmerman had worked with the DOJ to prepare an expert report on behalf of HHS, finding that Michelle’s autism had likely not been caused by the MMR vaccine.
Zimmerman later wrote in a 2018 affidavit that he attended the Cedillo hearing and listened to the testimony of Dr. Marcel Kinsbourne, another world-renowned expert in pediatric neurology.
On that basis, Zimmerman stated, he decided to clarify his written expert opinion about Michelle, concerned it would be taken out of context.
Zimmerman spoke with DOJ attorneys to clarify that his expert opinion in the Cedillo case “was not intended to be a blanket statement as to all children and all medical science,” according to the 2018 affidavit.
He specified that advances in science, medicine and his own clinical research had led him to believe there were exceptions in which vaccinations could cause autism.
He also referred the attorneys to a paper he published with colleagues in 2006, in the Journal of Child Neurology, often called the Poling paper, describing the case of an unidentified child who suffered regressive autism following vaccine adverse reactions. The paper suggested a possible association between mitochondrial dysfunction, vaccinations and regressive autism.
After communicating this evidence to DOJ attorneys, the DOJ dismissed Zimmerman as a witness but continued to use his written opinion as general causation evidence in subsequent cases, including Yates’ case, which was the second test case.
Yates’ treating neurologist, Dr. Jean-Ronel Corbier testified Yates’ autism was likely caused by a genetic predisposition combined with an environmental insult in the form of vaccinations administered when Yates was ill — a theory of causation similar to the theory developed by Zimmerman in the Poling paper, which he shared with DOJ attorneys.
Yet, despite knowing Zimmerman had concluded that in a subset of children like Yates, vaccines could cause autism, the DOJ “intentionally and fraudulently” misrepresented Zimmerman’s expert testimony in its closing statements in Yates’ case, Hazlehurst alleges.
The special masters continued to hear the cases. They took over two years to issue their decisions.
In the end, the special masters ruled that the causation theories offered in all cases were not convincing. They denied the claims of all of the test cases and consequently to all of the families in the omnibus.
The decisions in the first three of the six test cases were based on the misrepresentation of Zimmerman’s testimony — but the petitioners did not know about the alleged fraud until many years later.
Estepp said that in their written decisions, the special masters went beyond simply denying the claims. “They maligned the petitioners’ expert witnesses and the families,” she said.
For example in the Cedillo case, Special Master George Hastings wrote, “Unfortunately, the Cedillos have been misled by physicians who are guilty, in my view, of gross medical misjudgment.”
“Gross medical misjudgment” was quoted in most articles The Defender located on the judgment, including the Wikipedia entry.
Hastings, a former tax claims expert with no medical background made similar comments in another test case, Mead v. HHS in March 2010.
“How can he tell you what gross medical misjudgment is as a tax attorney?” Estepp asked. “It’s disingenuous.” She said it was part of a long-term practice of smearing doctors who made claims linking vaccines and autism.
In another one of the test cases, Special Master Denise Vowell wrote, “To conclude that Colten’s condition was the result of his MMR vaccine, an objective observer would have to emulate Lewis Carroll’s White Queen and be able to believe six impossible (or, at least, highly improbable) things before breakfast.”
“They maligned any expert witness, and it sent a signal to any doctor or any expert in the country: You testify for these kids and your career is over,” Estepp said “So they didn’t have to do anything procedurally. They found a way to win because ultimately the cases lost because there were not enough experts willing to testify for our kids.”
“They were horrible to every single family,” Bono said. “They poisoned an entire generation. And the ones who stepped forward to say ‘this happened, we’ve got the reports and we’re willing to fight for it,’ they corralled us and shut it all down.”
HHS used the omnibus hearings to make it seem as if they had fully considered the evidence, Bono said. “They wiped us off the map.”
Fear that compensating the injured might weaken public confidence in vaccines
While the omnibus proceedings were ongoing in 2008, Chief Special Master Gary Golkiewicz addressed the Advisory Commission on Childhood Vaccines on policy concerns related to vaccines.
He told the commission he was concerned with “protecting the vaccine’s integrity … that is that vaccine[s] do [] not cause every injury that follows immunization.” He contended that generous remuneration to vaccine-injured petitioners might weaken public confidence in vaccines.
“It is clear from this address that special masters feel the pressure between compensating vaccine-injured petitioners and sustaining public confidence in vaccines,” according to an article on the proceedings in Hofstra Law Review.
Many scholars also speculated that if Cedillo were compensated, it would have a “disastrous impact on the future of the VICP,” and likely raised concerns for the special masters that a positive outcome for Cedillo and other cases in the omnibus would drive public fear of vaccines and lower vaccination rates.
They were also aware that finding no causal link between vaccines and autism in such a highly publicized case would “bolster public confidence and provide reassurance that the vaccines were safe.”
People were also concerned that if the autism cases were compensated, the fund that was used to compensate claims would go bankrupt. If they weren’t compensated, there could be a serious possibility that civil lawsuits against manufacturers would begin again.
The strong language in the special masters’ rulings helped to preclude that, but so did the ruling in the Bruesewitz v. Wyeth case.
Bruesewitz v. Wyeth: the Supreme Court protects the vaccine market
In the very same month that the final omnibus decisions were being rendered, the U.S. Supreme Court announced it would hear the Bruesewitz v. Wyeth case, to decide whether the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act protects vaccine manufacturers from lawsuits in state court seeking damages for design defects, where the design of the drug itself makes it dangerous to consumers.
The high court agreed to hear a Pennsylvania case involving a lawsuit by the parents of Hannah Bruesewitz, who suffered seizures and developmental issues after taking the DPT vaccine in 1992.
The vaccine court didn’t compensate Hannah’s parents, so they sued the vaccine manufacturer, Wyeth (now Pfizer) in state court in Pennsylvania — one of the few avenues open to parents who wanted to sue vaccine makers.
In its majority ruling, the court interpreted the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 to shield Big Pharma with full immunity from liability for vaccine injuries by ruling that people could no longer sue vaccine makers for injuries caused by “design defects.”
The ruling prohibits essentially all vaccine injury lawsuits against Big Pharma.
In a scathing dissenting opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayer, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, accused the court of imposing its own policy preferences, misconstruing the Act and disturbing “the careful balance Congress struck between compensating vaccine-injured children and stabilizing the childhood vaccine market.”
Sotomayer noted that as Bruesewitz was argued, there were 5,000 petitions alleging a causal link between some vaccines and autism spectrum disorder and that Wyeth/Pfizer argued that if the court did not find in its favor, it “could unleash a ‘crushing wave’ of tort litigation that would bankrupt vaccine manufacturers and deplete vaccine supply.”
“This concern underlies many of the policy arguments in respondent’s brief and appears to underlie the majority and concurring opinions in this case.” She also noted, “Manufacturers, given the lack of robust competition in the vaccine market, will often have little or no incentive to improve the designs of vaccines that are already generating significant profit margins.”
How many cases has the government secretly paid out?
Although the vaccine court, the U.S. Court of Appeals and the public health agencies denied a link between vaccines and autism, before and during the omnibus, the program compensated several vaccine injury claims for children with autism.
Most widely publicized was the case of Hannah Poling. Poling was the subject of a study co-authored by Zimmerman linking her autism to vaccines, which the study found exacerbated an underlying mitochondrial condition — the same diagnosis given to Yates.
In 2007, just three weeks after the lead DOJ attorney misrepresented Zimmerman’s opinion during the hearing in Hazlehurst, the same DOJ attorney submitted a report to the special masters conceding that in the case of Poling v. HHS, Hannah’s “regressive encephalopathy with features of autism spectrum disorder” (i.e., regressive autism) was caused by a vaccine injury, based upon a preponderance of the evidence standard.
In other words, the government conceded that Hannah’s autism was an “off-table injury.”
When the Polings sought to make the judgment public, the DOJ opposed their motion and amended the report to change the basis of Hannah’s injury to a table injury.
By conceding the case, the DOJ was able to remove Hannah’s case from the omnibus — court documents show her case was going to be designated a test case — and also conceal the original finding that vaccines caused her autism.
A 2011 article in Pace Environmental Law Review showed the VICP compensated approximately 1,300 cases of childhood brain injury. In 83 of the cases, the child had autism.
The authors of the study said the program compensated children with autism when the compensation was sought for symptoms associated with autism, like “encephalopathy” or “residual seizure disorder,” but not for autism itself.
The study authors said at the time that their research was the “tip of the iceberg” and that they believed the government quietly settled hundreds of autism cases.
The media counteroffensive
Bono said that it was around 2009, while the omnibus was in progress, that the media narrative turned against the families. HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told journalists that if they covered the story, they were basically “killing children” Bono said.
Sebelius attracted media attention during the COVID-19 pandemic period because she advocated for limitations on freedom of movement for the unvaccinated, whom she likened to drunk drivers.
It was around that time that Dr. Peter Hotez, also the parent of a child with autism, began his public attacks on parents, journalists and scientists concerned with a link between vaccines and autism.
Dr. Paul Offit, in a New England Journal of Medicine article, lambasted the VICP for compensating Hannah Poling’s family. He later wrote, “Deadly Choices: How the Anti-Vaccine Movement Threatens Us All,” contending that parents who decided not to vaccinate their children are harming others.
But these men who led the attacks have serious conflicts of interest. Both are vaccine developers and patent holders. Offit voted as a member of the CDC’s vaccine advisory committee to add the rotavirus vaccine — for which he holds a patent — to the CDC’s Vaccines for Children Program. He was also paid by the pharmaceutical industry to “travel around the country and teach doctors that vaccines are safe,” according to the transcripts of a U.S. House of Representatives hearing on conflicts of interest and vaccine development.
After the omnibus and the Bruesewitz decision, Bono said, media covering the neurological effects of vaccines “just shut down.” “We couldn’t write op-eds,” she said. “You couldn’t even get a reporter to call you back.”
Rolling Stone retracted Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s “Deadly Immunity” article about thimerosal in vaccines in January 2011, six years after it was published, without identifying any factual errors material to the article’s argument.
Then, she said, the science started getting retracted. In 1998, British doctor Andrew Wakefield published a study in The Lancet linking autism to the MMR vaccine. The journal retracted the paper 12 years later, alleging Wakefield had not reported a conflict of interest.
Articles in the press today consistently dismiss people linking vaccines and autism as “anti-vaxxers” and conspiracy theorists — for example, Rolling Stone’s “Guide to 17 Anti-Vaccination Celebrities,” which mocks people like Jim Carey or criticizes others like Robert DeNiro, and Mother Jones’ “How Oprah helped Spread Anti-Vaccine Pseudoscience.”
And that playbook has been used again and again to discredit anyone asking questions about vaccines, Bono said.
The “Gardasil Girls” — girls and women who shared their stories about injury from the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines — had their videos taken down. Journalist Katie Couric, who covered their story, was forced to publicly apologize for featuring the Gardasil controversy on her show “Katie.”
And despite widespread evidence that the public health agencies, the press and scientists misled the public about the “safety and efficacy” of the COVID-19 vaccines, those raising questions about the vaccines have consistently been smeared.
Government needs to ‘tell the truth about what happened’ to these children
However, many parents who argue they were denied justice in the omnibus told The Defender they hope the motion filed by Hazlehurst this month could change that.
Hazlehurst compiled evidence alleging that starting with the misrepresentation of Zimmerman’s testimony, DOJ attorneys repeatedly defrauded the judicial system — from the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program to the U.S. Supreme Court.
According to the motion, the DOJ’s first act of fraud snowballed into a scheme of deception with far-reaching implications in which DOJ attorneys repeatedly misrepresented Zimmerman’s opinion and concealed other evidence that emerged during the test case hearings in the omnibus in subsequent cases before multiple courts.
Hazlehurst said he is “asking the court to give this motion the serious attention it deserves. At a minimum, the court should allow discovery and hold a hearing on this motion.”
Overturning a ruling due to fraud on the court is an extraordinary remedy reserved for extraordinary cases. But according to Hazlehurst, “This motion we filed shows that this indeed is an extraordinary case.”
Hazlehurst said that by forcing people injured by vaccines into an administrative program, petitioners are deprived of the basic constitutional rights to due process and equal protection under the law. “It should be declared unconstitutional,” he said.
Bono said she hopes the legal action marks an important step toward ending an unjust system and the power of Big Pharma — not only for families of children with vaccine-induced autism but for the good of all children.
“Our government needs to finally step up to the plate, tell the truth about what happened to these vaccine-injured children, and dismantle a rogue system that answers to Pharma instead of to the children it’s supposed to protect.”
Donate to Children’s Health Defense
1. Larry, could you please start by sharing a bit about your background and what led you to become an advocate for vaccine choice and natural health?
In 2005 I published my book, The Beginner’s Guide to Natural Living, which is an overview of the many topics related to how to live a healthy lifestyle, like why to eat organic food, which supplements to take, detoxification, the suppression of natural medicine modalities, why to choose natural remedies, and so, so much more. That led to co-writing a book in 2006, Victory Over ADHD (no longer in print), where my research led me to understanding how vaccines cause autism, with mercury being a primary culprit. I used my video film background to interview parents and doctors about how vaccines cause autism, recovery of autism through detoxification and other methods, among other video interviews.
In 2015 California Senator Richard Pan introduced SB277, a vaccine mandate bill for school children, which would take away all exemption opportunities except medical, and I just KNEW that was the beginning of adult vaccine mandates, so I got involved. I crowdfunded $10,000 to video interview parents who had vaccine injured children in order to raise awareness about the harms that vaccines cause and also created a website called Stop Mandatory Vaccination (www.StopMandatoryVaccination.com) to give the many, many reasons why vaccines should not be forced onto the population.
I also created a Stop Mandatory Vaccination Facebook Page and Facebook group. By early 2019 the Facebook Page was reaching 2 million to 7 million people per month and my Facebook group had over 160,000 members and we were adding 300 to 500 parents per day to the group. The Facebook Group became extremely popular with parents who would ask questions about vaccines, get very intelligent answers, and say they would never vaccinate again, or never start.
Around this same time mainstream media finally got involved – from all over the world – and started to run hit pieces on me and the Facebook Group, demanding that it be shut down. After hundreds of hit pieces, California Congressman Adam Schiff sent a letter to both Amazon and Facebook in February of 2019 demanding that we (anti-vaxxers) be removed from their platforms. In March 2019 Facebook censored my reach to just 5% and censored my group as well, and Amazon removed numerous documentaries and books that challenged the vaccine narrative.
In November of 2020 Facebook banned me entirely and shut down my Facebook Group and Facebook Page. Twitter banned me two hours later. Instagram, MailChimp, GoFundMe, Pinterest, LinkedIn, YouTube, TikTok, Vimeo and other platforms would ban me in the following months. In early 2023 Twitter (now X) reinstated my account.
2. Over the years, how have you seen the landscape of vaccine advocacy and opposition evolve?
The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC.org) has been around for decades, educating parents and politicians about vaccines, usually taking a middle of the road approach to be “safe” and retain their non-profit status. In 2015 and especially in 2016 when more States got involved with introducing vaccine mandate laws, more people got involved. When the Plandemic hit in 2020 we were in full swing everywhere warning people about the dangers of vaccines, but it wouldn’t be until around a year after the COVID vaccine rollout – combined with freedom of speech on X – that a LOT more people would start speaking up because of the massive amount of death and injury the COVID vaccine had caused and continues to cause. Many people who were pro-vaccine prior to COVID went anti-vaccine once they starting to see all the death and destruction caused by the COVID shot (mostly on X).
3. In your experience, what are the main reasons parents decide to opt out of vaccinating their children?
In the beginning, say 5 years ago, the big reason would be risk of vaccine injury. However, now that more information has seeped into the marketplace with books, documentaries, websites, etc., the reason would now be the understanding that vaccines do not confer immunity (e.g., they do not work), that they never saved us from diseases (death had already dramatically dropped prior to vaccines) and then of course, risk of vaccine injury.
Parents are now aware of other parents who have both vaccinated and unvaccinated children, and their stories are always the same: the unvaccinated kids reach milestones sooner, are sick less often, get over illnesses faster, and don’t suffer from chronic health ailments like asthma, allergies, eczema, seizures, autoimmune disorders, autism and other ailments like the vaccinated siblings do. Several small-scale studies say the same thing: the unvaccinated are healthier. The CDC will never do a vax vs unvax health outcomes study and publish the true finding because if they ever did, all parents would immediately stop vaccinating. I discuss these studies and findings in Lesson 1 of my free online course for parents, How To Raise Healthy Vaccine Free Children.
4. You’ve mentioned using hyperbaric oxygen treatment for vaccine injuries. Can you explain how this therapy works and the types of conditions it helps with?
Hyperbaric oxygen treatment (HBOT) is the process of laying or sitting inside a pressurized chamber for one hour to two hours per session to “squeeze” ambient oxygen into the cells, which in turn will help improve healing at all levels since oxygen is required for all metabolic action. Hard chamber hyperbaric treatment pressurizes a hard chamber up to 3 times more atmospheric pressure than normal atmospheric pressure and a soft chamber mild hyperbaric oxygen treatment pressurizes 1.3 to 1.5 times normal atmospheric pressure (ATA).
Hard chamber higher pressure hyperbaric oxygen treatment (usually 2.0 ATA or higher) is very useful for wound healing, like for a diabetic foot that may need to be amputated if it is not quickly healed, or when divers surface too quickly and need to be pressurized again to reduce potential problems. Depending on the facility and the chamber, pure oxygen may also be added to the chamber to increase oxygen levels even more. Hard chamber treatments are often priced between $250 and $350 per session, depending on where one lives, and the type of chamber being used.
I give a full overview on my website about Hyperbaric Oxygen Treatment right here:
Try Hyperbaric Oxygen Treatment for Autism, Vax Injury, Brain Injury, Wounds & More
5. Regarding heavy metal detox, what are the typical symptoms you see that suggest someone might benefit from this treatment?
I’ve been recommending a zeolite-based heavy metal detox spray to my audience for over four years now and some of the biggest improvements are seen in children, especially as better neurological function, better bowel movements, and the clearing of skin issues, like eczema. Children who were nonverbal have sometimes started to talk within days of use, or weeks of use. Or speech has exploded. For adults, the clearing of brain fog, better sleep, less agitation, better skin, ending of fibromyalgia, and more have been reported.
The zeolite detox spray I recommend is nano sized, cleaned, remineralized, and suspended in water molecules so it can go throughout the entire body, exchanging a negative charged mineral ion for a positively charged heavy metal ion. The cage like structure locks onto the heavy metal ion and it is out of the body in 4 to 6 hours. It’s especially good for vaccine injured children and children on the autism spectrum. I have a lot of testimonials and an overview of how it works, right here: Heavy Metal Detox.
6. What impact has your work and stance on vaccination had on your personal relationships, particularly with family and friends?
Not much, really. Some close friends decided not to vaccinate their two children and they have incredibly healthy kids because of that choice. There’s been minimal impact – certainly nothing that affects me.
7. If you could go back in time, what are some things you would do differently in your advocacy or personal health decisions?
I was vaccine injured as a baby – I stopped talking at 18 months and didn’t start talking again until 3 years of age. My parents never figured out I was vaccine injured. I figured it out after being an anti-vaccine activist for a couple of years and then asked my audience if they had ever vaccinated at 18 months had the same thing happen. Lots of parents said yes. I must say, once I figured out I was vaccine injured, a lot of my life made sense. I never got vaccines in my adult life. While I was active on Facebook and putting in 60 hours every week I just KNEW time was of the essence so I pushed myself all the time and I am glad I did. No one knows for sure, but there is plenty of circumstantial evidence to suggest that my work has helped to ensure tens of thousands of newborns will never be vaccinated, and that makes me very happy. I have no regrets (that I had control of) – if I could go back in time and NOT be vaccinated as a baby, I would choose that in a split second.
8. From your perspective, what have been the most effective ways to educate people, and “wake them up” about the risks associated with vaccines?
I always went after the fence sitters – the parents who were not sure. I try to approach my advocacy about natural immunity first – that it is superior to vaccination – and then dive into why vaccines don’t work, and then talk about vaccine injuries last. After many years of watching the various questions come into my Facebook Group from parents, and also doing my own questionnaire for parents in the group, I created a 12-lesson course for parents that is in an actual sequential order of information I believe parents need to understand. I start with natural immunity and go from there. The free online course is called, How To Raise Healthy Vaccine Free Children.
9. Are there any books or documentaries that you have found particularly impactful in helping people understand the vaccine debate?
Yes, absolutely. I own over 25 books on this topic. My top recommendations for parents are to watch both Vaxxed I and Vaxxed II: Vaxxed I is about the CDC coverup of its own findings that the MMR vaccine causes autism, and Vaxxed II is about vaccine injury with a lot of parent interviews. Then I recommend every parent read Vaccines – A Reappraisal by Dr. Richard Moskowitz, who has 50 years’ experience as a doctor. This is the very best first book for parents, in my opinion. And, I also recommend every parent purchase The Unvaccinated Treatment Guide which is a natural remedy book for children written by two Naturopathic Doctors. I discuss these resources a couple more on my web page entitled, Here Are Some Specific Resources To Help Your Loved One Decide Not To Vaccinate.
10. How do you handle the criticism and opposition from mainstream media and other institutions?
I don’t worry about it at all. If someone were to Google my name, “Larry Cook vaccines,” they would find hundreds of mainstream hit pieces on me, from all over the world. I don’t care. I’m on the right side of history and I know I am on the right side of history. The healthy, unvaccinated children are my proof, as are the vaccine injured children.
11. In the face of legal and social pressures, how do you advise parents who are hesitant about vaccinating their children?
Parents have so, so many questions on so many different topics related to vaccines, but in short, I try to use succinct overviews and then lead them to my other resources.
Vaccines do not confer immunity, natural immunity is better, and vaccines always cause some harm, and can cause a lot of lifelong harm, like seizures, autism, or even death. For school, if an exemption is not possible, then home school or move to a freedom state. For friends and family pressure, the children and their health are much more important than other people’s opinions. And those other people, nor the pediatricians, will be there to take care of a vaccine in injured child.
12. You've talked about the "Deep State" in relation to vaccine mandates. Can you elaborate on how you believe this affects public health policy?
Parents in California shared with the Democrat legislators how their children were destroyed by vaccines. Lots, and lots, and lots of parents personally met with these Democrat legislators and shared extensive personal experience about the harm caused to their kids by vaccines, along with other information about how vaccines cause harm. Those Democrat legislators could have cared less and passed vaccine mandate bills anyway. Most of the Republican legislators listened to parents and opposed such legislation. The “Deep State” is the underworld controlling arm of Democrat legislators, and the RINOs too, and these elitists want every living creature force vaccinated across the globe. The Deep State pushes censorship initiatives so that we can’t talk about vaccine harm and why vaccines don’t work. Unless and until the Deep State is removed at a global level, the tyranny of vaccine mandates will continue to close in an everyone who believes in freedom. In reality, this is Good vs Evil – Spiritual Warfare.
13. As someone who has been banned from various platforms, how do you continue to spread your message and engage with your audience?
Mostly on X, but I have an email list as well. Sometimes I do interviews, like this one.
14. What are you currently focusing on in your work, and what are your goals for the near future?
I’d like to produce more videos on the topic but haven’t had the inspiration as to direction for those videos, yet. Mostly I post my opinions on X and grow my audience there.
15. For those interested in following your work or getting involved, how can they stay in touch and what platforms can they find you on?
I’m on X at @stopvaccinating and people can join my email list here:
Join My Email List & Backup Group | Stop Mandatory Vaccination
Thank you for the interview.
Larry Cook
About - Stop Mandatory Vaccination (substack.com)
Larry Cook (@stopvaccinating) / X (twitter.com)
Calling for safeguarding the rule of law, equity and an appropriate review process in the WHO law-making processes on pandemic preparedness and response
APRIL 2024
READ & SIGN THE OPEN LETTER
URGENT AND IMPORTANT FOR YOU!
READ WHY:
In late May of this year, it is planned for 194 Member States of the World Health Organization (WHO) to vote on acceptance of two documents that, taken together, are intended to transform international public health and the way States interact when the Director General of WHO declares an emergency. These drafts, a Pandemic Agreement and amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR), are intended to be legally binding and govern the relationship between States and WHO.
Although they contain significant health, economic and human rights implications, they are still being negotiated by various committees less than two months prior to the intended vote. They have been developed with unusual haste, on the premise that there is a rapidly increasing urgency to mitigate pandemic risk.
While this urgency has now been shown to be contradicted by the data and citations on which WHO and other agencies have relied, the urgency persists. As a result, norms requiring specific review times have been put aside, inevitably undermining equity within the agreements by preventing States with less resources from having time to fully assess the implications for their own populations prior to voting.
This is an extremely poor and dangerous way to develop a legally binding international agreement or treaty. Now is the time to decelerate for the purpose of designing a coherent legal pandemic package instead of rapidly institutionalizing a confusing set of different legal regimes, overriding authorities and proliferation of competing global actors, as ill-advised in a recent public letter.
The Open Letter below calls upon WHO and Member States to extend the deadline for the adoption of the amendments to the International Health Regulations and a new Pandemic Agreement at the 77th WHA to safeguard the rule of law and equity.
Authored by David Bell, Silvia Behrendt, Amrei Muller, Thi Thuy Van Dinh & others