Reasonable Doubt: History, Safety and Efficacy

This is part 2 of a two part blog series. You can read the first part here: Presumed Guilty.

People who want to retain their right to say what goes into their and their children's bodies are increasingly being backed into a corner. State governments are making the laws for school attendance stricter and stricter. Jobs in the medical and educational fields, as well as others, are starting to be contingent on vaccination too. It is imperative to present information that illustrates the slogan "safe and effective" is not as accurate as we've been led to believe. In essence we need to prove there is "reasonable doubt" when it comes to our current practice of vaccination. 

The vaccine issue is complex and multifaceted. History, science and studies, personal stories from people impacted by vaccines and Doctors willing to share what they've seen are just a few areas to begin considering - it is something that truly takes hours upon hours and years of dedication to untangle.

This post is for people who are just beginning to look into the issue of vaccines. These are basic facts and will not "cover" the issue in any significant way. I've been studying for over 10 years, and intensively for the past year or so. When I chose to vaccinate my daughter almost 14 years ago I did exactly ZERO minutes of research. I think this is true for the majority of people. 

The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 is a great starting point. It "Establishes the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP) as an alternative remedy to judicial action for specified vaccine-related injuries." Basically, vaccine makers were threatening to stop making vaccines because law suits against them were making the business unprofitable. The government stepped in and said we'll take responsibility. The maximum award through this program is $250,000 - even in the case of death.

"The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program was established by the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA), passed by the United States Congress in response to a threat to the vaccine supply due to a 1980s scare over the DPT vaccine. Despite the belief of most public health officials that claims of side effects were unfounded, large jury awards had been given to some plaintiffs, most DPT vaccine makers had ceased production, and officials feared the loss of herd immunity.[1]" To date the NVICP has awarded over 4 billion dollars. ​ 

In 1990 VAERS (the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) was established. From wikipedia: 

"The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) is a United States program for vaccine safety, co-managed by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). VAERS is a postmarketing surveillance program, collecting information about adverse events (possible harmful side effects) that occur after administration of vaccines to ascertain whether the risk–benefit ratio is high enough to justify continued use of any particular vaccine.

Like other spontaneous reporting systems, VAERS has several limitations, including under-reporting, unverified reports, inconsistent data quality, and inadequate data about the number of people vaccinated."

How under-reported are vaccine injuries? In 2011 Harvard published a study showing that "fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported." This means that we may need to multiply any reported events by up to or around 100 to get a better idea of how many vaccine injuries are truly occurring.

This study was funded by the US Department of Health and Human services. A reasonable person might think that we had better follow up on this study and in improve our surveillance system. That has not been the case. From the report: "Unfortunately, there was never an opportunity to perform system performance assessments because the necessary CDC contacts were no longer available and the CDC consultants responsible for receiving data were no longer responsive to our multiple requests to proceed with testing and evaluation." Read the full report here: Electronic Support for Public Health–Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (ESP:VAERS).

This history and the fact that our reporting system is so woefully inadequate is enough evidence for many people to appreciate that what we grew up believing - that vaccines are safe and effective and that injuries are "rare" - isn't as straightforward as we once thought. 


Our current global situation with Covid19 has many people interested in the development of a new vaccine. However, many well known, pro-vaccine doctors are warning that this is not a simple, straightforward and easy solution. A study published in 2012 says, "Because of well documented severity of the respiratory disease among infants given an inactivated RSV vaccine and subsequently infected with RSV that is considered to be attributable to a Th2-type immunopathologic reaction and a large number of studies in the Balb/c mouse model that have described and elucidated many components of the immunopathologic reaction to RSV vaccines, the similarity to the SARS-CoV vaccine evaluations in Balb/c mice supports caution for clinical vaccine trials with SARS-CoV vaccines in humans. (emphasis mine)"  That is surely enough evidence to validate anyone wanting to opt out of this vaccine, even those who are typically pro-vaccine. 

For anyone wanting to dig into the vaccine issue more, I'll leave you with a couple of videos. The first is a link to RFK Jr speaking at an event where all of the other scientists and doctors backed out of a debate about vaccines. I tuned in and watched this video a little over a year ago. I wept at RFK Jr's courage and compassion. And I followed up on many of his claims. Turns out what he says about the Gardasil studies are true. 
Watch here: 
https://www.facebook.com/watch/live/?v=2257902910924107&ref=watch_permalink 

Finally is this powerful video from Peter Aaby, who has first hand experience with vaccines administration in Africa. What he has to share is shocking, to say the least. 

What do you think? Have I created "reasonable doubt"? If not, what additional evidence do you need to support the right of an individual or parent to choose what goes into their or their children's bodies? 
​
If you have been researching this important topic, please feel free to leave your favorite resources in the comments! Thank you for reading and sharing.