The Truth About Aborted Babies And Vaccines

I’ll be honest, I’m tired of seeing so-called “science” blogs claiming there is no aborted fetal DNA in vaccines (which is an outright lie). Before we address that contentious issue though, let’s take a look at why, and what, aborted fetuses are used in current vaccine production.

Many viral vaccines are produced through the use of human cell lines, in order to cultivate sufficient quantities of the virus (the virus needs to be cultured on living cells in order to replicate). These cell lines were procured from aborted fetuses.

There are currently two cell lines used in the production of widely-available vaccines. These two cell-lines are known as  WI-38 (Wistar Institute 38) and MRC-5 (Medical Research Council 5) [1-2].

WI-38 was developed from the lung tissue of a 3-month-old female fetus, in 1962 [3]. The reason given for abortion was that the parents felt they already had too many children [2].

MRC-5  was developed in 1966, from lung tissue of a 14-week male fetus, aborted for ‘psychiatric reasons’ [4].

The term “psychiatric reasons” raises some interesting questions, as women who were deemed to be “feeble-minded” were still coerced into being permanently sterilised in the 1960’s.

This practice had become legal in the US, through state laws in the early 1900’s. These laws were encouraged and promoted by the newly-formed Eugenics Record Office, as part of their “Master Race Project”. Their stated goal was to stop so-called “defective parents” from reproducing [5]. Eugenicists saw abortion and sterilization as the answer to preventing “degenerate babies” [6].

During the following decades, as the race for a polio vaccine, and other medical research demanded tissue cultures, abortion methods were even altered in order to harvest the fetal tissue immediately following abortion.

One such method was a hysterotomy abortion – major abdominal surgery, much like a caesarian section – wherein the fetus is physically removed from the amniotic sac. This procedure was “only done in special circumstances such as when sterilization is required in addition to the termination of pregnancy, as in the case of cardiac disease, diabetes, TB or mental disease”[7].

It is not known exactly how many aborted fetuses were used to develop the polio vaccine, but at least 80 abortions were involved in production of the WI-38 cell line, and subsequent rubella vaccine [8]. At least two aborted fetuses were used in the procurement of MRC-5 cell line, but it is likely there were more [8].

What else is unknown is whether the abortions were performed under duress or coercion or if, in fact, the mothers were even aware of what the fetuses would be used for.

Remember that at the time in the early 1960’s, when organs from aborted fetuses were sent to the Wistar Institute, no-one had as yet invented the concept of informed consent. I am absolutely convinced that there is no remaining documentation about the fetuses used from the Department of Virus Research at the Karolinska Institute at the time. I was head of this department between 1971 and 1997. Thus in case there is no documentation that allows identification of fetal samples at the Wistar Institute, there is no way of tracing them. In fact, I do remember the time well , because we as graduate students made the dissections collecting organs [9].”

In other words, the documentation surrounding these abortions have been conveniently “lost” or mislaid over the years, so we have no way of knowing the true story.

Fast forward to 2012, with increasing demand for cell cultures due to biomedical research and increasingly vigorous competition to bring new vaccines to market, the FDA announced that “the current repertoire of cell substrates is inadequate to manufacture the next generation of viral vaccines (i.e., certain viruses cannot be propagated or grow poorly in the available cell lines)[10].”

So, in 2015, a new cell line was procured from a female fetus in China [11].

This cell line was taken from a 3-month-old female fetus , supposedly aborted due to the “presence of a uterine scar” from previous Ceasarian section in the healthy, 27-year-old mother[11].

Up until this point, the wider public seemed blissfully ignorant to what was being carried out in laboratories around the world. That changed in 2015,  when there was public uproar over social media, with the release of undercover footage showing Planned Parenthood officials talking about the prices that aborted baby parts are sold for. Despite public criticism, scientists maintained that aborted fetal tissue was necessary for medical research [12].

There are other cell lines from aborted fetuses that are currently being used in vaccines still in the development and testing stages – HEK-293 and PER C6.

PER C6 is a tumorigenic cell line taken from an 18-week fetus, aborted because “the woman wanted to get rid of the fetus, and the father was unknown” [8].  As per the FDA, “tumorigenic refers to the ability of neoplastic cells growing in tissue culture to multiply and develop into tumors when injected into animals” [13].

Well, what could possibly go wrong?

These cells are called “designer cells”, because they were known to be normal originally, but were then purposely transformed into immortal cell lines (so they replicate “indefinitely”), via known mechanisms, such as introduction of viral oncogenes. These so-called “designer cells” are perceived by authorities to be safer than cell lines which spontaneously immortalized for unknown reasons [13].

Another cell line currently being used to develop influenza vaccines, is HEK-293, which originally came from the kidneys of an aborted baby [14].

At a meeting of the FDA Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee in 2001, Dr. Alex van der Eb, who was involved in the production of HEK-293, is quoted as saying [13]:

“So the kidney material, the fetal kidney material was as follows: the kidney of the fetus was, with an unknown family history, obtained in 1972 probably. The precise date is not known anymore. The fetus, as far as I can remember was completely normal. Nothing was wrong. The reasons for the abortion were unknown to me. I probably knew it at that time, but it got lost, all this information.”

In his work on the ethics of HEK-293, Wong (2006) refers to comments made by Dr C Ward Kischer Ph.D, a leading authority in the field of human embryology [15]:

From a clinical standpoint, the abortion must be pre-arranged in order to have researchers available to immediately preserve the tissue…. In order to sustain 95% of the cells, the live tissue would need to be preserved within 5 minutes of the abortion. Within an hour the cells would continue to deteriorate, rendering the specimens useless.”

This leads us to the horrifying, but necessary, question…

What exactly is meant by “live tissue”? Could it be that the aborted fetus is still alive while its organs and tissues are being harvested?

There seems to be very little confirmation or denial from official sources, but Dr Gonzalo Herranz, Professor of Histology and General Embryology, at the University of Navarra, Spain, describes how abortions should be performed when fetal tissue is to be harvested [16]:

To obtain embryo cells for culture, a programmed abortion must be adopted, choosing the age of the embryo and dissecting it while still alive to remove tissues to be placed in culture media”.

Now, the truly pedantic try to weasel their way around this moral dilemma by saying:

“But There’s No Aborted Fetal Cells Left In The Finished product…”

Actually, that is not true. There are still DNA fragments in the final vaccine.

From the FDA: : “Small amounts of residual cell substrate DNA unavoidably occur in all viral vaccines, as well as other biologics produced using cell substrates” [17].

In 2015, research revealed that DNA fragments from aborted fetal cell lines were in at least two vaccines – Meruvax II (live rubella vaccine) and Havrix (live Hepatitis A vaccine). These were found to contain both single-stranded and double-stranded DNA [18].

And then we move on to the other moral argument…that our conscience can rest easy because:

The fetuses used in vaccines were aborted decades ago, and no new fetuses are being used”.

Well, that may indeed be the case. However, the field of vaccine and biomedical research has a growing and incessant demand for new fetal tissue and fetal organs.

Take, for example, research on vaccine-strain viruses, using SCID-hu mice [19]. What are SCID-hu mice, you ask? They are a class of mice that have been genetically-engineered to be severely immunocompromised, then they have human fetal tissue grafted into them. Sometimes they have entire human organ systems transplanted into them, for the purposes of medical research [20].

The true extent of trading in aborted fetal parts on a global scale is hard to ascertain. In 2014, in the U.S alone, the NIH funded $76 million for research projects using aborted fetal tissue [21]. The research area most funded, was in the field of HIV/AIDS…coincidentally, the same field where a furious race is currently underway to bring a vaccine to market.

FYI: Vaccines which are cultured on fetal cell lines are Adenovirus, DTaP-IPV/Hib (Pentacel), Hep A (Havrix), Hep A/Hep B (Twinrix), Measles-mumps-rubella (MMRII), Measles-mumps-rubella-varicella (ProQuad), Varicella (Varivax) [22].

PS: The above article is a small excerpt from the book I am currently working on. If you’d like to be kept up-to-date with news and other interesting things I come across in my research, please sign up to the newsletter . As a bonus, I’ll send you a free PDF “99 Reasons Why I Choose Not To Vaccinate”.


[1.]L. Hayflick, The Limited In Vitro Lifetime of Human Diploid Cell Strains, Experimental Cell Research, March 1965, vol.37, no. 3, pp. 614-636.

[2] G. Sven, S. Plotkin, K. McCarthy, Gamma Globulin Prophylaxis; Inactivated Rubella Virus; Production and Biological Control of Live Attenuated Rubella Virus Vaccines, American Journal of Diseases of Children, August 1969, vol. 118, no. 2, pp.372-381.

[3] Coriell Institute for Medical Research. Accessed February, 2017.

[4] Coriell Institute for Medical Research. Accessed February, 2017.

[5] Wilson PK. Harry Laughlin’s eugenic crusade to control the ‘socially inadequate’ in Progressive Era America. Patterns of Prejudice, 2002, 36 (1): 49–67.

[6] James H. Marsh, Eugenics: Keeping Canada Sane, The Canadian Encyclopedia.

[7] Weller TH, Enders JF, Robbins FC,  Stoddard MB. Studies on the Cultivation of Poliomyelitis Viruses in Tissue Culture : I. The Propagation of Poliomyelitis Viruses in Suspended Cell Cultures of Various Human Tissue, J Immunol, 1952, 69(6):645-671.

[8] Leiva R. A brief history of human diploid cell strains, Nat Cath Bioethics Quart, 2006, 443-451.

[9] E Norrby, email reply to  R Leiva in Leiva R. A brief history of human diploid cell strains, Nat Cath Bioethics Quart, 2006, 443-451.

[10] FDA. Briefing document: Cell lines derived from human tumors for vaccine manufacture, Vaccines and related biological  products advisory committee meeting, 2012. Accessed February, 2017.

[11] Ma B, He LF, Zhang YL, et al. Characteristics and viral propagation properties of a new human diploid cell line, Walvax-2, and its suitability as a candidate cell substrate for vaccine production, Hum Vaccin Immunother, 2015, 11(4): 998-1009.

[12] Binkley C, Johnson CK. Scientists say fetal tissue essential for medical research, Associated Press, Aug 11, 2015. Accessed February, 2017.

[13] FDA Center for Biologics and Evaluation and Research Advisory Committee Meeting, May 16, 2001. Accessed February, 2017.

[14] Le Ru A, Jacob D, Transfiguracion J, et al. Scalable production of influena virus in HEK-293 cells for efficient vaccine manufacturing, Vaccine, 2010, 21(7): 3661-3671.

[15] Wong A. The Ethics of HEK 293, Nat Cath Bioethics Quart 6.3, 2006, 473-495.

[16] Croce P, Vivisection or Science – a choice to make, Fetal Experimentation-Over the top; Part 1, p. 99-108.CIVIS, 1991, Hans Ruesch Foundation.

[17] FDA. Cell lines derived from human tumors for vaccine manufacture, Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee Meeting, September 19, 2012.

[18] Deisher TA, Doan NV, Koyama K, Bwabye S. Epidemiologic and Molecular relationship between vaccine manufacture and autism spectrum disorder prevalence. Issues Law Med. 2015; 30(1): 47-70.

[19] Moffatt JF, Zerboni L, Kinchington P, et al. Attenuation of the vaccine Oka strain of Varicella-Zoster virus and role of glycoprotein C in alphaherpesvirus virulence demonstrated in the SCID-hu mouse, J Virol, 1998, 72(2):965-974.

[20] McCune JM. Development and applications of the SCID-hu mouse model, Semin Immunol, 1996, 8(4):187-196.

[21] Wadman M. The truth about fetal tissue research, Nature, 2015, 528: 178-181.

[22] CDC: Vaccine Excipient & Media Summary, Accessed February, 2017.

11 Things Every Teen Should Know About Gardasil and Cervical Cancer


In 2006, Gardasil was given “Fast-Track” approval, despite failing to meet (and still fails to meet) even one of the four conditions for priority approval [1].


The risk of dying of cervical cancer is approximately 1.7/100,000 women in Australia [2], or 2.4/100,000 women in the US [3] – bearing in mind that Gardasil only claims to protect against the strains thought to be responsible for approximately 70% of all cervical cancers [4]. Compare this with the rate of serious adverse reactions for Gardasil – an estimated 3.34/100,000 doses [5]. Serious reactions are classified as those that lead to hospitalization, permanent disability or death. Given that only an estimated1-10% of vaccine adverse reactions are reported [6], the real numbers of adverse reactions may be many, many times higher. In other words, it appears the vaccine may be more dangerous than the condition it is claimed to prevent…


We still have no evidence that Gardasil can actually prevent cervical cancer, let alone cervical cancer deaths. This is because the clinical trials followed up participants for 5 years [7], yet cervical cancer can take 20-40 years to develop [8]. Instead, they based their decision to approve the vaccine on its purported ability to prevent so-called “pre-cancerous lesions” – the vast majority of which resolve on their own, without ever progressing to cancer, anyway [4].


The “placebo” used in Gardasil clinical trials, was actually an injection of aluminum [9] – a known neurotoxin [10-11], that induces DNA damage [12], suppresses the immune system [13-14], and mimics the hormone estrogen in the human body [15]. It is also suspected of playing a role in the development of some cancers, including breast cancer [16], and….wait for it….cervical cancer [17].


Merck – the makers of Gardasil – helped the vaccine to be included in school mandates and compulsory vaccination programs via clever marketing campaigns and lobbying legislators. They even helped to draft legislation that made Gardasil vaccination mandatory to attend school [18]. They also provided funding to professional associations, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists,, who began heavily promoting the vaccine, via ready-made presentations, emails and letters…even before the clinical trial results were published [19-20].


In 2012, it was reported that Gardasil alone was associated with 61% of all serious adverse reactions reported to VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System), including 63% of all deaths, and 81% of permanent disability in females younger than 30 [21].


Merck’s own pre-licensure data shows that vaccination of young women already infected by HPV strains 16 and 18 may actually exacerbate pre-existing infections or pre-cancerous lesions, and increase their risk of cervical cancer by 44% [22]. Unfortunately, there is no screening for such infections offered to teenage girls, before vaccination of Gardasil.


HPV16 virus (one of the strains included in the vaccine), is so closely related to the human proteome, that forcing the body to create antibodies against it (what the Gardasil vaccine is designed to do), almost certainly results in making antibodies against our own self [23]. Perhaps this is why auto-immune conditions are one of the most commonly reported side effects of Gardasil [24-26].


Gardasil contains an ingredient called Polysorbate 80 (also known as “Tween 80”), a non-ionic detergent that is used to prevent individual ingredients in the vaccine from separating. Polysorbate has been linked to reproductive problems and infertility in animal studies [27]. Also disturbing is the fact that Polysorbate 80 is used in drugs and biomedical research, for its ability to transport medications across the blood-brain barrier, thereby accessing the central nervous system [28]. This means that the presence of polysorbate 80 could make other ingredients, such as aluminum, even more dangerous, however, no studies have been performed, on humans or animals, to evaluate potential synergistic toxicity.


Over the past four decades, cervical cancer incidence and mortality rates in Western countries have decreased by 74%, largely through pap smear campaigns [4]. It is unlikely that vaccination will have much effect in decreasing the already small cancer rate. In fact, if vaccinated women stop having pap smears, the cancer rate will likely increase [29].


The vast majority of sexually-active women will have at least one HPV infection at some point in their lives, usually without any symptoms. Ninety percent of infections will clear without any treatment within 2 years [30-31], and only 1% of infections will persist and eventually become cervical cancer [32], although there are usually other risk factors involved, including cigarette smoking, and long-term use of oral contraceptive pill [33].

So…is the so-called “cervical cancer vaccine” worth it? You be the judge…

PS. This article is a small preview of the the book I’m currently writing. If you would like to be kept up-to-date on it’s progress, plus other interesting information I discover in the meantime, please sign up for the newsletter . As a bonus, you’ll get a free PDF I created “99 Reasons I Choose Not To Vaccinate”.


[1] Tomljenovic L, Shaw CA. Too fast or not too fast: the FDA’s approval of Merck’s HPV vaccine Gardasil. J Law Med Ethics, 2012, 40(3): 673-681.

[2] Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2017. Australian Cancer Incidence and Mortality (ACIM) books: Cervical cancer. Canberra: AIHW. Accessed 5th June, 2017.

[3] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Cervical Cancer Rates by Race and Ethnicity, Accessed 5th June, 2017.

[4] Flogging gardasil. Nat Biotechnol 2007;25(3):261.

[5] Slade BA, Leidel L, Vellozzi C, Woo EJ, Hua W, Sutherland A, et al. Postlicensure safety surveillance for quadrivalent human papillomavirus recombinant vaccine. JAMA 2009;302(7):750-7.

[6] National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC). An Analysis by the National Vaccine Information Center of Gardasil & Menactra Adverse Event Reports to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS), February 2009.

[7] Mello MM, Abiola S, Colgrove J. Pharmaceutical companies’ role in state vaccination policymaking: the case of human papillomavirus vaccination. Am J Public Health,  2012, 102(5): 893-898.

[8] Tomljenovic and A. E. Shaw. Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Vaccine Policy and Evidence-Based Medicine: Are They at Odds?” Annals of Medicine, 2013, 45(2): 182-193.

[9] D. M. Harper, P. Nieminen, J. Paavonen, and M. Lehtinen,Cervical Cancer Incidence Can Increase Despite HPV Vaccination,”Lancet Infect Dis 10, 2010, 9: 594-595; author reply 95.

[10] Petrik, M.S.; Wong, M.C.; Tabata, R.C.; Garry, R.F.; Shaw, C.A. Aluminium adjuvant lunked to Guld War illness induces motor neuron death in mice. Neuromolecular Med. 2007, 9(1), 83-100.

[11] Struys-Ponsar, C.; Guillard, O,; van den Bosch de Aguilar, P. Effects of aluminum exposure on glutamate metabolism: a possible explanation for its toxicity. Exp Neurol. 2000, 163(1), 157-164.

[12] Banasik A, Lankoff A, Piskulak A et al. Aluminum-induced micronuclei and apoptosis in human peripheral-blood lymphocytes treated during different phases of the cell cycle. Environ Toxicol, 2005, 20(4): 401-406.

[13] She Y, Want N et al. Effects of aluminum on immune functions of cultured splenic T and B lymphocytes in rats. Biol Tr Elem Res, 2012, 147(1): 246-250.

[14] Zhu Y, Li X, Chen C et al. Effects of aluminum trichloride on the trace elements and cytokines in the spleen of rats. Food Chem Toxicol, 2012, 50(8): 2911-2915.

[15] Darbre PD. Metalloestrogens: an emerging class of inorganic xenoestrogens with potential to add to the oestrogenic burden of the human breast. J Appl Toxicol, 2006, 26(3): 191-197.

[16] Mannello F, Tonti GA, Medda V, Simmone P, Darbre PD. Analysis of aluminium content and iron homeostasis in nipple aspirate fluids from healthy women and breast cancer-affected patients. J Appl Toxicol, 2011, 31(3): 262-269.

[17] Brake T, Lambert PF. Estrogen contributes to the onset, Persistence, and malignant Progression of cervical cancer in a human PaPillomavirus-transgenic rat model, Proc Nat Acad Sci USA, 2005, 102(7):2490-2494.

[18] Mello MM, Abiola S, Colgrove J. Pharmaceutical companies’ role in state vaccination policymaking: the case of human papillomavirus vaccination. Am J Public Health,  2012, 102(5): 893-898.

[19] Rothman SM, Rothman DJ. Marketing HPV vaccine: implications for adolescent health and medical professionalism. JAMA 2009;302(7):781-6.

[20] Haug C. The risks and benefits of HPV vaccination. JAMA 2009;302(7):795-6

[21] Tomljenovic L, Shaw CA. Too fast or not too fast: the FDA’s approval of Merck’s HPV vaccine Gardasil. J Law Med Ethics, 2012, 40(3): 673-681.

[22] ] Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC), May 18, 2006 VRBPAC Meeting, Background Document: Gardasil™, HPV Quadrivalent Vaccine.

[23] Kanduc D. Quantifying the possible cross-reactivity risk of an HPV16 vaccine, J Exp Ther Oncol, 2009, 8(1): 65-76.

[24] Anaya JM, Reyes B, Perdomo-Arcinegas AM, et al. Autoimmune/autoinflammatory syndrome induce by adjuvants (ASIA) after quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccination in Colombians: a call for personalised medicine, Clin Exp Rheumatol, 2015, 33(4): 545-548.

[25] Gatto M, Agmon-Levin, Soriano A, Manna R, Maoz-Segal R, Kivity S, Doria A, Shoenfeld Y. Human papillomarvirus vaccine and systemic lupus erythematosus, Clin Reumatol, 2013, 39(2): 1301-1307.

[26] Colafrancesco S, Perricone C, Tomljenovic L, Shoenfeld Y. Human papillomavirus vaccine and primary ovarian failure: another facet of the autoimmune/inflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants, Am J Reprod Immunol, 2013, 70(4): 309-316.

[27] Gajdova M, Jakubovsky J, Valky J. Delayed effects of neonatal exposure to Tween 80 on female reproductive organs in rats. Food Chem Toxicol 1993;31(3):183-90.

[28] Gulyaev AE, Gelperina SE, Skidan IN, et al. Significant transport of doxorubicin into the brain with polysorbate 80-coated nanoparticles, pharm Res, 1999, 16(10):1564-1569.

[29] Chustecka Z. HPV Vaccine: Debate Over Benefits, Marketing, and New Adverse Event Data. Medscape Med News 2009. Accessed 6th May, 2017.

[30] Franco EL, Villa LL, Sobrinho JP, et al. Epidemiology of acquisition and clearance of cervical human papillomavirus infection in women from a high-risk area for cervical cancer, J Infect Dis, 1999, 180: 1415-1423.

[31] Ho GY, Burk RD, Klein S, et al. Persistent genital human PaPillomavirus infection as a risk factor for Persistent cervical dysPlasia, J Natl Canc Inst, 1995, 87: 1365-1371.

[32] Ostor AG. Natural history of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: a critical review. Int J Gynecol Pathol 1993;12(2):186-92.

[33] Castellsague X, Munoz N. Chapter 3: Co-factors in human papillomavirus carcinogenesis – role of parity, oral contraceptives and tobacco smoking, J Natl Canc Instit Monogr, 2003, 31:20-28.









Vaccines During Pregnancy: 12 Things Every Mother Needs To Know

No mother wants to see her newborn baby struggling to breath because of whooping cough or influenza infection. It’s an emotive issue that the media has played on, but what are the facts regarding vaccines during pregnancy?

Currently, there are two vaccines recommended for pregnant women – the annual influenza vaccine, and the Tdap vaccine, which combines tetanus, diptheria and pertussis vaccines. Note that when you are administered a “whooping cough”, or pertussis vaccine, it is actually three vaccines combined into one. There is no single vaccine available for whooping cough (pertussis).

Here are some things to consider before getting those jabs – facts that your doctor may not have mentioned…

  • Science has known for more than a decade  that immune activation during pregnancy has negative consequences for the unborn child, namely for the child’s mental and emotional development. Some of the side-effects of immune activation – whether by random natural infection or deliberately through vaccination, or injection of toxins, are brain and behavioural changes similar to those seen in autism and other neurodevelopmental disorders [1-5].
  • Some of these changes may not be evident until the child reaches adolescence, or even adulthood, when adult-onset schizophrenia and other mental illnesses manifest [6-7]. The problem is that we have safety studies declaring vaccination during pregnancy to be “safe” for the child…after following up the child for only 6mths – far too early for the long-term consequences to become evident [8].
  • The multidose flu vaccine still contains thimerosal, which is approximately 50% mercury by weight. Mercury is highly toxic, especially to the developing child, who accumulates more mercury than the mother [9]. This means the baby can experience neurological damage and other consequences, without the mother showing any outward symptoms of harm.
  • Side effects of fetal mercury poisoning, include mental retardation, seizures, learning and behavioural disorders, vision/hearing loss, and problems with motor skills and coordination [10-12].
  • Widespread vaccination for whooping cough began more than half a century ago. In the 1980’s, when safety concerns saw vaccination rates plummet, research revealed that hospital admission rates and mortality had also unexpectedly dropped [13]. Now we have increasing vaccination…and increasing incidence of whooping cough [14]. You do the math!
  • Although studies have looked at the vaccines ability to induce antibodies in the mother and child [15], we are still waiting for real evidence that vaccinating pregnant women for whooping cough has decreased the incidence of infection in newborn babies. On their website, the CDC says “Public health professionals expect that having mothers get the whooping cough vaccine during pregnancy will prevent more babies from ending up in the hospital and dying from whooping cough than if mothers get the vaccine after delivery” [16]. In other words…they don’t actually know for sure, but they hope this strategy will result in less infections in neonates, since the previous strategy of vaccinating post-partum mothers did not work [17].
  • Several years ago, the prestigious Cochrane Review Database attempted to decipher whether the current vaccination program was proving to be effective in actual real-world terms – ie. Decrease in hospitalizations or mortality of infants. For reasons unknown, they were unable to complete the review [18].
  • Over the past few years, pertussis (whooping cough) has undergone a strain shift, due to selective pressure of widespread vaccination. This means that many pertussis cases are now caused by a strain that is not even included in the vaccine [19]. In fact, it appears that vaccination actually increases your risk of contracting the new strains of pertussis [20]. It also appears that many cases of pertussis are now spread via those who have been vaccinated, and do not realize they are infectious [21]. Note the case of a vaccinated healthcare worker, who unwittingly infected four newborn babies under her care [22].
  • The vaccine insert for the Tdap vaccine administered during pregnancy, clearly states that it is not known whether the vaccine can cause fetal harm or affect reproduction capacity [23]. It also clearly states that the vaccine has not been evaluated for carcinogenic or mutagenic potential, or ability to impair fertility [23-24].
  • Influenza vaccination is only claimed to protect against A and B strains, which make up around 10% of known circulating strains. Out of those A and B strains, the vaccine is only formulated against a handful of genotypes, predicted to be the most virulent in any given flu season [25].
  • Research has shown that influenza vaccination during pregnancy, has little to no effect on influenza or respiratory illness in infants [26-27].
  • The Tdap vaccine administered during pregnancy contains aluminum – a known neurotoxin and heavy metal. Animal studies suggest that exposure during pregnancy increases risk of growth retardation, neurobehavioural deficits, reproductive toxicity and death in the offspring [28-29].

Vaccines during pregnancy, is the risk worth the supposed benefits? You be the judge…

[1] Malkova NV, Yu CZ, Hsiao EY, et al. Maternal immune activation yields offspring displaying mouse versions of the three core symptoms of autism, Brain Behaviour Immunity, 2012, 26(4):607-616.

[2] Shi L, Smith SEP, Malkova N, et al. Activation of the maternal immune system alters cerebellar development in the offspring, Brain Behav Immun, 2009, 23(1): 116-123.

[3] Pendyala G, Chou S, Jung Y, et al. Maternal immune activation causes behavioural impairments and altered cerebellar cytokine and synaptic protein expression, Neuro Psych, 2017, epub ahead of print.

[4] Garay PA, Hsiao EY, Patterson PH, McAllister AK. Maternal immune activation causes age- and region-specific changes in brain cytokines in offspring throughout development, Brain Behav Immunol, 2013, 31:54-68.

[5] ] Smith SE, Li J, Garbett K, Mirnics K, Patterson PH. Maternal immune activation alters fetal brain development through interleukin-6, J Neurosci, 2007, 27(40):10695-702.

[6] Nyffeler M, Meyer U, Yee BK, et al. Maternal immune activation during pregnancy increases limbic GABAa receptor immunoreactivity in the adult offspring; implications for schizophrenia, Neuroscience, 2006, 143(1): 51-62.

[7] Zuckerman L, Weiner I. Maternal immune activation leads to behavioural and pharmacological changes in the adult offspring, J Psych Res, 2005, 39(3): 311-323.

[8] Munoz FM, Greisinger AJ, Wehmanen AO, et al. Safety of influenza vaccination during pregnancy, Am J Ob Gyn, 2005, 192(4): 1098-1106.

[9] Kuhnert PM, Kuhnert BR, Erhard P. ComParison of mercury levels in maternal blood, fetal cord blood, and Placental tissues, Am J Obstet Gynecol, 1981, 139(2): 209-213.

[10] Patrizi A, Rizzoli L, Vencenzi C, Previsi P, Tosti A. Sensitization to thimerosal in atopic children. Contact Dermatitis, 1999, 40(2): 94-97.

[11] Vojdani A, Pangborn JB, Vojdani E, Cooper EL. Infections, toxic chemicals and dietary peptides binding to lymphocyte receptors and tissue enzymes are major institgators of autoimmunity in autism. Int J Immun Pharm, 2003, 16(3): 189-199.

[12] Mrozek-Budzyn D, Majewska R, Kieltyka A, Augustyniak M. Neonatal exposure to thimerosal from vaccines and child development in the first 3 years of life. Neurotoxicology and Teratology, 2012, 34(6): 592-597.

[13] Pollock TM, Miller E, Lobb J. Severity of whooping cough in England before and after the decline in pertussis immunisation, Arch Dis Child, 1984, 59(2):162-165.

.[14] Tan T, Trindade E, Skowronski D. Epidemiology of pertussis, Pediatr Infect Dis J, 2005, 24(5):S10-8.

[15] Gkentzi D, Katsakiori p, Marangos p, et al. Maternal vaccination against pertussis: a systematic review of the recent literature, Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed, 2017, Epub ahead of print

[16] CDC: Get the whooping cough vaccine while pregnant, Accessed 31st May, 2017.

[17] Healy CM, Rench MA, Wootton SH, Castagnini LA. Evaluation of the impact of a pertussis cocooning program on infant pertussis infection, Pediatr Infect Dis J, 2015, 34(1):22-26.

[18] Cochrane Library: Vaccination in pregnancy to prevent pertussis in infancy,;jsessionid=1704C1E6CCF34B8FE88155BDC8BEE873.f02t03. Accessed 31st May, 2017.

[19] Octavia S, Sintchenko V, Gilbert GL, et al. Newly emerging clones Bordetella pertussisCarrying prn2 and ptxP3 Alleles Implicated in Australian Pertussis Epidemic in 2008–2010, J Infect Dis, 2012, 25(8):1220-1224.

[20] CDC: Meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors, Office of Infectious Diseases,, pp6, Accessed 31st May, 2017.

[21] Althouse BM, Scarpino SV. Asymptomatic transmission and the resurgence of bordetella pertussis, BMC Med, 2015, 13:146.

[22] Paterson JM, et al. Nosocomial Pertussis infection of infants: still a risk in 2009, Commun Dis Intell Q ReP, 2010, 34(4).

[23] Adacel Vaccine Insert, Accessed  31st May, 2017.

[24] Boostrix Vaccine Insert, Accessed 31st May, 2017.

[25] Cochrane Library: Vaccines to prevent influenza in healthy adults,, Accessed February, 2017.

[26] France EK, Smith-Ray R, McClure D, et al. Impact of maternal influenza vaccination during pregnancy on the incidence of acute respiratory illness visits among infants, Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med, 2006, 160(12):1277-1283.

[27]Black SB, Shinefield HR, France EK, et al. Effectiveness of influenza vaccine during pregnancy in preventing hospitalizations and outpatient visits for respiratory illness in pregnant women and their infants, Am J Perinatol, 2004, 21(6):333-339.

[28] Benett RW, Persaud TV, Moore KL. Experimental studies on the effects of aluminum on pregnancy and fetal development, Anat Anz, 1975, 138(5):365-378.

[29] Domingo JL. Reproductive and developmental toxicity of aluminum: a review, Neurotoxicol Teratol, 1995, 17 (4):515-521.


10 Reasons Why The Annual Flu Vaccine is Worse Than Useless

  1. The number of “flu deaths” each year, used to scare people into getting vaccinated, is grossly inaccurate. There are several reasons for this, the main one being that so-called “flu deaths” also include deaths from pneumonia and influenzalike illnesses, and respiratory and circulatory causes [1].
  2. Seasonal flu vaccine makes you more susceptible to other respiratory infections [2].
  3. Influenza-related deaths have actually increased, as vaccination rates have increased [3].
  4. Numerous reviews have found that there is evidence of widespread manipulation of data in flu vaccine studies, and what’s more, no measurable benefits in vaccinating healthcare workers, young children, healthy adults, pregnant women or the elderly [4-8]. Actually, let’s just say that there are no measurable benefits for anybody [9].
  5. Flu vaccine induces auto-antibodies against gangliosides in the brain [10]. Gangliosides are found throughout the body, especially the central nervous system and play an important role in many cell functions.
  6. Flu vaccine makes people more susceptible to pandemic influenza strains [11].
  7. After three consecutive years, people who receive the annual flu vaccine, are more likely to get influenza [12].
  8. The prestigious Cochrane Review found that 71 people would need to be vaccinated in order to prevent one case of influenza…while at the same time concluding that only 10% of the studies included in their review had good methodological quality. Therefore, even this unimpressive finding is likely to be vastly over-inflated [4].
  9. The flu vaccine only targets A and B strains of influenza, which account for approximately 10% of known circulating strains. Against this 10%, vaccine efficacy can be as low as 18% when strains have not been well matched, remembering that “efficacy” is based on ability to produce antibodies, which does not equal immunity anyway [4].
  10. Multidose flu vaccines (such as trivalent and quadrivalent vaccines) contain thimerosal, which is 50% ethylmercury by weight. Ethylmercury is highly toxic, converts to inorganic mercury, persists in the brain for many years. Oh, and it also suppresses the immune system, leaving you worse off overall [13].


[1] CDC. Influenza (Flu): Estimating seasonal influenza-associated deaths in the United States, Accessed February, 2017.

[2] Cowling BJ, Fang VJ, Nishiura H, et al. Increased risk of non-influenza respiratory virus infections associated with receipt of inactivated influenza vaccine, Clin Infect Dis, 2012, 54(12):1778-1783.

[3] Simonson L, Reichert TA, Blackwelder WC, Miller MA, Benefits of influenza vaccination on influenza-related mortality among elderly in the US: an unexpected finding, Intern Cong Series, 2004, 1263: 163-167.

[4] Jefferson T, Di Pietrantoni C, Rivetti A, et al. Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy adults, Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2010, 7(7): CD001269.

[5] Thomas RE, Jefferson T, Lasserson TJ. Influenza vaccination for healthcare workers who work with the elderly, Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2010, 17(2): CD005187.

[6] Szilagyi PG, Faibrother G, Griffin MR, et al. Influenza vaccine effectiveness among children 6-59 months of age during 2 influenza seasons: a case-cohort study, Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med, 2008, 162(10): 943-951.

[7] France EK, Smith-Ray R, McClure D, et al. Impact of maternal influenza vaccination during pregnancy on the incidence of acute respiratory illness visits among infants, Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med, 2006, 160(12): 1277-1283.

[8] Osterholm MT, Kelley NS, Sommer A, Belongia EA. Efficacy and effectiveness of influenza: a systematic review and meta-analysis, Lancet Infect Dis, 2012, 12(1)36-44.

[9] Simonsen L, Reichert TA, Viboud C, et al. Impact of influenza vaccination on seasonal mortality in the US elderly population, Arch Intern Med, 2005, 165(3): 265-272.

[10] Nachamkin I, Shadomy SV, Moran AP, et al. Anti-ganglioside antibody induction by swine and other influenza vaccines: insights into vaccine-associated Guillain-Barre syndrome, J Infect Dis, 2008, 198(2): 226-233.

[11] Bodewes R, Kreigtz JH, Baas C, et al. Vaccination against human influenza A/H3N2 virus prevents the induction of heterosubtypic immunity against lethal infection with avian influenza A/H5N1 virus, PLoS One, 2009, 4(5): e5538.

[12] Skowronski D, Chambers C, Sabaiduc S, et al. A perfect storm: impact of genomic variation and serial vaccination on low influenza vaccination effectiveness during 2014-2015 season, Clin Infect Dis, 2016, 63(1): 21-32.

[13] Loison E, Poirier-Beaudouin B, Seffer V, et al. Suppression by thimerosal of ex-vivo CD4+ T-cell response to influenza vaccine and induction of apoptosis in primary memory T cells, PLoS One, 2014, 9(4): e92705.

Why Are 90% Of Vaccine Adverse Reactions Never Reported?

It’s been over 7 years since my second son suffered adverse reactions to vaccines (both 2 and 4 month vaccines, at which time I finally put 2 + 2 together, discontinued vaccinating, and started researching).

Yet I never reported my son’s reactions. At the time, I didn’t even know there was anybody to report it to, except a medical doctor…who snorted, and told me his health problems had nothing to do with vaccines.

It was not until several years later that I found out how to report a vaccine adverse reaction. Why is this information not shared widely? Do they actually want to know how many adverse reactions there are,  or not?

So it was with interest that I recently read a comment made by the head of the UKMHR (the UK body responsible for overseeing vaccine safety and reporting, much like the FDA in America, and the TGA in Australia). He estimated that only 10% of vaccine adverse reactions are ever reported.

If you search the Australian Adverse Drugs Reaction System for adverse reactions to vaccines, the numbers run into the tens of thousands. If we assume that our reporting statistics are similar to the UK (we should never just assume anything, but in the absence of information from the TGA, we’ll use UK reporting numbers), the true numbers are disturbing.

Some, such as the National Vaccine Information Center, say official reporting is closer to 1% of actual numbers, which is truly staggering

According to the CDC, over 30,000 reports of adverse reactions following vaccination are filed in the US every year. Approximately 10% – 15% are classified as “serious” (resulted in permanent disability, hospitalisation, life-threatening disease or death). Multiply that by 10, to factor in the other 90% of unreported reactions, and it equates to 30,000 – 45,000 serious reactions per year.

Vaccine injuries and adverse reactions are very real, and a lot more common than the general public realise. So why are so few reported?  It’s a multi-faceted issue, but from speaking with many, many parents, these seem to be the main reasons for lack of reporting.

  1. The average parent does not know who or where to report it to. In fact, the average parent is often shocked and overwhelmed to see firsthand that vaccines can cause severe reaction, since parents are not routinely given access to the vaccine inserts before consenting to vaccination.
  2. In some cases, the effects are gradual, or occur several days or weeks after vaccination. In these cases, there may be no connection made to the vaccine, and it is written off as “coincidence”.
  3. Even when an adverse reaction is observed and linked to the vaccine, parents are often reassured by family, friends, medical staff or social media that this is “normal” and nothing to be concerned about.
  4. A parent may “report” the adverse reaction informally to their GP or local health clinic. However, under current Australian laws, health professionals have no obligation to report these reactions formally with the TGA (and the vast majority won’t report it).
  5. Parents who don’t have a lot of medical knowledge can be intimidated by dealing with authorities or answering medical-related questions, especially if their concerns have already been brushed off by medical personnel.


Anybody can report a suspected adverse reaction to vaccines in Australia, including parents or family members.

Here is the link to download the reporting forms.

You will be required to provide your own contact details (anonymous reports are not allowed), some kind of identifier for the patient (eg. Initials), information regarding the adverse event, what vaccines were administered, date the event occurred, treatment following the event, outcome of event etc etc.

The TGA may contact you if further details are required.

The reporter’s name and details are not published, neither are any identifying details of the patient. It can take approximately 3 months for the report to be visible publicly on the Database of Adverse Events Notifications.


This page includes information and instructions on how to file an adverse reaction report to VAERS.

How To Deal With Trolls and Cyber-Bullies

If you speak openly about your vaccination views online, chances are you’ve had the pleasure of meeting some *delightful* characters, otherwise known as bullies and trolls.

I, too, have had my fair share of encounters, and here’s a few things I’ve learnt (the hard way).


Trolls are not there to have a conversation with you. They are not even there to refute you. They are there for one purpose only, and that is to discredit and discourage you in any way they can. Take this as a compliment. If you didn’t know what you’re talking about, you could discredit yourself all on your very own! The harder they try to make you out as a fool, the more sense you are making. Take heart!


Do not engage them. I repeat, do not engage them! Remember, they are not there to debate you, anything you say can and will be used against you. I have seen people’s comments twisted in the most ridiculous ways. For example, I saw a comment recently on an online forum that started out as “you wanted to hear a death story” (meaning, “you wanted proof that somebody in real life had lost a child to vaccines”) and somehow that simple comment was twisted to become “you’re making death threats”. Do you see what I mean? Their arguments are not even rational, they are merely there to make you out to look bad.


Further to Point number 2, if you DO engage them, trolls and bullies will deliberately taunt you and antagonise you, in hopes that you lose your temper and say something you regret. Do not give them the satisfaction! They will take your words and spread it far and wide as “evidence” that pro-choicers are not only weird, but are dangerous and violent too.

Recently I saw the father of a vaccine-injured child become so riled and agitated by trolls, who were deliberately baiting him, that he made some rash comments in the heat of the moment. Those comments were screen-shot, made into a blog post with a sensational headline, then the links posted on the facebook pages of major newspapers. Be very careful what you write – read everything twice before hitting “post”.

I know it can be hard to resist, you want to defend yourself against their accusations and finger-pointing and insults, but you are just adding fuel to the fire. If you find yourself getting frustrated or mad, WALK AWAY. In fact, the moment it becomes obvious you are dealing with a troll (and it is often noticeable in the very first comment they make), WALK AWAY.

It is a far more efficient use of your time to share knowledge with people who are actually open to information.


If anybody is rude to you on social media, or insists on calling you demeaning names such as “wacko” and “crazy” (or worse), you have every right to block them. Problem solved! They can no longer butt in at every opportunity, attempting to de-rail the conversation. That being said, blocking or deleting people just because they respectfully disagree with you is in poor taste.


It doesn’t matter how good your scientific links are, they will discredit them (or their authors, or whatever website it comes from). Even peer-reviewed studies published in well-known scientific journals are not good enough for them, they will discount them with airy explanations like “all suppositions” “not based on facts”…of course, they will never explain in detail what exactly they don’t agree with. That would take too much time, and trolls are trying to annoy and harass as many people as possible, probably from as many accounts as possible too.

They will also never explain what exactly about your views they don’t agree with, and usually don’t provide any scientific evidence whatsoever for their disagreement (again, too time-consuming). They will stick to short, sharp comments such as “You are an idiot. Just stop.” And other charming comments like “Don’t take any notice of her. She’s another crazy”. Like I say, they don’t have time for long-winded explanations or evidence, too many other people to intimidate and annoy.

Therefore, re-read Point 2! It’s simply not worth the bother.


Double-check the privacy settings of your social media accounts, this includes not only who can see your posts, but the settings for your personal details such as hometown, where you work, date of birth. These can all be set to either “Public”, “Friends”, or “Just Me”.

Trolls and bullies can and will take advantage of this information if you let it be advertised on your profile. Use Facebook’s “View Your Page As…” function to find out what your page looks like to other people and how much information is visible, not only to people on your friends list, but also the public.


If you belong to any vaccine group on social media that is active and has a substantial amount of members, be aware that trolls will have already infiltrated it, even if it is set to “Closed” or “Secret”. This is what they do! It is very hard for admins to filter them out, because they run accounts under different names, with different friend’s lists, so they appear to be genuine, but all they are really doing is screen-shotting information and plastering it all over the internet.

Often-times, when plastering their screen-shots all over the internet, they don’t even make a token effort to blot out the names, or profile pictures, of their victims. It’s a pretty lowdown, tacky way to operate, one wonders how they manage to sleep at night, trying to keep track of which account and which persona they’re playing.

Re-read everything before you post online (even in “secret” groups) and ask yourself if you would be happy to have it splashed all over the internet. If the answer is no, have a re-think about if you should be posting it. Even jokes can and will be taken the wrong way. Questions regarding alternative health advice are probably best asked on alternative health forums, where trolls are somewhat less active (but not always). They are incredibly vigilant on the vaccine issue, and are likely to pop up anywhere vaccines are being discussed.

<script type=”text/javascript” src=”//” data-dojo-config=”usePlainJson: true, isDebug: false”></script><script type=”text/javascript”>require([“mojo/signup-forms/Loader”], function(L) { L.start({“baseUrl”:””,”uuid”:”448afe13b80e112534c2996e5″,”lid”:”2eb1592d0d”}) })</script>