Turtles All The Way Down

1. Vaccine clinical trials are designed to hide adverse events.

Clinical trials of vaccines are rigged to hide their true (and high) rate of side effects, which means the medical establishment’s longstanding claim that vaccines are safe has no scientific merit.

Flawed design. Pre-licensure clinical trials for vaccines, especially childhood ones, are fundamentally flawed. Instead of comparing the new vaccine to an inert placebo (like saline), they typically use another vaccine or a vaccine-like compound as the control. This "fake placebo" is also bioactive and likely to cause adverse events itself.

Obscuring true rates. This design ensures that the rate of adverse events in the vaccinated group appears similar to the control group, allowing manufacturers and regulators to claim the new vaccine is "safe" because its side effect rate is comparable to the control. However, this comparison cannot reveal the absolute rate of adverse events compared to receiving nothing, nor the cumulative effect of multiple vaccines. The rotavirus vaccine trials, using vaccine-sans-antigen controls, are highlighted as particularly unethical examples.

Turtles all the way down. This practice creates a chain where newer vaccines are tested against older ones, which were themselves tested against even older ones, ultimately resting on a foundation where the original vaccine's safety was never rigorously tested against a true placebo. This systematic avoidance means the true rate of adverse events for routine childhood vaccines remains unknown.

2. Vaccine adverse event reporting systems are intentionally deficient.

Vaccine adverse event reporting systems are designed on the (false) premise that a vaccine’s basic safety is established during pre-licensure clinical trials.

Passive and voluntary. Systems like the US VAERS are passive, relying on voluntary reporting from healthcare professionals and the public (only manufacturers are mandated). This leads to severe underreporting, estimated at only 1-10% of actual adverse events. Reports are also often incomplete or unverified.

Unreliable data. The high and unknown rate of underreporting makes quantitative analysis and comparison scientifically meaningless. It's impossible to accurately calculate adverse event rates or reliably identify safety signals by comparing VAERS data to population rates or rates from other vaccines.

Serving the narrative. Despite these acknowledged limitations, health authorities use VAERS data in studies (like Slade 2009 on Gardasil) to publicly claim vaccines are safe, often ignoring the data's inherent flaws and contradictions. Efforts to create more robust, active reporting systems (like the Lazarus project) have been blocked by the CDC, suggesting a preference for systems that cannot expose the true extent of adverse events.

3. Scientific research into vaccine adverse event mechanisms is severely lacking.

At present, officially sanctioned medical science knows very little about the harmful effects of vaccines.

Knowledge gaps. The IOM 2011 report found insufficient evidence to confirm or refute a causal link for over 85% of vaccine-adverse event pairs examined. This highlights a severe lack of high-quality mechanistic (biomedical) studies investigating how vaccines might cause harm.

Empty toolbox. This scientific void leaves medical professionals with no reliable tools to:

• Diagnose whether a specific health issue was caused by a vaccine.
• Identify individuals susceptible to vaccine injury (e.g., based on genetics or health status).
• Develop effective treatments for vaccine-injured individuals.

Deliberate inaction. This persistent lack of research is not accidental. Despite the increasing incidence of chronic conditions potentially linked to vaccines and growing public concern, health authorities have not prioritized or funded fundamental biomedical research into vaccine adverse event mechanisms, preferring superficial statistical studies instead.

4. Epidemiological studies on vaccine safety are often biased and manipulated.

The medical establishment conceals from a credulous public the grim reality that vaccine science is largely funded by interested parties which produce studies that advance the funder’s agenda, not the public’s.

Funding influence. Vaccine safety research is heavily funded by government agencies and pharmaceutical companies, both of whom have vested interests in promoting vaccine safety and efficacy. This creates a system where funding is often directed towards studies likely to produce favorable results.

Manipulation techniques. Retrospective observational studies, commonly used in vaccine safety research, are particularly susceptible to manipulation. Researchers can influence outcomes through:

• Biased selection or exclusion of study subjects.
• Manipulation of raw data or statistical adjustments (e.g., Madsen 2002 reversing results).
• Using irrelevant or unsubstantiated data (e.g., Fombonne 2006 using data from a different city).
• Misrepresenting the study's actual subject to the public (e.g., DeStefano 2013 claiming to study "too many vaccines" but studying antigens).

Failure of oversight. The peer-review process is often inadequate to detect these deliberate flaws, and there are few incentives for other scientists to critically re-examine published vaccine safety studies. This allows biased research, often produced by companies specializing in favorable outcomes (e.g., Grimaldi 2014 by LA-SER), to be published in prestigious journals and cited by health authorities.

5. Crucial vaccinated vs. unvaccinated health studies are deliberately avoided.

“The studies that have never been done” is one of the weakest points in the fortress that the medical establishment has built around vaccine dogma.

Missing evidence. Despite claims of thorough testing, no studies have ever compared the overall health outcomes of fully vaccinated children to completely unvaccinated children. This prevents any scientific assessment of the cumulative impact of the entire vaccine schedule or its potential link to rising chronic illness rates.

Weak excuses. The IOM 2013 report acknowledged this lack of research but offered unconvincing reasons for not conducting such studies, including ethical concerns (for randomized trials, though observational studies are feasible), insufficient unvaccinated populations (contradicted by data), and the complexity of defining "overall health."

Fear of results. The persistent refusal to conduct these crucial studies, despite public demand and missed opportunities (like studying the Amish or specific clinic populations), suggests the establishment fears the outcome. The most plausible explanation is that internal, unpublished data indicates unvaccinated children are healthier, particularly regarding chronic conditions.

6. Many official vaccination guidelines lack scientific evidence.

Despite institutional pressure to stick to these official recommendations – or perhaps because of it – many parents feel the guidelines are not always compatible with the well-being of their child.

Untested combinations. The CDC recommends administering multiple vaccines simultaneously (up to 9 shots at 15 months), yet the safety of these specific combinations has often not been tested in clinical trials, contradicting the CDC's own stated policy.

Baseless claims. The assertion that an infant's immune system can handle "10,000 vaccines" at once is a scientifically unfounded claim based on a theoretical calculation about antigen response, not actual vaccine safety testing.

Vaccinating when sick. The guideline to vaccinate mildly ill children is also based on minimal scientific evidence. A review found only one small study on the safety of vaccinating mildly ill children with the MMR vaccine, and no studies for inactivated vaccines.

7. Vaccines played only a marginal role in the historical decline of infectious disease mortality.

Historical evidence uncovered in the second half of the 20th century shows, clearly and unequivocally, that the narrative of “life-saving vaccines” is largely fictitious.

Pre-vaccine decline. Historical mortality data from the UK and US (analyzed by McKeown, McKinlay, and even CDC researchers) shows that the vast majority (often 90% or more) of the decline in infectious disease deaths occurred before the widespread introduction of vaccines in the mid-20th century.

Sanitation and hygiene. This dramatic reduction was primarily due to improvements in living conditions, including:

• Centralized sewage systems and clean water supply.
• Improved personal hygiene practices.
• Better nutrition and food preservation/transportation.
• Reduced overcrowding.

Marginal contribution. While vaccines contributed to reducing morbidity for some diseases (diphtheria, pertussis, measles), their impact on overall mortality was marginal compared to public health and lifestyle improvements. Many diseases (tuberculosis, typhoid, scarlet fever) declined significantly without vaccines.

8. Chronic disease is a growing epidemic in children, surpassing infectious disease burden.

Contrary to the “our health has never been better” myth promoted by the medical establishment, the data suggest that 21st century children are sicker than ever before and are getting progressively sicker as time goes by.

Rising rates. Since the mid-20th century, industrialized countries have seen a dramatic and sustained increase in chronic illness and disability in children. Conditions like asthma, allergies, diabetes, ADHD, and autism, once rare, are now alarmingly common.

Significant burden. US data shows a steady rise in children limited by chronic conditions (from 1.8% in 1960 to 8% in 2010) and those with special healthcare needs (1 in 5). Millions of children regularly take medication for chronic conditions.

Shift in burden. This surge in chronic disease means its societal burden (healthcare costs, lost productivity, reduced quality of life) now far outweighs that of infectious diseases, which have become relatively mild and rare in the Western world. Despite this, health authorities continue to focus heavily on infectious disease prevention while displaying a puzzling lack of urgency regarding the chronic illness epidemic.

9. Herd immunity is often misunderstood and not conferred by all routine vaccines.

Of the 14 vaccines on the US childhood routine schedule, only 5 (one-third) can be said to definitely provide relevant herd protection for children...

Protection from infection. Herd immunity requires a vaccine to prevent not just illness, but also infection with the pathogen and its transmission to others. A vaccine that only prevents disease symptoms cannot confer herd immunity.

Limited applicability. Many routine vaccines do not meet this standard or provide herd immunity that is relevant for children:

• Tetanus, Diphtheria, Acellular Pertussis, IPV Polio, Influenza vaccines do not prevent transmission.
• Hepatitis A is mild in children; herd immunity primarily benefits adults.
• Hepatitis B herd immunity is irrelevant for the vast majority of children not living with a carrier.
• Rotavirus herd immunity evidence is preliminary and inconclusive.
• Pneumococcal vaccine provides partial herd immunity against specific serotypes but doesn't stop overall carriage due to serotype replacement.

True herd immunity vaccines. Only vaccines for Measles, Mumps, Rubella, Varicella, and Hib clearly demonstrate a significant herd immunity effect beneficial to children by reducing pathogen spread.

10. The official history of polio is inconsistent with historical facts and unexplained mysteries.

The official version of polio history... is largely inconsistent with the facts.

Unexplained emergence. The official narrative fails to explain why polio outbreaks suddenly appeared in the late 19th century, why they were initially confined to industrialized countries, and why they peaked in summer months when children were out of school. The "Improved Hygiene" theory proposed to explain this is contradicted by historical evidence.

Diagnostic confusion. Early polio diagnosis was unreliable, and polio-like paralysis was known to be caused by
[ERROR: Incomplete response]

Last updated: May 19, 2025