The war on health, with a special focus on the concerning infant mortality rates, and the first thing to acknowledge is that the trends and observations for children (aged 0-14 years) that have been reviewed over various literature confirm that the health of the young population is deteriorating. And unfortunately, until now, the sharp decline in children’s immune systems was not capturing the attention of the so-called experts and public health authorities.

Therefore, many are now proffering that, to rescue children’s health, this issue needs to be viewed as an emergency. In light of this declared emergency, then policies for any poorly investigated drugs or vaccines with serious risks for harmful side effects could be halted until safety and effectiveness are demonstrated (or disproved) through analysis by independent parties. Thankfully, this mentality is being implemented in the status quo, as recently Mississippi state officials have declared a public health emergency due to the highest infant mortality rate in the past decade. Newborns in the state of Mississippi are experiencing congen-ital malformations, low birth weight, and sudden infant death syndrome, as well as premature births in their mothers.

THERE IS A NEED TO INVESTIGATE DRUGS AND VACCINES IN DEALING WITH INFANT MORTALITY

Now, I just alluded to the fact that part of what is plausible about declaring a state of emergency regarding increasing infant mortality rates is that a declared emergency, could well necessitate the implementation of policies that require any poorly investigated drugs or vaccines with serious risks for harmful side effects to be halted until safety and effectiveness are demonstrated (or disproved) through analysis by independent parties.

Well, let’s then address where the communicated need to focus on drugs and vaccines comes from in light of the infant mortality rate. For many years, the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) has added more and more shots to the childhood immunization schedule. In the 1980s, children received around two dozen doses; today, the official schedule calls for approximately 72 doses by age 18 (when counting each dose of multi-dose vaccines and annual flu shots). This aggressive schedule is the most extensive in the world.

However, neither the CDC nor the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has ever conducted studies on the safety of giving all these vaccines in combination according to the schedule. Each vaccine is tested in isolation in short-term trials for licensure, but the cumulative impact of administering all CDC-recommended vaccines to a child has never been studied.

This gap in safety research has been flagged by experts for decades. The prestigious Institute of Medicine (now the National Academy of Medicine) urged the CDC to investigate the cumulative effects of the childhood vaccine schedule in reports published in 2002, 2005, and 2013. In those reports, panels of scientists raised concerns that simultaneous or back-to-back vaccinations might pose risks that wouldn’t be apparent in single-vaccine trials. Yet the CDC ignored these recommendations, undertaking none of the comprehensive safety studies requested by its own advisors. The lawsuit calls this pattern “deliberate ignorance,” noting that the agency offers no explanation for disregarding its most prestigious scientific adviser for over 20 years.

However, while all of this is happening, American children have been getting sicker: chronic health conditions such as asthma, allergies, autoimmune disorders, developmental delays, and autism have surged in the past several decades. As such, seeing that the ballooning of the vaccine schedule from 24 to 72+ doses has occurred parallel with the increase in notable group of illnesses, such as autism diagnoses exploding from 1 in 150 children to 1 in 31, and over half of American kids now suffering from some form of chronic illness, this has thus been the most notable correlation, as far as environmental factors as concerned.

Now, of course, some will be quick to point out that correlation does not equal causation (although I believe the numbers contradict that logic at this point) — HOWEVER, the core issue remains that no one in authority (such as the CDC leadership) has rigorously investigated whether this massive increase in pharmaceutical interventions in early childhood could be contributing to these poor health outcomes, and especially rising infant mortality rate. INSTEAD, any concern about “too many, too soon” has been met with the refrain that vaccines are safe and that questions are unwarranted. As far back as 1984, federal policy was explicitly oriented to “not allow” safety doubts about vaccines to persist, lest vaccination uptake decline. In essence, the public was told to provide proof of harm — even though the very agency in charge refused to actively look for that harm.

And so, a declared emergency now puts the onus on the state to view and investigate drugs and pharmaceuticals as one of the sources of the problem, and this is an incredibly necessary paradigm shift in how pharmaceuticals have been viewed in American society. And perhaps to emphasise this need for a paradigm shift even further, I would like to show you this jarring excerpt from CBS News, where (in trying to make sense of the rising infant mortality rates in Mississippi), their medical contributor – instead of pointing to the obvious, being the many vaccines and other pharmaceutical interventions infants have been taking without tests on their cumulative impact – well she says the problem resides with a combination of health care access as well as social challenges.

I’d like to point out that women were giving birth to healthy babies in their homes years before the advances we see in medicine or even the availability of many hospitals – and this includes in rural places as well. And so, while access to state of the art hospitals is a reasonable expectation in the modern context, I do not think the lack of such access suffices as a root cause of rising infant mortality rates – and is thus a driver of the problem at best.

INFANT DEATHS LINKED TO TRANSGENERATIONAL MRNA “VACCINE” FATAL ADVERSE EVENTS

Which brings us to this question: If we are saying that infants are barely making it to their first birthday, which means 12 months of life, then someone could ask: How much of this has to do with pharmaceuticals as opposed to say, overall quality of health and life – or even a combination of health care access as well as social challenges, like the people over at CBS seem to suggest. In other words, we need to address the question of how much of pharmaceutical products are being ingested by infants for us to warrant them being a source of concern uniquely tied to rising infant mortality rates? And to address this, I would like to bring our collective attention to the CDC’s own website.

If you go to the page titled “Vaccines & Immunizations”, and look under “Vaccines By Age”, when you count the vaccines listen from birth all the way to 12 to 23 months, infants are recommended to have the following: It begins with 2 vaccines at birth, then 6 from one through to two months, 5 at four months, 7 at six months, 1 at seven through to eleven months; and then 9 vaccines at twelve to twenty three months – which brings it to a total of approximately 30 vaccines (depending on how many are taken between months 12 – 23). So, clearly infants are being bombarded with many jabs, for an age group that does not yet even have a body mature enough to metabolise a lot of what is being injected into their bodies. And so, evidently, there is a significant number of pharmaceutical products being ingested by infants for us to warrant them being a source of concern uniquely tied to rising infant mortality rates.

But, this is not even the most concerning part, because it would seem, infants do not even have to be inoculated themselves to deal with the adverse effects of vaccines. More specifically, the CDC’s own data shows babies born are now dying at a 77% excess rate — years after mass vaccination of childbearing women. The 30-year decline in infant mortality collapsed in 2021, immediately following the mRNA injection campaign. The excess infant death causes mirror those observed in vaccinated adults, thus suggesting a transfer of mRNA “vaccine” genetic material to offspring! In other words, the mRNA vaccines created a transgenerational crisis, where children are dying who were never injected, but whose mothers were.

THE THALIDOMIDE SCANDAL: PHARMACEUTICALS HAVE A HISTORY OF HARMING INFANTS & MOTHERS

Now, even as we discuss the health concerns observed especially in the generation born after the introduction of the Covid Vaccine, it is important that we never forget pharmaceuticals have a wide and dark history of harming infants and mothers, which brings us to the global Tha-li-domide scandal.

Thalidomide, which worldwide maimed an estimated 20,000 babies and killed almost 100,000, was widely used between 1958 and 1962 and was marketed as a wonder drug against morning sickness for pregnant women. Most of the women who took the drug suffered from miscarriages or stillbirths that were not documented as potential Thalidomide victims. The few surviving babies were severely deformed or died later in infancy. And like the Covid jabs – the morning sickness drug was not once tested for fetal safety; while its wide usage then conveniently made the drug companies millions.

Then, after Thalidomide was discovered to be the cause of the fetal slaughter, there was no criminal trial that resulted in accountability or conviction and many health ministers and health leaders refused a public inquiry. Blame was passed back and forth until almost every one involved in the scandal grew old or passed on. The one criminal trial held was with the German scientists who concocted the drug; but that trial was ultimately terminated without a judgment. The court cited the difficulty in determining the individual culpability of the accused, concluding that their guilt would be considered minor (which was strange, considering the global harmful impact of thalidomide). But, still to this day, nobody was held accountable for Thalidomide – while restorative justice measures have included, in Australia, an apology from Prime Minister Anthony Albanese to survivors of the Thalidomide scandal.

But, I say this to say that the pharmaceutical industry has a notorious history of harming infants and mothers, and people tend not to know a lot about this because there are little to no criminal persecutions of the relevant actors. And so, what we are seeing today in light of rising infant mortality rates are the diabolical (and yet) audacious actions of a pharmaceutical industry that has been allowed to get away with murder and culpability in harm.

THE CENTURY-LONG EVIDENCE OF VACCINE-INDUCED SUDDEN INFANT DEATH SYNDROME

But, it also does not take medical or scientific gymnastics to make a case for investigating pharmaceuticals in the modern, post-thalidomide context when we can also easily see a similarity in the relationship between infant death rates plus pharmaceuticals AND the relationship between sudden infant death syndrome, also called SIDS plus pharmaceuticals – especially since the creation of the diphtheria, pertussis, and tetanus (DPT) vaccine, which has been associated with those deaths. For example, in 2014, unmarked mass graves belonging to Irish orphans were discovered which belonged to a group of 2,051 children upon whom an early diphtheria vaccine was covertly tested in the 1930s.

Likewise, as detailed by Sir Graham Wilson, in the early 1900s, there were over a dozen cases in the medical literature (and likely far more that weren’t documented) where groups of children received an incorrectly prepared diphtheria vaccine, and collectively, thousands became severely ill, with hundreds suffering an agonizing death. A wave of deaths hence followed DPT vaccine’s adoption, which like those following the COVID vaccines, became a “mysterious syndrome,” initially being called “crib death” and then “Sudden Infant Death Syndrome” (SIDS). In turn, a few doctors saw this and spoke out against it. For instance, Dr Paul Thomans argues that historical data indicates that in the United States 97% of SIDS cases take place less than one week after a vaccine regiment.

THE CAUSAL LINK BETWEEN VACCINES AND INFANT MORTALITY

There is also a notable causal relationship between vaccines and infant deaths – beyond the vaguely named sudden infant death syndrome. For some context, in 1957, Archie Kalokerinos M.D., desiring to serve the people, requested to be stationed in the neglected rural Aboriginal communities, as their infant mortality rate was 10% (whereas it was 2% in the surrounding white communities). Many diseases were rampant there (pneumonia, severe ear infections, severe infant irritability, and a frequent inability to feed the afflicted children), but were ignored and blamed on the said-to-be uncivilised habits of the mothers.

BUT, then Dr Archie realised these deaths were due to severe nutritional deficiencies and quickly saved many lives (e.g., by injecting IV vitamin C or giving zinc). However, the infant death rate climbed to 50% following an infant vaccination campaign. And this came with an alarming discovery: Dr Archie realised that in the same way infections depleted vitamin C, vaccines actually did the same! Additionally, he also discovered that vaccinating a child who was currently ill was frequently lethal (which, to varying degrees, has also been reported throughout the medical literature). But, thankfully, in learning this Dr Archie rapidly stopped the vaccination deaths with injected vitamin C. In fact, later, he used vitamin C even to treat many other conditions too (e.g., otherwise fatal measles cases).

Similar to the hidden evidence of the causal link between vaccines and sudden infant death syndrome, not only is one of the most frequent complications of vaccination neurological injury, but ever since the smallpox vaccine hit the market over two centuries ago, severe and unusual injuries have ALSO been reported throughout the medical literature. BUT… rather than disclose these injuries to the public, the medical profession chose to conceal them under the ERRONEOUS belief that the public good of vaccination justified hiding anything which would create vaccine hesitancy.

For example, a 1982 NBC news program revealed that many parents were having children develop “post-pertussis ence-phalo-pathy” after taking the DPT vaccine. But, for some reason, most doctors refused to report this, even though medical knowledge about severe reactions to the whooping cough vaccine went back as far as to the early 1930s, while report after report had been published in medical journals since then. For instance, in 1948, two American doctors reported on case histories of many children who had been brain damaged or died from DPT vaccines in Boston. The following year, another doctor surveyed pediatricians across the country and found still more. [PAUSE] Well, those studies have progressively been less discussed, in a world where pharmaceutical companies captured the media, and as a result, this orchestrated a selective amnesia when it comes to the history of vaccines.

RISING INFANT MORTALITY RATES TAKE PLACE PARALLEL TO ATTACKS ON MOTHERHOOD

Then, finally, it bears mentioning that the rising infant mortality rate takes place parallel to attacks on motherhood. We’ve seen it time and again, from the glossy magazine covers glorifying “child-free” living to the snide late-night jokes about “breeders” and “stay-at-home moms.” It’s no longer subtle. The war on motherhood is loud and broadcast 24/7 across every major platform. And make no mistake—this is NOT just about personal choice. It’s a coordinated cultural campaign in an effort to devalue life and being a mother. In fact, in August 2024, the United States surgeon general issued an official public health advisory that parenting was bad for your health. And just days before the 2024 Election Day, the Los Angeles Times ran the headline, “It’s almost shameful to want to have children.”

This was a coordinated effort to make people devalue life and especially the life of children, so that when they are dying at alarming rates, it was merely supposed to be an abstractly unfortunate incident to those who still cared, but not enough to warrant a declared health emergency, likely one that will have great consequences in exposing the diabolical role of pharmaceuticals. It’s the same anti-life playbook behind forced DNR orders and the brain death phenomenon, used to justify people dying without much probe.

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso

 So, in the early 1980s, vaccines were so harmful that vaccine manufacturers routinely lost in court. They lobbied the US Congress to pass the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act to give themselves liability protection. And they promised to make vaccines safer but there was no legal mechanism in the bill to enforce that promise so they never did.

Pharmaceutical companies proceeded to add as many vaccines as possible to the schedule. Prior to 1986, there were 3 routine vaccines totaling 7 injections. Today the CDC’s Maternal and Child and Adolescent vaccine schedules include 19 vaccines requiring 76 injections with 94 total doses of antigen (I’m actually less worried about the antigens than the other ingredients in the shots).

Meanwhile, no one in a position of authority bothered to measure the impact of the growing vaccine schedule on the health of children. Most regulators were auditioning for a job with Pharma because that’s where the money was said to be. Politicians also depend on Pharma donations for their re-election campaigns. While the mainstream news media get most of their revenue from Pharma advertising so they were never going to bite the hand that feeds them. And so, ultimately, big pharma invested heavily in public relations to lay siege to any remaining pockets of resistance.

Now, during this time, mercury (also known as thimerosal) was grandfathered in as “Generally Recognized As Safe” (or GRAS by the FDA) because it was easier to do that than actual safety testing. Aluminum adjuvants were allowed with only minimal safety testing — which included 1 man, 3 rabbits, and ever-moving goal posts on what constitutes “safe”. And so, the gold rush was on so vaccine manufacturers were free to add whatever they wanted to vaccines and they would all be approved because the regulators and the medical industry were captured by big pharma.

It was against this backdrop and historical context that the autism rate skyrocketed in the 1990s and has continued to increase ever since. At the same time, rates of life-threatening allergies, autoimmune disorders, asthma, childhood cancers, diabetes, and epilepsy soared too and those are probably vaccine injuries as well. But autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is more costly than those other conditions because it’s a lifelong disability with no known effective natural treatment (while some parents have been able to recover their children through holistic and alternative therapies but the percentage who are successful in doing so is still in the single digits). And so, in the US alone, the country went from having autism rates of 1 in 10 000 in the 1970s, to 1 in 31 in 2025. All of this correlates with the amount of vaccines that have been progressively added into the immunisation schedule.

And yet, autism is characterised as merely a mental disorder under the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (or DSM-5), which is the standard classification of mental disorders used by mental health professionals in the United States – as OPPOSED to a vaccine injury. Here’s why, and what is progressively being done about it.

Now, what Nicole Shanahan just outlined is the problem with autism exclusively being defined as a mental disorder and what is being done to bypass that and establish a link between vaccines and autism. But, at the point when the correlation between vaccines and autism was becoming undeniable, the people who created the autism epidemic had no interest in conceding to wrongful conduct, and instead delayed progress in curbing autism rates by pretending to look for the cause, when they already knew it. But (of course) they also had to make sure never to “find” the actual cause because then the flow of research funding would stop and lots of these doctors and scientists would go to jail for their culpability in vaccine injuries. And so,  an entire industry was created to cover up the autism epidemic!

AN INDUSTRY WAS CREATED TO COVER UP THE AUTISM EPIDEMIC, STARTING WITH BOGUS STUDIES

To begin with, this industry focused on overwhelming academia and society with bogus studies. In fact, Since 2000, more than twenty scientific studies have concluded that there is no association between vaccines and autism. The most widely cited studies are: the Fombonne and Chakrabarti study (from 2001); Madsen et al. (2002; and 2003); Makela, Nuorti, and Peltola (also in 2002); Smeeth et al. (2004); Honda, Shimizu, and Rutter, (2005); Schechter and Grether (2008); and even Tozzi et al (2009) – and this is not even all of them. But the idea is to show that these were supposedly studies from varied authorities, covering a broad scope of research.

BUT… most of these are studies that claim no association between MMR or thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism, which is odd because the CDC’s own internal research shows that both of these types of vaccines do indeed cause autism. You find this in the statement from William Thompson and 2014, and the SafeMinds analysis of FOIA documents that were obtained from former CDC researcher turned GSK executive Thomas Verstraeten.

Doubling down on the blowing the whistle in bogus studies, Pediatrician Dr Joel “Gator” Warsh says the Science is NOT settled on vaccines and autism – despite the so-called research. He adds that when you go look at it, the research is literally just on MMR and thimerosal… but, you cannot make a claim about vaccines and autism when you have NOT studied all the vaccines in the first year together, and you haven’t studied vaccinated versus unvaccinated children. And before we view the video excerpt, I’d like to kindly ask that you pardon the alcohol analogy, and extrapolate the broader principle in the discussion, about the fallacious nature of how autism studies were conducted.

That said, there have also been studies that com[ared the state of health between fully vaccinated and unvaccinated children, including cases like the McDowell triplets. And so, there is a growing body of empirical evidence that not only disproves bogus studies claiming there is no causal link between autism and vaccines, but studies that also detail the actual causal link.

MEANWHILE, STUDIES ALREADY DISPROVED “GENES” AS THE LIKELY CAUSE FOR AUTISM

Perhaps one of the most aggravating discussions on the cause for autism is that on genetics (as we’ve discussed on previous occasions here on ‘The War Room’). And it is aggravating because in pretending to study the cause, big pharma and its collaborators went as far as to point the blame for autism on genetics – thus implicating parents as the potential originator of a gene that has caused their children a neurological challenge. Conveniently though, what is left out by vaccine manufacturers in this narrative is how the autism causing gene would have gotten to the parent in the first place – seeing that autism was not always part of the infirmities observed in society, in the same way cancer was not always part of the infirmities observed in society.

ANd o, you can imagine my excitement when I found that In 2011, a comprehensive study of twins and autism showed that autism is not primarily a genetic disorder… AND YET, this appears to have made no difference in the trajectory of the industry and perceptions on autism. In more detail, in the early 2000s, as the autism rate soared, political leaders in California wanted to better understand what was happening. So California contracted with sixteen of the best geneticists in the US and gave them access to all birth records in the state. They produced a study titled “Genetic heritability and shared environmental factors among twin pairs with autism” (and this study was conducted by Hallmayer et al., in 2011) and it is the most comprehensive study of twins and autism to date. They found that genetic heritability explains at most 38% of ASD cases; in two places they explain that this is likely an overestimate. So at least 62% of autism cases (and likely significantly more) are caused by something other than genes. HOWEVER, when this study came out, the search for the gene(s) as a cause for autism had already become a large and very profitable industry, and this study showing that autism is NOT primarily genetic was simply brushed aside!

HOW VACCINE MANUFACTURERS TRIED TO DEBUNK THE LINK BETWEEN AUTISM AND VACCINES

Now, flooding academia and society with bogus studies was not the only arrow in the big pharma propaganda quiver; ambitiously, they also corrupted medical literature through going after those researchers and medical practitioners who were frank about the links between autism and vaccines. And in a very famous case, in their efforts to “debunk” the causal link between the vaccines and autism, the pharmaceutical and vaccine enterprise claimed that the only reason people believe vaccines cause autism is because a disgraced British doctor, named Andrew Wakefield, published a fraudulent 1998 study claiming they did and then made everyone start hallucinating that vaccine injuries were occurring, Let’s talk about this.

In essence, whenever the subject of vaccination and autism is raised (particularly within medical circles), you will immediately be told (often in a condescending manner) some variant of a narrative on how Andrew Wakefield was a dishonest doctor who was bribed by lawyers to torture children and publish a fraudulent and deeply flawed study that falsely linked vaccines to autism. You’d also be told that his allegedly abhorrent actions deeply violated the profound trust that people place in scientists, and he even tricked people into believing vaccines cause autism. And so, even though his study has been totally discredited and he lost his medical license for the gross misconduct he committed, his fraudulent study cemented the lie that vaccines cause autism, and despite all the data that is published in modern medical literature, nothing can undo the profound damage that Wakefield did to science, which means the medical and pharmaceutical industries have legitimacy to prevent such an occurrence from being repeated. This is basically the ideal that vaccine manufacturers pedal in an effort to “debunk” the causal link between vaccines and autism.

Now, this narrative on Andrew Wakefeild touches on a key point concerning propaganda. One of the most common ways the corporate propaganda apparatus (known as the PR industry) persuades the public is by sculpting the narrative best suited for swaying public opinion and then blasting it on every media platform while any opposing viewpoint is forbidden from being aired. These lies then become entrenched and everyone starts to independently repeat them as though the idea were their own (we saw this during the COVID plandemic).

In the cause of the vaccine and autism issue, and since Wakefield’s study was published in 1998 (a year after pharmaceutical television advertising became permissible), the study was able to initially gain immense traction in the press (as the media had not yet been bought out). BUT… a few years later, when that pharmaceutical television advertising monopoly had established itself, Andew Wakefeild’s study was suddenly being debunked on every platform. In fact, during that time, Sharyl Attkinson, who was a popular journalist and national news anchor for CBS shared that in the early 2000s, the pharmaceutical industry, feeling the pressure negative coverage of disastrous vaccination programs was creating for them, lobbied to prevent future negative coverage, and after this happened, it became impossible for her to air well produced segments which were critical of any vaccine initiative. Recently she even shared how the CDC was co-opted in this, especially when they went as far as to re-define the word “vaccine” in order to legitimise the COVID jabs.

WHAT THE ANDREW WAKEFIELD SMEAR CAMPAIGN EXPOSES ABOUT PRO-VACCINE PROPAGANDA

Now, there are three critical points to infer from Andrew Wakefield’s experience of being labelled persona non grata after publishing a study that linked vaccines to autism. First, the smear campaign against Andrew Wakefeild was a means through which vaccine manufacturers cemented the lie that no one had ever thought to associate vaccination with brain injuries prior to Wakefield’s study (and hence that all subsequent associations were a product of Wakefield tricking them into seeing a connection that was not there). But, of course,  this is clearly not true because the reason Wakefield did the study was because he was approached by parents who already thought vaccines caused their child’s autism.

Furthermore, in early medical literature (prior to vaccine injuries becoming a taboo subject), many doctors over the decades had actually reported brain damage and characteristic neurological injuries (e.g., cranial nerve palsies) following vaccination that mirror what we see in vaccine-injured children in the present – and so, Andrew Wakefeild was not some petty non-conformist; he rather happened to discuss on autism as neurological injury, while his study made waves because it echoed the experiences of many parents. In fact, you’d recall this excerpt from the documentary titled ‘AUTISM (An orchestrated Crisis)’, which echoes those very concerns even in the present.

So, the second point to infer from the smear campaign against Andrew Wakefeild is that it was conducted to give a very clear warning to every academic journal and researcher to never consider publishing anything that was critical of vaccination (as otherwise they would be raked over the coals for decades by the entire media apparatus like Wakefield was). For a while, this worked as intended (e.g., many scientists have confided to public figures that they know that autism is linked to vaccination but cannot publicly study it) and since Wakefield’s study, virtually no studies have been conducted on vaccine injuries, and of those that were, none could ever be published in a (quote un quote) “reputable” journal.

Then, finally, and equally aggravatingly, the smear campaign against Anndrew Wakefield was also used to cement the lie that the allegedly few incorrect, or fallacious and “doctored” studies that get through are immediately removed, whereas in reality this is not at all true. For example, trial participants and clinical investigators for the HPV and COVID vaccines repeatedly provided proof that fraudulent data was published but the academic journals never even issued a correction of those studies. You’d recall we also discussed, here on ‘The War Room’ how there was fraud detected in Pfizer mRNA vaccine clinical trials studied, and we even looked at a whistleblower’s testimony of how she was fired for exposing this issue to the FDA, while the FDA did nothing to address it. But, here is Dr Andrew Wakefeild discussing how, even in the present and recent history, the CDC covered up evidence and destroyed documents proving that the MMR vaccine caused autism and put millions of children at risk of serious permanent neurological injury.

VACCINE-INDUCED NEUROLOGICAL INJURIES WERE LONG KNOWN TO BE PREVALENT

Now, the claim that Andrew Wakefeild published a fraudulent study that somehow made people start hallucinating that vaccine injuries were occurring ignored that brain injuries were a longstanding problem of vaccination! For example, a 1982 NBC news program revealed that many parents were having children develop “post-pertussis ence-phalo-pathy” after taking the DPT vaccine. But, for some reason, most doctors refused to report this, even though medical knowledge about severe reactions to the whooping cough vaccine went back as far as to the early 1930s, while report after report had been published in medical journals since then. For instance, in 1948, two American doctors reported on case histories of many children who had been brain damaged or died from DPT vaccines in Boston. The following year, another doctor surveyed pediatricians across the country and found still more. Well, those studies have progressively been less discussed, in a world where pharmaceutical companies captured the media, and as a result, this orchestrated a selective amnesia when it comes to the history of vaccines.

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso