Why is the media attacking the flu vaccine?

We all know by now that our “free press” has deeply embedded editors and producers who take their marching orders directly from pharmaceutical companies and the CDC. Their job is to postpone, water down, spin, or kill stories that hurt public health profits.


Whenever you see a vaccine article that strikes you as negative– or hell, even fair and balanced– it’s a red flag that big wheels are in motion behind the scenes; you just don’t know what the outcome is going to be yet.

I’ve seen it twice in three weeks with the meningitis b vaccine.  On August 18th NBC ran an article about two girls, both of whom had been vaccinated for men b, both of whom were in perfect health, and both of whom were killed by men b anyway. The article points out that the CDC’s recommendation for the vaccine is permissive, and that getting the infection is akin to being struck by lightning.

I saw the article and thought, what’s up? Why are NBC’s pimps allowing reporters to write about these girls?

Then on September 7th the New York Times, of all newspapers, wrote about men b outbreaks, describing them as “small” and “extremely rare,” and said men b vaccines are “lucrative” and “pricey” and “playing to parents’ fears.” They pointed out that making vaccines for less rare diseases has the potential to make the vaccine industry into a “cash cow” and they didn’t mean it in a good way. Mmmm-hmmm. I mean duh, but still. Not what you’d expect them to say.

The Times even included a quote from a professor at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. The risk, he said, “is not a large enough problem to warrant routine vaccination.”

So why are Pfizer’s and GSK’s men b vaccines on the media chopping block? I don’t know, but we’re not reading investigative vaccine journalism on NBC and in the Times. Keep your eyes peeled for the Godsent explanation the overlords will provide us with. They don’t usually announce the problem more than 30 days before announcing the solution, so it should be any day now.

But on to the flu vaccine. You may remember in July 2016 when the inhaled flu vaccine went from a championed 90% efficacy to only 3% efficacy. Is it likely that actually happened? Hell no, unless they threw the game on purpose. But numbers can be twisted to say whatever they want them to say, and, for whatever reason, FluMist makers– or the flu vaccine industry as a whole– wanted to scrap that vaccine. So overnight the needle-free FluMist was taboo and it was injected mercury for almost everyone.

Maybe FluMist makers got a buyout like GSK did from Merck for leaving the US HPV vaccine market.

So these past couple of weeks have been nuts for flu vaccine news.

In the last few days of August I began seeing mainstream articles pointing out how ineffective the flu vaccine is for the elderly.

I see their ineffectiveness and raise them up to murder, but that’s not where I’m going with this.

Within one week of each other, The Daily Mail ALL-CAPS screamed about the flu shot’s ineffectiveness, the BBC finally had an honest vaccine headline, and Chemist and Druggist halfheartedly shrugged that vaccinating the elderly was better than nothing.

This made me side-eye the news.

Then! On September 13th the Washington Post wrote about a new study that linked the flu vaccine to a 7.7x increased chance or a 670% increase in miscarriages. I know that one of my favorite bloggers has written an incredibly researched piece about WaPo’s bullshit spin of 7.7x being just a “hint” of increased fetal death, but I’m seeing this a little differently.

If protecting the flu vaccine was WaPo’s goal, I don’t think the press would even bother with the spin when they could just ignore the study completely, a la William Thompson. So the fact that this finding– in a study I can’t believe was conducted by the CDC’s Frank Mothereffing DeStefano and published in the journal Vaccine— is getting mainstream coverage is spelling death for the annual flu vaccine as we currently know it.

The Daily Beast jumped on the dog pile, as did NBC, Science, Fortune, and the New York Post. All of them make the same milquetoast arguments that maybe the finding isn’t real and pregnant women should continue to get the shots. And Michael Osterholm, the director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research who is famous for his We have over-promoted and overhyped this vaccine. It does not protect as promoted. It’s all a sales job: it’s all public relations” quote, wrote up the miscarriage study in Stat with the spin that “science prioritizes safety.” Thanks for looking out, science!

Just kidding. We all know that today’s science doesn’t prioritize anything but profits. So why is the CDC’s father of thimerosal-induced autism denial acting as a hitman for the annual flu vaccine?

I might have the answer: the universal flu vaccine is about to arrive.

The universal flu vaccine is supposed to offer long lasting broad protection against the constantly-mutating flu. You know, since most of America doesn’t want the good-for-nothing annual vaccine anyway, it doesn’t work in the elderly, and it’s killing the babies of women who get it while pregnant.

Four years ago an FDA scientist was in a Congressional committee hearing and he testified that a “universal flu vaccine was 5 to 10 years away.” I think that day is here.

A quick scan of Google News tells me that BiondVax, an Israeli company working on a universal flu vaccine, just voluntarily de-listed from the Tel Aviv stock exchange two weeks ago. The reason given is that the universal flu vaccine needs an international presence, so forget about little ol’ Tel Aviv; they’re sticking with the big boys at NASDAQ. Just three months ago BiondVax got an exciting $23.8 million investment as they enter phase 3 trials for their universal flu vaccine, so things are heating up.

But get this! The new universal flu vaccine isn’t just a replacement for the annual shot. They’re also seeking approval as a flu shot “primer.” This shit is endless! So depending on what they get approval for, your elderly parents might get a primer universal vaccine and then get the season’s regular flu vaccine, but women of child bearing age will be told to get the stand-alone universal flu shot before they get pregnant. But that’s just my guess.

Lest you ever think the media– or science– is looking out for you, I’m here to rain all over your parade. You’re welcome.




Stop injecting weed killer into your kids

Who’s ready to get pissed off tonight? As if there isn’t enough going on right now.


Moms Across America founder Zen Honeycutt went live the other day to tell the world about the FDA giving her a big fat middle finger when she asked a simple question about the weed killer glyphosate– which is found in the formula for Roundup although Roundup is even worse than glyphosate alone– in the vaccines given in the childhood program.

One year ago Moms Across America announced that they’d tested five vaccines — a DTaP, a flu vaccine, a hep B, and a pneumococcal– and all tested positive for weed killer. But the MMR? The MMR had 25 times more weed killer than the rest.

Why do we care? Because of how glyphosate is designed to kill weeds, it also breaks down the blood brain barrier in humans, and when you open the blood brain barrier, everything else that gets injected along with the weed killer reaches the brain.

So Zen kindly let the FDA know the results of the the Moms Across America tests and asked if the FDA would conduct their own tests on vaccines for glyphosate. The FDA wrote back and said vaccines are safe and didn’t say anything beyond that. Didn’t even bother to respond to the question.

Separately, also in the summer of 2016, scientists Anthony Samsel and Stephanie Seneff tested vaccines for glyphosate –including 10 childhood vaccines and flu vaccines, of which 7 were positive for weed killer. Their findings about the MMR and the MMR II were the same as Moms Across America: off the charts. They also submitted their results to the FDA.

The FDA’s unexpected response came in November when they announced that they wouldn’t be testing anything for glyphosate anymore. Not food, and of course, not vaccines. Their reason? They didn’t like the methods.

Finally, just three months ago, the FDA said they’d go back to testing food for glyphosate. Did they suspend it because of weed killer being found in honey and baby food? Or because of Moms Across America, Seneff, Samsel, and vaccines?

Zen came back to the FDA this past summer of 2017 with a Freedom of Information Act request (FOIA) and wanted all documents related to their conversation around her alert that glyphosate is in vaccines. She believes they did test and they do know Roundup is in childhood shots. As their answer to her FOIA request, the FDA had the audacity to send Zen 56 pages that had been blacked out:

Screen Shot 2017-09-04 at 7.18.07 AM

My brain just exploded when I watched her video. I’m not figuring out how to embed a Facebook live feed into WordPress at this moment, so click over here to see Zen explain it all.

The FDA is claiming the information Zen requested about her alert to the FDA is protected under a law that allows the the decision making processes of government agencies to stay secret.

This is America?  Are you OK with this?

A little side story:

You may remember in February 2016 I wrote a piece about each ingredient in the DTaP vaccine. This started off with a simple question: what is in polysorbate 80? I asked several friends about this at the same time, and sent them the list of things polysorbate–  called Extra Olein 99 or “Tween 80” in vaccines– might be made of, which included olive oil, olives, avocados, almonds, peanuts, sesame oil, pecans, pistachio nuts, cashews, hazelnuts, macadamia nuts, and high oleic sunflower oil.

Scientist Stephanie Seneff wrote back right away and said she’d wager that Tween 80 is made of sunflower seeds. Why? Because they are the cheapest, and nothing is too cheap for our kids.

Then she went on to say, “This is extremely worrisome to me, because sunflowers are now rather routinely sprayed with glyphosate right before the harvest, as a desiccant.” To her, this meant that sunflower seeds are yet another source of weed killer in America’s vaccines.

At the same time a friend in the Thinking Moms Revolution found the answer. The polysorbate 80 in vaccines is made of sunflower seeds, so yes, they are most likely drenched in Roundup to dry them out before harvest.

Then, in May of 2016, I made my own FOIA request about the use of genetically modified soy– which is designed to withstand a bloodbath of weed killer– in vaccines. I made it very specific: three vaccines, the brands were named, and the date range was four and a half years starting in January 2010. The FDA called me on the phone and the price was astronomical, so I decided to limit my request to one vaccine. Then the FDA sent me this letter about the price of searching for one vaccine:

Screen Shot 2017-09-04 at 7.36.37 AM.png

It would be almost $14,000 to answer my question about GM soy in Prevnar 13. So, with a Freedom of Information Act request you are free to ask, but you’d better have a lot of money to get your answer.

So this means that weed killer is most likely getting into vaccines through:

  1. Animals who are fed glyphosate-containing meals and are then ground up and used as gelatin,
  2. Polysorbate 80 made from sunflower seeds, and
  3. Genetically modified soy.

Does this mean Monsanto is causing autism?

You cannot be against your children eating and drinking weed killer in their diet and yet be in favor of injecting them with vaccines. You simply cannot. This madness must stop.

People, we have some power here. Tell all of your tree hugger yet pro-vaccine friends about this. Tell them weed killer is in vaccines and that it breaks down the brain barrier. Call your US Representatives. Call your US Senators.  Tell them to get involved in answering this *#@! summer 2017 Zen Honeycutt FDA FOIA. Send them this link or the link to Zen’s Facebook live. We deserve to know what is blacked out in those 56 pages.

Talk to your state-level representatives and senators on the phone when vaccine legislation comes your way. Tell them we deserve better than this and there must be a choice when it comes to injecting weed killer into children. And if you’re the type to love spending time making FOIA requests, please jump in.

Gary Ruskin with the US Right to Know, I’m looking at you.

Is Merck behind the teen s*x article?

little shocked


The editor of Teen Vogue has been on the receiving end of some butt sex backlash after publishing a “how to do anal the right way” article this week. I don’t know the true age of Teen Vogue’s largest reader demographic– and I’ve read that they do count young women in their early 20s as readers– but the fact that they have “teen” in the title makes me think there are a lot of parents who feel comfortable allowing their 12 or 13-year old daughters to read it. Assuming this is the August issue, I didn’t find the cover of it yet and have to wonder if they’ll use “five exciting gadgets to stash in your locker” as some kind of euphemism or if they’ll go ahead and announce the anal sex tutorial lurking inside.

Would you want your under-18 teen reading this how-to article in what you thought was a fashion and teen celebrity magazine? I don’t think I knew that anyone inserted anything into someone else’s anus when I was under 18. I wasn’t curious about it and I sure wasn’t in danger of subjecting myself to it, regardless of whether a stranger called it “delightful.”

Supporters of the article argue that teens are going to engage in anal sex anyway (are they really? In Table 7 on page 23, this 2006-2008 HHS survey puts anal sex at only 2.8% of 15-year old boys and 4.6% of 15-year old girls in heterosexual encounters), that kids may as well have information about making “butt play” safe, and anyone who disagrees is a Trump-loving abstinence-demanding ninny.

While the article cautions to go slow and “work up” to inserting larger objects, using lube and wearing a condom (never mind that 40% of teens self-report not using condoms at all so they’re probably not going to start when the risk of pregnancy is removed), the silence about the real dangers of anal sex is deafening.

There is no mention in Teen Vogue that HIV, gonorrhea, chlamydia, genital herpes, chancroid, and syphilis are all transmitted more easily through anal sex. Not a peep about e. coli and urinary tract infections. Any reference to anal fissures, mucosal tears, rectal perforations, sphincter injuries, and perforated colons has been omitted. No hint that even a consenting teen might find the activity to be traumatic.

Teen Vogue didn’t point out that the vagina is actually designed for sex, with its dual lining that allows healing from injury, or that the rectum has a single lining because it’s designed as a one way exit for waste. The two openings are not created equally and are not interchangeable.

I’ve also seen the argument that the anus is an erogenous zone packed with nerve endings and is made up of erectile tissue, and therefore anuses are sexual. I’m fine with consenting adults who find their anuses to be erogenous zones but the nerve endings are there to tell us when we’ve got to poop and the erectile tissue is there to hold it in until you can pop a squat.

Soooo… enough about that.

Some new blog pieces written by anal-defending millennials are now declaring, “Teen Vogue publishes anal sex guide and people can’t deal with it.”

Hm. Not exactly. What bothers me is not my inability to deal with it. It’s your inability to see through it and question why something so grossly inappropriate was written for a teen audience.

All of my thoughts on this subject have me wondering why Teen Vogue really published the piece in the first place. Here are my five possible ideas:

  1. Teen Vogue wrote the anal sex tutorial for the greater good, without motive or compensation, because our young teens are very curious about how to penetrate their partners’ sole solid waste exit and bring more excitement to their stale sex lives.
  2. The magazine is pushing forward an agenda that every child might be gay, bi or trans and every child therefore needs to know how to have anal sex before or just as they begin to sexually blossom.
  3. They are catering to the internet porn culture that has infested our adolescents and teens for the past decade since the smartphone was invented, which has warped teens’ expectation of sex into a violent act that degrades females and teaches them that their every orifice was created to pleasure men.
  4. Teen Vogue has been paid to promote pedophilia and is helping to groom adolescents and their younger siblings who stumble across the magazine to not only accept anal penetration with fingers, objects, or penises, but to think they should find it to be “delightful,” all as part of the new pedophilia-acceptance movement that has been the subject of a bizarre media frenzy this year.
  5. This is a corporate attempt to drive up the number of teens engaging in anal sex so the CDC can conduct a survey next year, announce the raging number of teens engaging in anal sex, and Merck will sell more anal cancer vaccines, also known as Gardasil.


I think you know which one I’m going with.

We all know that magazines take money to write articles without announcing that they are an advertisement in disguise, or that they have have corporate sponsorship. This is our everyday media now.

Merck’s relationship with Teen Vogue can be found in:

Do you think Teen Vogue gave Merck all of that publicity for free? I can assure you they did not.

In fact, just last April FiercePharma wrote that Teen Vogue’s parent company Condé Nast “has launched a new pharma-focused division to amp up its reader-targeting powers and drive more custom branded content for its pharma clients.”

Did you know that your teen magazine’s parent company has a division called Condé Nast Pharma? Isn’t that a kick in the pants?

What we also know is that Merck is suffering because 40% of girls and 50% of boys won’t even submit to one shot of Gardasil, and the CDC just cut Merck’s Gardasil profits by 33% when they put the kibosh on the most-debilitating third dose of the vaccine in December. It’s no wonder Merck began ramping up teen magazine HPV placements in 2016.

Maybe I’m right when I say that Merck would find a jump in teen anal sex just as “delightful” as a toy up a butt, or maybe I’m way off base. But just this month our media subjected us to the (not at all new) situation of antibiotic-resistant gonorrhea on July 8th and then announced our savior, the first vaccine to protect against “super-gonorrhea,” two days later. Spoiler: it’s the already controversial meningitis vaccine that college students get, and then mysteriously die of meningitis.

Does the media think we’re stupid? Were they so late in getting the memo about the Lancet study coming out that they had to quickly dig up old gonorrhea news and regurgitate it ASAP before July 10th?

In closing, I want to say that I don’t care what anyone does with their bodies when they’re 18 or over whatever the age of consent is in their state. I don’t have an issue with anal sex between adults– hetero or homosexual– in the least. I realize that homosexual boys especially are going to experiment and my response would be the same: in most states it is a felony in America for anyone 18 or older to engage in anal intercourse with or anally penetrate a minor under 15 with an object of any kind. There are lesser penalties– but still penalties– for engaging in anal sex with 16 year olds, or if both parties are under age.

To learn more about the very real dangers of the HPV vaccine, please visit Ireland’s R.E.G.R.E.T.

If you’d like to write a letter to the editor of Teen Vogue, do so here: web@teenvogue.com


John Oliver, you unfunny schmuck @iamjohnoliver

Oh, John. I don’t even know how to begin this conversation.

Screen Shot 2017-06-26 at 3.25.22 PM
{RFK Jr. said he’s spent years trying to get mercury out of fish without anyone ever accusing him of being anti-fish. Here is John explaining how stupid fish are.}

I have friends who think you’re brilliant. I’ve only seen one of your monologues since you’ve been on the air, and I don’t have HBO (and if I did, I would have cancelled it after your show), so I didn’t have an opinion of you before yesterday.  And now I feel compelled to warn you that something’s not computing in your brain. I hope you take heed.

So you went on your show yesterday to attack people who either stop vaccinating their children or never vaccinated in the first place. It was a 27-minute angry, condescending, sometimes-loony but never-funny rant.

Someday, John, you’re going to realize that it is not acceptable to attack the parents of children killed or disabled by vaccines, and that is exactly what you did yesterday.

Two years ago you came to my attention because of an in-depth and eye-popping piece you (or your writers, rather) did on the unethical marketing behaviors of pharmaceutical companies. I’m going to do a quick run-down of the 14 points that stuck out to me when I saw it.


  • While pharmaceutical companies spend a shocking $4 billion marketing to consumers each year, they spend six times that amount marketing to doctors.
  • 9 out of the top 10 pharmaceutical companies spend more on marketing than they do on research.
  • How pharmaceutical companies spend money is highly secretive, and we only find out what goes on behind the scenes from lawsuits. But we see in a video obtained through discovery that while the pharmaceutical foot soldier reps claim to be there to “educate doctors,” behind closed doors their own bosses refer to them as people who are “making an ungodly sum of money.”
  • You say that “the problem” with the current setup is that those pharma reps don’t understand the effects of the drugs they’re pushing. You shared one video where a rep said that none of his coworkers have a background in science, and video of a political science major who was giving a doctor medical advice for a complex patient.
  • You point out that doctors’ offices brag in their job advertisements that they get “free lunch every day” from pharma reps.
  • There was a lawsuit against Novartis that alleged their reps were taking doctors to Hooters in exchange for prescribing its drugs. The reps were also taking doctors out to dinner at restaurants where the reviews say “the tab will bring a tear to your eyes unless dinner is on someone else’s dime.”
  • Many doctors named in that lawsuit took money for speeches they never gave.
  • Many doctors who are the top prescribers of a drug are also getting money from that drug company, which you say is worrying, “because we trust doctors.”
  • Pharmacies are selling patient prescription information back to pharma companies so the reps get to see if the doctor is prescribing as promised, and put more pressure on the doctors for not complying.
  • You seemed outraged that pharma reps attempt to interfere with doctors making medical decisions based on their best judgment.
  • You said that drug companies have crossed the line with off-label uses for drugs with dangerous side effects; “You can’t just give people potentially dangerous drugs and see what happens.”
  • For the doctors who refuse to see drug reps, pharma reps will tell them they have been identified as a “thought leader” and proceed to pay that doctor to talk to other doctors about the company’s products over dinner. Unbeknownst to the guests, the slides, the content and the script the thought leader doctor uses are prepared by the drug company.
  • You hammered home that when you’re a doctor regurgitating a script, you aren’t a “thought leader.” You’re a “thought sayer.”
  • Lest your viewers think the problem is just with one company and one drug, you point out that Johnson & Johnson has also paid $2.2 billion fines, Eli Lilly paid $1.4 billion, Pfizer paid $2.3 billion, and GlaxoSmithKline paid out a record $3 billion.

Now here we are, almost two and a half years later, and you’re defending pharmaceutical products like they’re God’s own gift to mankind. Do you know what pharma doesn’t pay for?  The multi-million dollar payouts in the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Parents pay for that– a 75 cent tax on a single vaccine and a $3 tax on a four-in-one. Two doses of MMRV? The parents who vaccinate pay $6 to the parents whose kids are killed by it.

Why was that missing from your show? Didn’t your researchers come across it? Or did your talking points come from the Hollywood Health & Society arm of the CDC?



Last night your tone was one of total trust for these products from the companies you destroyed in 2015. You seemed to be able to perceive some kind of upstanding ethics behind the creation, marketing, and necessity of all vaccines. You were condescending to people who do not want to consume a sacred product made by the very same companies you railed on– the ones who have been fined billions, and whose extremely attractive sales reps make “ungodly sums of money” selling to doctors.

Maybe you’ve been putting too much aluminum in your armpits but the exact companies you tore to shreds two years ago are the companies manufacturing vaccines, heavily influencing the schedule, lobbying for state mandates, and paying none of the compensation when victims of vaccine injury win in court.

How do you think Merck handles the fact that only 6 in 10 girls in the US have had even one Gardasil shot? They fight every day to get their vaccine mandated by state laws. Their product is so wonderful that they need to get legislators to shove it down our kids’ throats. And Gardasil is still a very new vaccine but the damage it’s done is substantial. Just last month a girl was awarded $11.5 million over her lifetime (not paid for by Merck) for the autoimmune disease that’s attacking her optic nerve and spine, which was caused by Gardasil. Do you think the vaccine court concedes an $11.5 M case just to get rid of the plaintiff, and that vaccines aren’t really wrecking lives?

I noticed that you showed a clip of the 1955 celebrations for Salk’s new polio vaccine but forgot to include the worst pharmaceutical disaster in history that followed immediately after: the Cutter Incident at the lab that produced the vaccine, which caused polio in 40,000 children, paralyzed 56, and killed 5, then further led to 113 new cases of polio and 5 additional deaths.

The CDC must have left that out of your Hollywood talking points.

You did say that the “confusion about vaccines” (we are not confused, I assure you) has caused real problems like in Minnesota, where it’s “terrible” that there has been 78 cases of measles. I bet, if you give me 24 hours, I could come up with 5,000 parents who would gladly trade a temporary case of the measles for the lifetime autism sentence their kids got with the MMR. Hit me up if you want to place a wager.

Do you seriously think you are self-educated enough on the topic of thimerosal to tell your 5 million viewers with 100% certainty that the mercury in fish is bad and the mercury in vaccines is good? Do you honestly believe that mercury was removed from most of the childhood vaccines– not because it was a highly unethical experimentation on children– but because there was “intense public concern” so pharmaceutical companies “spent time and energy solving a problem that never existed?”

Do you hear yourself? When vaccines were already mandated to attend all public schools in America in 2001 do you seriously think pharma gave a shit about “intense public concern?” Stop and click here to read a 1991 Merck memo that a friend of mine sent to the LA times a few decades ago and tell me if this is a problem that never existed.

And then listen to this 60-second clip of a CDC scientist talking about how injecting pregnant women with mercury-containing flu vaccines causes tics in their unborn babies– otherwise known as autism-like behavior. “Pregnant women are the last person I’d give mercury to,” he says.

While you’re at it, watch this video where my friend Forrest teaches the public about how much vaccine education doctors receive in medical school. Spoiler: almost none.


I can see that you pretended you were not being a total hypocrite by acknowledging your piece from two years ago, twenty-something minutes into your vaccine rant as if most people will even make it that far. You said, “I’m not saying there are not problems with big pharma… but on the rare occasions where there have been issues with vaccines, they have been pulled and fast.” What the hell are you even talking about? When Paul Offit got the rotavirus vaccine pulled for causing intussusception in newborn intestines so that he could conveniently replace it with his own rota vaccine? Because if that’s it, that doesn’t count as looking out for our kids, John. It’s greed. Not protection. Very different.

And John, I can’t even go down the rabbit hole of how ridiculous you look using a clip of Seth Mnookin, a former drug dealer and burglar who once bit a police officer, but if you’d like to know more about your expert witness you can read about him here.

And as for Alison Singer, who appears toward the end of your clip, you do know that she was staunchly vaccines-cause-autism until she was blinded by the cash offered her to publicly switch sides, right? In fact, it was only in 2001 that the New York Post wrote this about her reaction to seeing the writers of ER attack parents who don’t vaccinate for believing in the autism link:

“Alison Tepper Singer, a former vice president in NBC’s desktop video division, faulted the ‘ER’ episode for its ‘complete belittling of another viewpoint,’ she told The News. Singer resigned from NBC in 1999 when her older daughter was diagnosed with autism.

“‘It was so irresponsible and so callous and so heartbreaking for parents who are dealing with this issue that I found it sad,’ she said of the ‘ER’ episode.”

Yes, the woman you featured to bolster your stance once said that people like you completely belittle other viewpoints. And you do.

Ooooh, I forgot. I have an even better clip of Alison Singer that you should have used. Here she is fantasizing about killing her autistic daughter. You know, because autism is such a gift.

I’m going to sign off with a few videos from parents whose children you say suffer from “nonexistent and wildly unlikely harms.” You owe them a listen.

Here’s a message from a compelling father who lost his child before his very eyes decades ago.


Here are two parents who have unfortunately conducted a vaccinated verses unvaccinated study in their own family.


And here’s a mother who wants heartless people like you to see the type of autism that nobody ever writes about.


Here’s a child who was compensated by the vaccine court. I’ll tell her mom that you think what happened to her was wildly unlikely. See, I’ll have to tell her mom and not her because she died recently.


And last, but certainly not least, I present to you: fraternal triplets who all developed autism after vaccination. All three. Same day. Triple “wildly unlikely harm,” am I right?

You were once a thought leader for many people, John. But last night you exposed yourself as being a thought sayer, reading a script. It was shameful and disappointing, and one day you’ll look back and realize you were on the wrong side of history in the most public way possible.

That day is coming soon.

Are most kids who die of the flu really unvaccinated @CDCgov?


Blazing hot news today! NBC’s favorite pharma whoo-a Maggie Fox has published a story about a new CDC study that claims that “most kids” who die of the flu are unvaccinated.  This really is news to me since I have never– and I mean never, not once– read about a child flu death where the parents weren’t saying, “She had the flu vaccine, why did this happen?”

So, we’re told what?  That 40,000 kids die of the flu every year or some such, right?  Just an outrageous number comprised mostly of 105-year old nursing home patients with pneumonia.

But this study says that in the four years from the summer of 2010 to the summer of 2014, there were just 358 lab confirmed flu deaths in children aged 6 months to 17 years. Losing even one child to illness is a tragic event and I don’t mean to minimize any death when I point out that we are talking about 90 deaths per year in a country with 73 million kids under the age of 17. That’s a 1 in 800,000 statistic.

For whatever reason Maggie Fox linked to a story she wrote herself in 2013 rather than linking to the study, so make sure to click here to read the actual study itself.

Here’s what stood out the most during my reading of it.

Out of the 358 kids who died of the flu, 67 did not have medical records available, so the study is really about 291 kids.

Of these 291 kids who died of the flu, 75 were in the “vaccinated” category while 216 were in the “unvaccinated” category, which means, by CDC standards, 1/4 were vaccinated and 3/4 were not.

You’d assume “unvaccinated” means never vaccinated, right? Or at least never vaccinated for the flu? Nope. It turns out that if a child received the flu vaccine in previous years, but their medical record didn’t mention that season’s flu vaccine, they were automatically deemed to be “unvaccinated” by the CDC.

So if a seven-year old got a flu vaccine at four years old, five years old, and six years old and it’s in their record, but they didn’t get it when they were seven, they are “unvaccinated” for this study. Or, maybe their mom popped into Walgreens for the vaccine when they were seven, or they got the shot at school, and it didn’t make it into the record for whatever reason, they are also “unvaccinated” for the study. The CDC was not looking for “mom refused the flu shot” in the records before labeling a child “unvaccinated.”

Of the 291 kids who died of the flu, 153 were labeled “high risk” children because they had one or many serious underlying conditions such as chronic lung disease, heart disease, kidney or liver disorders, or neurological disorders like brain or spinal cord injuries. Almost 1/3 of these chronically ill children who died were vaccinated.

So now we’re down to talking about 138 kids who weren’t already in and out of the hospital all the time, which is not a very respectable number for a study.

Oh, wait! The authors also included asthmatic kids as “high risk” which sounds like a vaccine marketing ploy despite the 2012 study that discovered that asthmatic kids vaccinated for the flu were THREE TIMES more likely to end up hospitalized. But we don’t know how many of the kids who died had spinal tumors or congenital heart disease versus how many of the kids just had asthma.

Seven deceased vaccinated children were left out of the study because they had received the flu vaccine within two weeks of catching the flu and dying. Rather than considering the flu vaccine’s role in killing the child, the study authors claim that a vaccine given 14 days ago is life-saving while a vaccine given 13 days ago is not.

My takeaway here is that 53% of the 291 children with vaccination records who died of lab-confirmed flu from 2010 to 2014 were probably so seriously ill with a chronic condition that any number of viruses that we don’t sell a vaccine for could have been fatal to them.

And that the “unvaccinated” category of children who passed away may have been vaccinated to the hilt for all we know, but they certainly don’t fit into the public’s understanding of what an unvaccinated child looks like, which would be a child who has never received a vaccine.

Can someone explain #ButIVaccinate to me?


I stepped away from social media for a few weeks and have no idea what the freaky frack is going on with this stupid hashtag. Is this some mommy war shit? A blatant attempt at straight up mom-shaming?

Like, you are such a horrible mom, please take a moment to reflect on and confess what a terrible parent you are and wallow in it. Are you up to your ears in dirty laundry? Did you miss the first 20 minutes of the school play because your boss wanted you in a meeting? Did you forget about the tooth fairy money two nights in a row?

Never fear! We, the pharmaceutical industry (with assistance from your national health department and our paid mommy bloggers), hereby grant you permission to cut yourself some slack because lady, at least you vaccinated.

Your child exists on mac & cheese but at least you vaccinate? Well no shit, Sherlock. Dairy and gluten acts like a drug in your child. How is a vaccine going to counter that?

Your kid got sent to detention because you forgot to give him his ADHD meds but at least you vaccinate? Are you joking?

You let your toddler walk around all day with an upper lip encrusted with snot and didn’t bother to clean her up but at least you vaccinate? Truly shocking. I wouldn’t have guessed.

Your son spent 12 straight hours on the iPad this weekend but at least you vaccinate? You know what this sounds like, right?

I saw a tweet that read, “At least we get the big things right, like vaccinating.”

Um, no. The big things are giving your child love and attention, healthy food, and plenty of room and freedom to play. Providing an education, clean drinking water, a safe home, and raising them with respect.

I’d also argue that “the big things” include limiting their exposure to endocrine disruptors, preservatives, heavy metals and unnecessary antibiotics, but maybe that’s just me.

How does injecting your child with mercury and aluminum make up for the fact that they’ve eaten nothing but Ritz Bits for the past five days? Did you think you were injecting nutrients?

The biggest parenting fail I can think of is living in ignorant bliss despite the warning bells going off in the media that vaccines are so great they’ve got to be shoved down our throats against our will and anyone who thinks otherwise is a nut case.

The only one getting immunity from vaccines is the pharma industry, but you vaccinate.

I’m going to leave you with the words of Jane Know It All who wrote the greatest poem in the history of poems that sums up how I feel about people who perpetuate pharmaceutical propaganda.

“Just saw another story about suing the unvaxxed.
Friend asked, “When did Americans become such pussies [over measles]?” and I replied, “When their Pharma overlords told them to be.”
Afraid of measles?
you’re an asshole who has never heard of Vit A and proper nutrition –WAIT! I take that back!
YOU morons SHOULD fear measles.
Consider most of these parents who fear the unvax’d think proper nutrition is a fucking HOT POCKET and a Flintstones vitamin.”

But at least you vaccinate.

Update: it looks like the ladies of TMR already investigated this ill founded campaign. Click over and give them a read.

Research confirms what moms already know


Making mainstream news today: researchers at the University of North Carolina have confirmed in a new study published in Nature this month that yes, Gigantic Autism Forehead does in fact precede autism.

Now there’s something you don’t see everyday…

No, wait. We actually do see it everyday. We see it in our daily lives, we see it in our neighbor’s kids, we see it in the CDC’s own #teamvax photo.

We all know the Gigantic Autism Forehead. They weren’t born with it.

All of our born-normal babies had normal heads with circumference measurements that plot somewhere around the 50th percentile. That means that at the two-month vaccine appointment your baby’s head was clocking in at a normal 40 centimeters.

But then sometime after the 6-month vaccine appointment you might have noticed your child had a slight resemblance to Baby Frankenstein. Rather than growing the usual 2 to 4 centimeters in that time, his head has expanded by 6 or 7 centimeters, and now he’s off the growth chart completely, or hovering just at the 99th percentile so your doc says he’s fine, no cause for worry. But you can’t help but notice this new growth is centered around a bulging forehead.

When the hell did that start? Look back at old photos. If you adhered to the vaccine schedule, you’ll probably notice the bulging forehead beginning at three months old, a few weeks after that first vaccine appointment. Request your child’s records from the ped and see for yourself when the circumference projection began to creep off the line it started on at two months old.

This research team performed brain scans on sleeping high-risk-for-autism babies who already had an autistic sibling and discovered an initial “hyperexpansion” of the outer brain tissue between 6 and 12 months old (coughENCEPHALITIScough, cough).

But what about the brains of kids who were younger? What about kids too young to be vaccinated? They left them out of the study, of course. God forbid we look into kids before they receive three full rounds of the vaccination schedule.

Then it gets worse. Starting at 12 months, the kids with hyperexpansion went on to have measurable “brain volume overgrowth.” Then, sometime after two years old, come the classic symptoms and the autism diagnosis.

In this study, 15 of the 106 high risk infants showed this hyperexpansion before 12 months old, and the researchers predicted they would go on to have brain overgrowth, show autism symptoms, and receive a diagnosis down the road.

And guess what? The prediction was right. With an 81% accuracy rate. Can’t help but wonder if the other 19% quit vaccinating at that point.

The Gigantic Autism Forehead isn’t really news, though. The press has been writing about “autism features” such as the “broad upper face” for five years now, putting the effect before the cause by acting like children are born with autism features.

And that brain overgrowth bit isn’t news either– for the past 18 months it’s been the pro-vaccine favorite autism-is-genetic argument. They say that since autism appears to be caused by having too many synapses in the brain; too many connections, not enough pruning going on, leading to sensory overload and epilepsy– and that autism begins in utero.

But look closely. These researchers just confirmed the brain overgrowth is post-natal, not in the womb. 

Unfortunately, these researchers don’t delve into theories of why in their discussion about the new study. Why are these infant brains swelling? Why are the brains overgrowing? Why has the pruning mechanism been turned off?

The Gigantic Autism Forehead part of it isn’t a mystery– it’s the result of the baby’s skull accommodating both the initial swelling and the later overgrowth. Every enlightened autism mom already knows where the forehead came from.

So naturally the BBC signed off the article in the link above with the declaration, “This pours cold water on the debunked claims that the MMR jab causes autism.”

Wait, what?  The researchers studied children at 6, 12 and 24 months old who most likely already had three rounds of vaccines by 6 months, resulting in the initial brain tissue inflammation. They said that volume overgrowth in those inflamed brains then begins in the 12th month– which is when the MMR is given in the US.

Where is this cold water, BBC?

All I’m seeing is smoke leading to fire.

A trigger finger on a loaded chamber.

One last chance to pull the brakes on a train before it goes off the rails.