Vaccines: More Than Meets the Eye

"Science progresses best when observations force us to alter our preconceptions."
-Vera Rubin

This topic is rife with strong opinions, and understandably so, given that it concerns the well-being of young children. I'll start with some facts.
• Every U.S. state has a law requiring children entering school to provide documentation showing that they have met the state immunization requirements.[1] Exemptions vary by state and can be difficult to get.[2] The U.S. requires more vaccinations than any other country.[3]
• Many U.S. vaccines—including flu shots given to children—contain thimerosal, along with other known toxins.[4, 5]
• Thimerosal is banned in several developed countries, including Russia, Denmark, Austria, Japan, and Great Britain.[6]
If you're curious about the peculiar vaccination policies of the U.S., keep reading.

The 'Good'
The reason anyone bothers with vaccines is that they are reputed to prevent specific illnesses. Vaccination is based on the assumption that antibodies, which are produced in response to exposure to a virus, provide immunity from that virus. However, this defense mechanism of the body does not rely on vaccination—for millennia, children have been naturally exposed to viruses and developed immunity without the injection of foreign substances into their bloodstream.
Moreover, the view that antibodies are the sole indicator of immunity is simplistic, as immunologists admit that they are unclear about many details of the immune response. Antibodies are only one aspect of immunity, and in some cases, sicknesses are easily defeated without them. For example, people with agammaglobulinemia—a disease preventing them from making antibodies—can be infected with measles, recover normally, and thereafter be exposed to the virus without getting sick. Even without antibodies, these people develop a lifelong immunity to measles.[7]
The traditional method to evaluate immunity—by measuring antibodies—is imprecise, unreliable, and narrow-minded, as people with high antibody levels can have the worst cases of a disease (e.g., tetanus) and people without antibodies can respond to a virus as if they are already immune.[7] Antibodies do not completely illustrate immunity.
Supporters of vaccination point to cases where fearsome diseases were eradicated because of the clever administration of vaccines. But a closer look reveals reasons to doubt the success of vaccination.
o English scientist Edward Jenner coined the term "vaccine" (from the Latin term vaccinus, meaning "of the cow") and is credited with introducing vaccination to mainstream medicine. He created the smallpox vaccine in 1796, in response to a rumor that when a dairy maid was infected with cowpox (a common infection found in cow's udders), she would no longer be susceptible to smallpox. Jenner made the vaccine by scraping pus off the belly of a cow. This was one of the most contaminated vaccines ever on the market, and many people developed serious cases of smallpox and died after being vaccinated. Statistics showed that the death rate and severity of smallpox were higher in the vaccinated than the unvaccinated.[7]
o Highly lauded is the polio vaccine, which was developed by Jonas Salk in 1953 and is commonly cited to justify today's highly aggressive vaccination program. However, history casts doubt on the efficacy of this vaccine. Swedish scientists correctly warned U.S. scientists that their plans to deactivate the live polio virus by including formaldehyde in the vaccine would be unsuccessful. These warnings were ignored, and in many cases, the virus was resurrected in the vial and injected into patients. In 1955, more people developed paralysis from the vaccine than would have developed it from a natural polio virus. To make it appear that the vaccine was working, the diagnostic criteria for polio were changed. This is a common practice in medicine to this day. Data indicate that the vaccine did more harm than good and that the drop-off in polio occurred because the disease was redefined rather than because of a decrease in its prevalence.[7]
o You've probably seen "Get your flu shot" signs at your workplace or supermarket. A popular argument in favor of vaccines is "Just look at the deaths from the flu before and after vaccination." But what do the data say? According to the Vital Statistics of the United States, deaths from influenza had decreased by 90% before widespread vaccination. This trend was shared by other illnesses such as measles and whooping cough, while deaths from other diseases, including scarlet fever and typhoid, decreased to virtually zero with hardly any use of vaccines. One might expect that increasing influenza vaccination resulted in fewer flu-related deaths. However, as the coverage rate for flu vaccination increased, the death rate actually increased.[8]
o A recent example is the MMR (measles-mumps-rubella) vaccine. In 2015, major U.S. news outlets including ABC and CNN urged parents to get their children vaccinated after a "record-breaking" year for measles in 2014. However, these claims of a national outbreak were greatly exaggerated, with only 644 cases of measles in a U.S. population of 320 million.[9] Furthermore, studies not only indicate that the MMR vaccine is ineffective for preventing measles but also link the vaccine to several adverse effects.[10]
These facts call into question the efficacy of vaccines. But even if vaccines were proven to be effective for immunization, their potential harm must be considered.
The Bad
Few dispute that water is good for us, but the chloramine, heavy metals, and other contaminants in tap water make many think twice before ingesting it. Likewise, the ingredients in vaccines, along with their acute and long-term effects, fuel the arguments of educated opponents and should give pause to staunch supporters.
Vaccines, as they contain a weakened or inactivated virus, are perishable and easily degraded by heat and light.[11] By adding preservatives, manufacturers cut their losses, as vaccines can be stored for longer periods until sold. The mercury-containing preservative thimerosal allows the pharmaceutical industry to package multiple doses into larger vials (which are subject to multiple needle entries), making the vaccines cheaper to distribute.[6] Accordingly, the CDC claims that thimerosal is "needed to prevent contamination."[12] But is this a valid reason to add a mercury compound? Mercury poisoning is known to cause several impairments, such as brain and kidney damage, muscle weakness, and destruction of tissue.[13] The relevant question is whether the low doses of thimerosal in vaccines are harmful.
In 1999, the FDA reviewed the use of thimerosal in childhood vaccines and found no evidence of harm due to thimerosal, even though "some infants could have been exposed to cumulative levels of mercury during the first six months of life that exceeded EPA recommended guidelines for safe intake of methylmercury." This FDA review was a charade; the same year, as a "precautionary measure," the Public Health Service (which includes the FDA, CDC, and NIH) urged vaccine manufacturers to reduce or eliminate thimerosal in vaccines as soon as possible.[14]
The government's words regarding thimerosal are confusing, so let's assess its actions. In 2002, the CDC recommended that pregnant women and very young children get annual thimerosal-preserved flu shots. Today, the combined actions of vaccine manufacturers, the FDA, and the CDC have increased the maximum childhood exposure to mercury from vaccines to twice the level of 1999, and new vaccine formulations containing mercury are approved by the FDA for administration to pregnant women and children.[15] Several vaccines given to infants, children, and pregnant women contain thimerosal, including the DTaP, DT, Td (tetanus), influenza, and meningococcal vaccines.[16] Furthermore, the government changed its rules to allow vaccine manufacturers to label vaccines "thimerosal-free" if they use thimerosal in the manufacturing process but not as a preservative![17, 18]
People mistakenly assume that if the government had reasonable doubt that thimerosal was dangerous, it would be removed from vaccines. Substantial research contradicts the view that thimerosal vaccines are safe.[10, 15, 19, 20-24] According to Dr. Boyd Haley, expert on mercury toxicity and former head of the chemistry department at the University of Kentucky, "You couldn't even construct a study that shows thimerosal is safe. It's just too darn toxic. If you inject thimerosal into an animal, its brain will sicken. If you apply it to living tissue, the cells die. If you put it in a petri dish, the culture dies. Knowing these things, it would be shocking if one could inject it into an infant without causing damage."[6]
Although they are seldom mentioned by the government or major news outlets, hundreds of independent clinical and statistical studies have demonstrated harm due to thimerosal and its mercury breakdown product, including contributions to Alzheimer’s, cancer, autism, spectrum disorders, Attention Deficit Disorder, Bipolar Disorder, asthma, Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, arthritis, food allergies, premature puberty, and infertility. These studies were conducted by chemists, biologists, physicians, and neurologists, among others, often with funding by federal grants. However, in many instances, when a researcher concluded that thimerosal causes harm, their grant was withdrawn or ended.[15]
Thimerosal is not the only cause for concern among vaccine ingredients. Aluminum oxide and aluminum hydroxide are added to help vaccines "stimulate a better response." Antibiotics are added to prevent the growth of germs. Formaldehyde is used to kill unwanted viruses and bacteria. MSG is used as a stabilizer to help vaccines remain unchanged under exposure to heat, light, acidity, and humidity.[25] Click here for a list of vaccines and their ingredients and here for a list of ingredients and their amounts.[4, 16]

The aforementioned ingredients are known to be harmful. Normally, the body protects itself from irritants and toxins with multiple layers of defense and filtering—including the mucous membranes, liver, and kidneys—and harmful substances are naturally eliminated by coughing, sneezing, or vomiting. But vaccination involves injecting a poison cocktail directly into the bloodstream, bypassing these defenses![26] Nonetheless, the FDA and CDC publish many resources assuring the public of vaccines' safety and no resources affirming their negative effects, despite the abundant evidence.
The link between vaccines and neurological damage is troubling. In the 1960s and 1970s, children were not vaccinated until age six, and back then, neurological disorders were very uncommon. Today, children are vaccinated at birth and begin regular vaccination programs just two months into the world, before their blood-brain barrier has developed. A review of medical literature from across the world reveals many studies linking vaccinations with neurological disorders, such as epilepsy, convulsions, mental retardation, depression, anxiety, deafness, and blindness.[27]
Vaccines have been infamously linked to autism, and this hypothesis is not without evidence.[10, 20-24, 28] In the U.S., autistic behavior has risen drastically since the 1940s, when massive vaccination programs began. Before vaccinations were free and government-sponsored, autism mainly occurred in the children of wealthy parents.[27] Even political leaders who support vaccination have acknowledged the possibility of vaccines causing autism and the need for further study, courting many concerned voters rather than few pharmaceutical giants. These individuals include Barack Obama, John McCain, and Hillary Clinton.[29]
In addition to the ingredients and effects of vaccines, some of the practices involved in vaccination are alarming. Vaccine manufacturer Merck admitted to ABC News that they, as well as other manufacturers, use human cell lines from aborted human fetuses to grow the virus for selected vaccines. This is approved by the FDA, who acknowledge that common vaccines, including those for chickenpox, hepatitis, and rabies, are propagated in cells originating from aborted fetuses.[30]
Also dubious is the one-size-fits all approach to vaccination, which is inappropriate for medical care. Children are different, but the same vaccines are prescribed for everyone. Even though some children—for example, those with mitochondrial disorders—face increased risks from vaccination, efforts are not made to identify them in order to prevent unnecessary harm.[31] Instead, the CDC publishes a schedule for vaccination that depends simply on age group.[32]
If you doubt the damage caused by vaccines, consider that the U.S. government has paid over $3 billion dollars in compensation for vaccine-related injuries since 1989.[33] Note that in “Vaccine Court,” the claimant has the burden of proof; that is, families are required to show a clear causal connection between the vaccination and its adverse effects.[34] This special no-fault court, where parents of vaccine-injured children must petition the government for compensation rather than suing pharmaceutical companies in a public trial, was established by Congress in 1986 because lawsuits against vaccine companies threatened to "cause vaccine shortages and reduce U.S. vaccination rates."[35]
For thorough documentation of the harm caused by vaccination, check out the book Dissolving Illusions by Dr. Suzanne Humphries, who was agnostic on the issue until several of her patients told her that they'd been perfectly healthy until they got a vaccine.[7] I also recommend Vaccine Epidemic and Miller's Review of Critical Vaccine Studies.

Many doctors and scientists oppose vaccination on the basis of overwhelming research.[10, 20-24, 28] However, the pro-vaccine position is granted disproportionate research funds and mainstream coverage. Although doctors play a traditionally benevolent role, their livelihoods can depend on perpetuating bad practices.
The Ugly
The Hebrew bible declared long before the advent of vaccination that the love of money is the root of all evil. In my asbestos post, I showed that a nice flow of money can obstruct good judgement. The toxic material asbestos continued to be advertised and used in buildings long after its dangers were recognized. The director of the Hazardous Substance Control Bureau acknowledged its dangers but reasoned that asbestos is cheap and that economics are more important than safety and environmental protection. Moreover, she all but admitted that she was asked to speak in support of asbestos.
With deep pockets, plausible deniability can be secured and puppets easily rallied. Scientific studies are regularly sponsored by wealthy entities to support special interests, and when the science goes both ways, money tips the scales. Research into the backgrounds of FDA, CDC, and university experts who advocate vaccination reveals their strong financial incentives. According to former Congressman Ron Burton, who led a House Government Reform Committee in a three-year investigation of thimerosal, the CDC "routinely allows scientists with blatant conflicts of interest to serve on intellectual advisory committees that make recommendations on new vaccines" although they have "interests in the products and companies for which they are supposed to be providing unbiased oversight." The committee concluded that "thimerosal used as a preservative in vaccines is directly related to the autism epidemic" and reported that four of the eight CDC advisors who approved guidelines for a thimerosal-laced rotavirus vaccine "had financial ties to the pharmaceutical companies that were developing different versions of the vaccine." Dr. Paul Offit, one of CDC's top vaccination advisors, shares a patent on this vaccine and acknowledged that he would make money if his vote to approve it led to a marketable product, although he dismissed the notion of any conflict of interest. Dr. Sam Katz, chair of a CDC advisory committee that backed several vaccines, was a paid consultant for most of the major vaccine manufacturers and shares a patent on a measles vaccine with Merck. Another committee member, Dr. Neal Halsey, also worked for vaccine companies and was paid for his research on the hepatitis B vaccine.[6]
Halsey's life was once dedicated to promoting vaccination, and he served for a decade on influential committees that decide which inoculations are given to 8 million American children each year. At his urging, the number of vaccines required for children under age 2 increased from 8 to 20 in the 1990s, and under his watch, the dose of mercury administered to infants in their first few months of life tripled. He often appeared in the media to reassure the public of the safety of vaccines, saying that "Many of the allegations against vaccines are based on unproven hypotheses and causal associations with little evidence." However, in 1999, Halsey encountered strong evidence of a causal association between thimerosal and neurological impairment and expressed his unease, to the displeasure of fellow vaccinologists. He said the following: "My first concern was that it would harm the credibility of the immunization program. But gradually it came home to me that maybe there was some real risk to the children."[36] Halsey's objective evaluation of the data in a climate of scientific orthodoxy and his decision to voice his convictions notwithstanding the possible career repercussions are commendable and bring to mind the quote at the beginning of this post: "Science progresses best when observations force us to alter our preconceptions."
The principle of vaccines—and the argument made by pharmaceutical companies—is as follows: vaccination is a good thing, and for it to work, we must spread it as widely as we can, because otherwise, the people who are not vaccinated may start a disease that spreads through the entire population. This is a bold and naive assumption in light of the available data, and let's not dismiss its business implications. Vaccines are patented, so more people getting shots leads to greater profits for vaccine manufacturers. Watchful parents wonder why every time industry produces a vaccine it's automatically added to the list of mandatory injections for school entry.[26]
Ten years ago, with weak financial incentives to produce vaccines, pharmaceutical companies were abandoning the vaccine business to sell more profitable daily drug treatments. The pharmaceutical company Wyeth (since acquired by Pfizer) reported that they stopped making the flu vaccine because of its low margins.[37] But things have turned around in recent years as the demand for vaccination has increased drastically across the world. Vaccines are promoted vigorously by various organizations, particularly in developing countries, and research money is continually invested with the goal of creating new ones.[38]
A search of online job listings (e.g., Glassdoor or Indeed) reveals that doctors are not the only ones interested in promoting vaccination. Roles such as "Vaccine Sales Rep" and "Regional Manager of Vaccine Sales"—similar to what you would expect in the car or software industry—are numerous. In one posting for a Vaccine Sales Representative, the Responsibilities section highlights "the goal of maximizing sales" and "developing business relationships [with] targeted primary care physicians and Health Care providers."[39]
The vaccine business is very concentrated, with 80% of vaccines being supplied by five pharmaceutical giants: Novartis, Pfizer, Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, and Sanofi Pasteur.[38] A Merck spokesperson stated that the company's vaccines sales were $5.3 billion in 2014 and that vaccines are a key area of focus. Pharmaceutical companies don't reveal how much vaccines cost them to make, but analysts speculate that the profit margin ranges from 10% to over 40%.[37]
Merck ensures its revenues by advertising vaccines and lobbying politicians to pass laws promoting their vaccinations.[40] With less fanfare, the company pays large fines and settlements for the toxic effects of their other medicinal drugs, earning it a reputation as the "Monsanto" of the vaccination industry.[41] Of course, its revenues far outweigh its losses from lawsuits.
Merck has been implicated for illicitly pushing its vaccines. In 2010, two former Merck employees filed a lawsuit against the company, alleging that it manipulated clinical trials to distort the MMR vaccine's effectiveness in order to secure a monopoly on the vaccine. Merck itself acknowledged the declining efficacy of the vaccine, but, according to the suit, adjusted its testing technique to obtain the desired results. The scientists said that they were asked to participate in the dishonest testing. After conducting a two-year investigation, the Justice Department refused to rule on the case.[42] But in 2014, a federal judge ruled in favor of the whistleblowers, although this story went unreported by mainstream media outlets.[43]
Merck, along with GlaxoSmithKline, is also suspected to have been involved in the denigration of Dr. Andrew Wakefield, a British gastrointestinal surgeon who reported that the companies' MMR vaccine was harmful. In 1998, Wakefield published a study linking the vaccine to bowel disease and autism in reputed UK medical journal The Lancet. However, his study was retracted from the journal and his reputation demolished after journalist Brian Deer (whose boss James Murdoch sat on the board of directors of GlaxoSmithKline) published an article in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) in 2011 casting doubt on Wakefield's results and accusing him of fraud. Although Wakefield was never convicted by a jury or in a court of law, he became a scapegoat for the media and vaccine supporters to knock down in dismissing the link between vaccines and autism as "proven false."[44] Another director of GlaxoSmithKline, Crispin Davis, was the CEO of Elsevier, the parent company of The Lancet. Moreover, Merck signed partnership agreements with the BMJ in 2008 and The Lancet in 2009, a fact that was unreported by the mainstream media and not disclosed by the BMJ to readers of Deer's 2011 article.[45] Incidentally, it came to light in 2009 that Merck staff emailed each other a "hit list" of doctors who had been negative about a Merck drug and discussed how to neutralize or discredit them. "We may need to seek them out and destroy them where they live," one employee wrote.[46]
Sadly, Merck and GlaxoSmithKline are not outliers in the Big Pharma landscape. To CEOs, the bottom line—not public wellness—is the standard of success. These people have vast resources and strong financial incentives to sway both popular and scientific opinion. Parents may not consider the business interests at play when they bring their child to the doctor's office.

The CDC, who sponsors the message above, is frequently cited by vaccine proponents. This organization is notorious for its pro-vaccination bias, which is evidenced by its attempts to cover up data indicating the dangers of vaccination. Whistleblower Dr. William Thompson revealed that the CDC manipulated data to conceal a link between the MMR vaccine and a higher incidence of autism in African-American boys. Thompson initially remained anonymous and reported the evidence to Dr. Brian Hooker of the Focus Autism Foundation, who published this study in 2014.[28] CDC documents showed top-down pressure on CDC scientists to support the fraudulent application of government policies on vaccine safety. According to Dr. Hooker, "the CDC knew about the relationship between the age of first MMR vaccine and autism incidence in African-American boys as early as 2003, but chose to cover it up."[47]
In a carefully documented article, attorney, radio host, and activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. exposed the link between Big Pharma and the CDC. According to his report, high-ranking officials from the CDC and FDA, the top vaccine specialist from the WHO, and representatives from every major vaccine manufacturer assembled in 2000 to discuss new evidence that raised questions about the safety of vaccines commonly administered to infants and young children. CDC epidemiologist Tom Verstraeten had analyzed a database containing the medical records of 100,000 children and concluded that thimerosal was responsible for a dramatic increase in autism and many other neurological disorders. Verstraeten told the group he was "stunned" by his findings. "You can play with this all you want," said Dr. Bill Weil, a consultant for the American Academy of Pediatrics. "[The results] are statistically significant."[48]
According to transcripts obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, many at the meeting were concerned about how the information about thimerosal would affect the vaccine industry’s bottom line. Dr. John Clements, vaccine advisor for the WHO, declared that “perhaps this study should not have been done at all.” He added that “the research results have to be handled,” warning that the study “will be taken by others and will be used in other ways beyond the control of this group.” Rather than taking immediate steps to alert the public and eliminate thimerosal, the officials and executives discussed how to cover up the data. The CDC paid the Institute of Medicine to conduct a new study to whitewash the risks of thimerosal, ordering researchers to “rule out” thimerosal's link to autism. Although Verstraeten’s findings had been slated for publication, the CDC withheld them and told other scientists that his original data had been “lost” and could not be replicated. It also gave its database of vaccine records to a private company, making it off-limits to the Freedom of Information Act. When Verstraeten finally published his study in 2003, he had become an employee of GlaxoSmithKline and modified his data to bury the link between thimerosal and autism.[48]
For indisputable evidence of CDC bias regarding vaccines, look no further than its websites. Here's the CDC's FAQ page on thimerosal (I added the colored boxes):[5]

In the yellow box, the CDC claims that scientists "haven't found any evidence that thimerosal causes harm," which is a blanket statement refuted by several studies.[10, 15, 19, 20-24] The CDC positively describes thimerosal as "safe" although the manufacturer of the preservative—drug giant Eli Lilly—acknowledges in its data sheet that some children are hypersensitive to mercury and that exposure to thimerosal may cause “mild to severe mental retardation and mild to severe motor coordination impairment.”[49] Eli Lilly has long been well-connected with the White House and Congress (George Bush Sr. was a member of its board of directors in the 1970s), and although the company was never required by the FDA to conduct clinical studies on the safety of thimerosal, it has been sued by hundreds of parents whose children were adversely affected.[19]
In the blue box, the CDC is self-contradictory and deliberately deceptive, first claiming that thimerosal has not been used in vaccines for children since 2001 and then stating that thimerosal is still used in flu vaccines recommended for children. A CDC document confirms that the mercury preservative remains in flu vaccines for children.[12] In the red box, the CDC asserts positively that thimerosal does not cause autism, which is unjustified, as the causes of autism remain unknown. The subsequent statement that "Research does not show any link" is not only false[10, 20-24, 28] but insufficient to justify this positive claim. Notably, when cigarettes were recognized as the cause of lung cancer in the 1940s and 1950s by a confluence of studies, cigarette manufacturers disputed the evidence and sponsored their own research in an attempt to salvage cigarette sales.[50, 51] There appears to be a similar agenda behind the information presented by the CDC, whose simplistic treatment of complex issues signals a lack of good faith.
For another example of CDC bias, check out this webpage, which presents a timeline of thimerosal.[52]

In the red box, we see a reference to an Italian study and a synopsis stating that the results "were reassuring that immunization in infancy with thimerosal-containing vaccines does not decrease neuropsychological performance later in childhood." I clicked the link to the study, whose conclusions are as follows: "Given the large number of statistical comparisons performed, the few associations found between thimerosal exposure and neuropsychological development might be attributable to chance. The associations found, although statistically significant, were based on small differences in mean test scores, and their clinical relevance remains to be determined."[53]
The researchers found statistically significant associations between thimerosal exposure and later neuropsychological development. Note how the CDC injects the sentiment that the results are "reassuring" when this opinion is not found in the authors' own conclusions! The CDC's spin on the results shows that a cursory review of their website is inadequate for the truth-seeker; closer examination reveals the bias of an organization that should err on the side of caution. If you seek reassurance about the safety of vaccines, look to the CDC. For an unbiased take, look elsewhere.
In light of the documented hazards and consequent concerns surrounding vaccines, one might expect trusted U.S. government and media entities to take a conservative position and warn the public of the possible dangers. Instead, the CDC and major news outlets unequivocally endorse vaccination and vilify those who question the practice, giving unsuspecting onlookers the impression that the science is indisputable and exhibiting a stance whose root in corporate interests is thinly veiled.
Aggressive U.S. vaccination policies are by no means confined to the country. In 2010, media reports surfaced about the deaths of female children and adolescents in Andhra Pradesh, India, after they were administered Merck's HPV vaccine Gardasil. The vaccination trials, funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, were performed by an American agency called the Program for Appropriate Technology in Health (PATH) as part of a large-scale initiative involving four countries: India, Uganda, Peru, and Vietnam. Concerned about the Indian government's approval and facilitation of the trials and unsatisfied with its corrective actions, India's Parliamentary Committee on Health and Family Welfare investigated the matter. The committee found many troubling irregularities. PATH had argued that the nature of the project did not require them to follow clinical trial rules, such as reporting serious adverse effects within a specific time frame. Furthermore, in several cases, signatures were missing from consent forms. It appeared that informed consent was not properly obtained from the subjects' parents, many of whom were illiterate even in their local language. Here is an excerpt from the committee's report.[54]
The Committee finds the entire matter very intriguing and fishy. The choice of countries and population groups; the monopolistic nature, at that point of time, of the product being pushed; the unlimited market potential and opportunities in the universal immunization programmes of the respective countries are all pointers to a well planned scheme to commercially exploit a situation. Had PATH been successful in getting the HPV vaccine included in the universal immunization programme of the concerned countries, this would have generated windfall profit for the manufacturer(s) by way of automatic sale, year after year, without any promotional or marketing expenses. It is well known that once introduced into the immunization programme it becomes politically impossible to stop any vaccination. To achieve this end effortlessly without going through the arduous and strictly regulated route of clinical trials, PATH resorted to an element of subterfuge by calling the clinical trials as "Observational Studies" or "Demonstration Project" and various such expressions. Thus, the interest, safety and well being of subjects were completely jeopardized by PATH by using self-determined and selfservicing nomenclature which is not only highly deplorable but a serious breach of law of the land.
Takeaway
Many people, unaware of crucial conflicts of interest, think that all "credible" science shows that vaccines are safe, effective, and our best chance of protecting children from diseases. Valid research indicating otherwise is categorically labeled as "not credible." To see the logical fallacy in action, check out this Washington Post article, where the author declares that "every respectable expert totally disagrees" with the anti-vaccination movement.[55] As the article focuses on an anti-vaccination doctor, it's unlikely that the author is ignorant of the numerous doctors and scientists who oppose vaccination. Rather, his criterion for respectability is support of vaccination. Such thinking is not fruitful, nor is it natural in this case, being instilled by a powerful agenda. The anti-vaccination side also exhibits confirmation bias but demonstrates the requisite consideration of the special interests underlying the sentiment pushed by government and media entities.
To some, "science" refers to a set of ideologies that are established beyond refutation, regardless of the quantity of research revealing them to be questionable. Not coincidentally, these ideologies justify the practices of institutions who invest unceasingly in the portrayal of certain positions as scientific dogma. If you work for a large company like I have, you may notice how the words of executives resonate down the ranks and are taken by employees as actionable truth. I'm disheartened to see people, in the name of science but on the behalf of corporations, support doubtful positions with the conviction of a sports fan and attack those who don't agree. Some supporters of mandatory vaccination go so far as to call for parents of unvaccinated children to be fined and imprisoned.[31] Such emotions are evident in the YouTube comment section for the documentary Vaccine Nation, where we find opinions of this sort: