Vaccines, once critical interventions which saved lives, have morphed into a pseudo loss-leader product. A key lever in turbocharging pharmaceutical company price-to-earnings and return-on-research investment performance benchmarks. This robust financial boon is but a moon-cast shadow compared to the cost which is born by US families in terms of permanent injury to their children. Six clear warning signs are manifesting socially today, which both serve to confirm such injury, and as well forebode critical implications in terms of US national security in the decades to come.
Within this article we will examine three issues regarding vaccine injury, all of which should pique the concern of ethical pro-vaccine and PoVIC (Parent of a Vaccine Injured Child) citizens. First, how the industry deludes itself unto ignorance as to how lucrative and conflict-of-interest-inducing vaccine profits are indeed. Second, how the industry deludes itself into dismissing vaccine precaution over a handful of shallow linear induction exclusion bias mega-data studies, which stand as ‘proof of an absence’ (pseudoscience) of vaccine entailed risk. Third, it will highlight and document six key indicators underway now which confirm the risk around which parents and other scientifically literate observers are sounding alarm. An update of my Poisson arrival distribution estimate of both subclinical and detected decrements in cerebral function impact upon this generation of kids is also tendered herein.
The ‘vaccines proven safe’ pretend science house of cards narrative is collapsing, and its pathologizing apparatchiks are in a furious state of panic. Vaccines do work, however, this socio-epidemiological issue is not turning out to be nearly as transparent and virtue-signal opportune as our simpleton ‘science enthusiasts’ had fantasized.
The industry’s own foisted ‘best evidence’,1 upon diligent inspection, is proving alarmingly shallow in comparison to the wave of new alert-raising deductive and direct studies which arrive now monthly. A paradigm momentum shift which supports our call to undertake ethical intervening action on this issue. Not to eliminate vaccines, but to understand that this decision set bears a concatenating risk of unintended consequence. To force us all to stick our proverbial heads in the sand over vaccine risk constitutes not simply wilful blindness; but because of the entailed monumental impact, rather, court defined malice and oppression.
The Concealed Profits: Blended Cost Fraud
Projections for next year revenues globally derived from the sales of vaccines are on the order of $60 billion US dollars. This reflects a current revenue growth rate of 11% (historically 10 to 15%).2 While these sales represent a mere 4.5% of the overall global $1.35 trillion in market revenue for all pharmaceuticals, if we consider that there are only a subset of companies which manufacture vaccines out of the thousands which compose the pharmaceutical market, this represents a much higher portion of those companies’ revenue bases – becoming critical elements inside their glowing financial performance reports. So much so, that according to the Wall Street Journal, industry leader Merck relies upon vaccine profits as the key beacon inside their annual report.3 However, for the most part the direct profitability of vaccines is hidden through sleight-of-hand expense manipulation on the part of pundits seeking to obstruct and cloud their accountability to the at-risk stakeholder public.
The core principle resides in this – heavy investment/depreciation/research development is conducted inside stand alone, clinical-stage, heavy on one-time-expense startups – who are then bought by the largest 16 vaccine producers once their vaccine has begun its profitability stride. Thereafter, these profits can be tucked inside the blended-expense financials of a much larger corporation. This latter key deception renders the profit level from vaccines hidden from the lay public, and hinges upon this: one cannot distinguish the direct expenses which relate solely to vaccine channel activity, as distinct from the overall business expense base – thereby distributing the actual profitability of vaccines as a product group to appear to be an aspect of the entire business.
If we examine just vaccines as a business segment, this principle can be expressed in the converse. As a business person it is wrong and/or illegal to take costs from less profitable businesses, and load them onto more profitable businesses in order to reduce the profit/taxes reported by the more profitable business. This sleight-of-hand method is exemplified no better than in the pro forma shenanigans framed by authors Stanley Plotkin MD, Walter Orenstein MD and Paul Offit MD, in their book Vaccines: Expert Consult.4 The three authors are not experts on business strategy and finance. They bear not the first inkling of what a technology or treatment Risk Strategy is, nor how to go about conducting one (see item 8. in the Eslick response below).5 This critical ignorance is elicited inside their publication, wherein they employ a surreptitious method of blended-ratio profit and loss calculation (see left hand side of P&L table below), even framing it post tax (a professional error), and failing to use industry standard profit and loss practices, in order to downplay the total profit wound up inside vaccine sales (estimating it erroneously to be around 10% of revenue). Take note that both the expense to sales indices and pro forma which Plotkin, et al. employed on the left in the table below, were Merck Group’s in structure and blended/averaged/distributed cost percentages for their whole business (see Merck Group Consolidated Income Statement for 2017).6 These expense ratios are not representative of their expense structures relating to vaccines at all. This is fast-with-numbers deception on the part of Plotkin, et al. in their book’s misrepresentation of the industry (to be clear: not on the part of any particular tax filing, individual, corporation nor Merck Group). How can a doctor, who has been compensated to the tune of multiple millions of dollars in direct and indirect compensation by all of the Big Four vaccine manufacturers, who cannot even manage his own household income and expenses, nor has ever actually run a business P&L, then pretend to ‘expert consult’ the public on the finances of his very funders?7 It is a fair question.
If similar techniques, allocating costs from ‘cost heavy’ business channels and into ‘cost light’ channels, in order to make the latter group’s profit numbers appear to be less, were to be committed by a business in their tax/earnings reporting, this would be known by another industry and legal name: Fraud.
In the (full industry) Profit & Loss comparatives to the right you can examine a contrast between this bullshit method of profit formulation and the real contribution margin method of cost accounting for vaccines. We also employ here the correct market revenue of $60 billion USD, and not ‘$24 billion’. To be gracious, we shall call the bullshit method, the ‘Blended Cost Method’. I have caught several clients over the decades employing blended cost methodologies to hide embezzlement, mafia payoffs, shipping and ordering mistakes, non-performing managers, weak divisions, or conceal malfeasance from investors or corporate officers and vulnerable companies from hostile acquisition. Vaccine expenses should not be accounted for in this manner. If you and I went out to dinner, and I had Filet Mignon, escargot, cheese cake, caviar and a bottle of fine French wine, while you only had a single Pellegrino water – yet I insisted that we split the check 50/50, you would be pretty damn pissed at the incumbent dishonesty. This practice of blended expense index averaging is no different than that style of dinner check bamboozle.
When fully leveraged, non-slack, direct costs are applied to a contribution profit and loss pro forma and against just the associated vaccine revenue of a non clinical-stage vaccine in its sales maturation curve (the way it is professionally done by real business strategists and those who set direct work content and indirect cost standards inside pharmaceutical manufacturing operations), profit under such vaccine business activity is actually on the order of 80 to 85% EBITDA and 70 to 75% net profit. In other words, vaccines are nigh to six times more profitable than other drugs on average – when accounting is professionally done, benchmark to benchmark.
Why are vaccines so profitable in comparison to the erstwhile 14% which pharma companies make on their other products?8 Because vaccines are quasi-mandatory, are skyrocketing in price (not cost),9 enjoy luxurious economies of scale, they require no marketing and very lean/leveraged/subsidized logistics, place little demand upon corporate sales general administrative and overhead, and further do not have to pass the same rigor/delay in 3-phase clinical trials which other drugs must suffer.10 Most lot monitoring and factory inspection/certification is borne by the FDA itself.11 Expenses to influence legislation and pay off representatives, squelch countering voices through fake skeptics, media and universities, pay rebates and chargebacks to pharmacy benefit managers etc. do not count as ‘Sales and Marketing’ expenses inside GAAP accounting ethics (as these are simply distributions of profits – and not qualified expenses). Counting this as OSG&A allows vaccine companies to lower their effective tax on earnings to around 10% by ‘expensing’ what otherwise would ethically be considered earnings.12 13 Finally, vaccines do not bear the 4% litigation exposure allocation which do most other drugs (hidden inside the figures used on the left of this chart), and what penalties are paid out in legal compensation, are borne directly by a surcharge on those being injured in the first place.14
What a deal! I would love to operate a business enjoying all the above competitive advantages. Were I a fake human, I would live like a rock star – having millions in my personal accounts. I would be a fake skeptic to the nth degree, in order to protect such a gravy train. But most of all – I would hide this cash cow at all costs. I would enlist unpaid apparatchiks to help me obfuscate the issue socially. I would enlist the aid of the media and ensure that any government administration of my domain, represented me and not the people who they are there to serve and protect.
So the value of vaccine margin contribution is of enormous importance to the participating pharmaceutical industry. It not only constitutes 1/3rd of a typical manufacturer’s total retained earnings each reporting quarter, but more importantly, since its segment growth rate is almost twice that of all other activity – vaccines hold down the lion’s share of price/earnings growth (Δ P to E) performance sensitivity, ergo – they have the largest impact upon the company’s stock price.
See Why Novavax is Up 60% in 2018 by The Motley Fool15
The ‘I Told You So’
The summary above reflects precisely why the Wall Street Journal reported vaccines’ impact on the stock price for Merck in the way that it did.16 Investor ears perk up when they hear about new vaccine rollouts and clinical stage startups – as they know that they are vastly more profitable than are classic maturation pathway drugs. This savvy ilk of investor tends to cut through the blended cost bullshit (they get this trick too) and invest directly in, and only in, vaccines. Were the Plotkin/Orenstein/Offit method actual reality, vaccines would never impact stock price at all – never garner such attention. The real world actuality is that vaccine development bears enormous significance in impact upon both retained earnings and growth of P/E ratios of a company. If one considers vaccines to further act as loss leaders (albeit profitable loss leaders) – a mandatory sale which forces a customer into a store (or in front of a doctor in this context), the actual opportunity contribution revenue derived from mandatory vaccines is possibly twenty times this global revenue level.
One may observe the proof in the pudding, by examining the Moderna, Inc. (MRNA) stock price chart above and to the right. This covers the period of development and deployment of a questionably effective and emergency-use-authorization (risky) Covid-19 vaccine. Investors began to be willing to undertake the risk of such a venture as early as first quarter 2020. This (along with all the other similar Covid vaccine manufacturer stock price charts) is the clinching evidence that Plotkin, Orenstein, Offit used their office to mislead, and had no idea whatsoever about how vaccine earnings work inside large pharmaceutical corporations and equity markets. Theirs was a case of ingens vanitatum – demonstrating a great deal of irrelevant knowledge.
The conflict-of-interest incentive to create new vaccines therefore is unethically and unsustainably high.
This is why you see people like Paul Offit and Skeptical Raptor clamoring to develop new vaccines and legislate them as compulsory, despite there being ‘little profit’. They masquerade their monetization schemes as an errands of mandatory mercy. A virtue play which Americans in particular have become smart in spotting.
This all serves to demonstrate why vaccines are the pinnacle of profit for the participating pharmaceutical companies, belying the mere deception imparted by their blended profit margins. Their financial contribution leverages the ‘Return on Research’ performance mark, an industry benchmark for evaluating pharmaceutical corporation financial performance,17 into much higher and more attractive levels as compared to other drug manufacturers – thereby making the vaccine pharmaceutical company a much more lucrative investment compared to the run of the mill competition who must labor under normal business pressures and costs.
Ignore fake expert voices such as Skeptical Raptor (“The Myth of Big Pharma Vaccine Profits”) or Paul Offit on this. The vast majority of these clowns have never run a scientific lab, never made a scientific discovery, never run a business and have never developed a contribution cost decision analysis nor any form of business or market strategy. They are poseurs – with self-identified ‘skepticism’ or ‘subject matter expert’ as their main qualification. They dumb-down principles of finance and business to fit their agency – and hope that you don’t possess the expertise to counter their shallow inexpert pablum.18 They base their pre-emptive agency upon torfuscation, 1% significant inductive, abductive and panductive inference,19 and shallow inexpert academic study – not plenary science. ‘Vaccines don’t cause autism’ may be the null argument, however it is not an actual scientific hypothesis and cannot be adopted as true by default.20 As the null, such as statement is not even provable (and is subject to precaution) – never get your science from a social-bullying dolt who insists the risk-bearing null argument is automatically true, no matter what letters they advertise behind their name. They attempt to negate your moral and ethical right to at-risk-stakeholder’s voice through sophomoric and ironic accusations of ‘Dunning-Kruger’. A failure to understand that stakeholders have a duty and right to intervene, even in science, when they observe risks, abrogations of ethics, and perceptions of impact which are being ignored by professionals. This is not tantamount to pretending to be one of those professionals, as such accusation constitutes a dilettante straw man/red herring argument which does nothing but serve to destroy the credibility of the person offering it. I sense that Raptor, Offit and Novella invest this same level of cursory and lazy incompetence in the other ‘skeptic’ topics inside which they serve as agency (see Ten Reasons Why People No Longer Find Skeptics Credible). A key hint here which you will find consistent with all fake skeptics – laziness becomes the key method of inference.
Vaccine caution voices hold all the necessary elements of hypothesis (i.e. science):
Necessity, Hundreds of Supporting Studies, Conservancy of Risk, Wittgenstein Definition, Parsimony, Address and
Inform Duty Compliance, Supporting Intelligence and Physical/Physiological Mechanism.21
Those who see vaccines as a panacea and profit center hold a couple shallow inductive
utile absentia academic studies (10 specific weak inductive studies by their own meta-study)
– illegitimate money and media control. All this, incompetent and malevolent pseudoscience.22
This sixfold higher contribution margin potential, coupled with an assumption of safety based upon little research, is why our vaccine schedule has grown from a 7 event one in 1983, to a current 53 event schedule in 2019.23 It is why investors clamor to throw dollars at vaccine clinical stage startups.24 All of this to support an industry sub-vertical which operates sans any testing or safety research, or any form of followup study (ignoro eventum) – all of which are the ethical standards inside every other branch of consumer medicine.
How Professionals Cultivate Ignorance Over the Incumbent Risks and Cost
But there is a cost which private citizens are inheriting inside this play, and quietly bearing – part of the unacknowledged value chain of vaccines. The cost is elicited no better than in the closing statement by the author of the Taylor-Swerdfeger-Eslick ‘Vaccines are not associated with…’ ‘meta-analysis’ (sic) referenced above, which narrowed the field of inductive ‘proof’ (there is no such thing, especially in proving an absence) down to ten inductive cohort and case control ‘best evidence’ studies. We shall deal with those ten pieces of scientific garbage in another blog article. But for now, Dr. Eslick:
As an epidemiologist I believe the data that is presented in this meta-analysis. However, as a parent of three children I have some understanding of the fears associated with reactions and effects of vaccines. My first two children have had febrile seizures after routine vaccinations, one of them a serious event. These events did not stop me from vaccinating my third child, however, I did take some proactive measures to reduce the risk of similar adverse effects. I vaccinated my child in the morning so that we were aware if any early adverse reaction during the day and I also gave my child a dose of paracetamol 30 min before the vaccination was given to reduce any fever that might develop after the injection. As a parent I know my children better than anyone and I equate their seizures to the effects of the vaccination by increasing their body temperature. For parents who do notice a significant change in their child’s cognitive function and behaviour after a vaccination I encourage you to report these events immediately to your family physician and to the ‘Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System’.25
~ Dr. Guy D. Eslick, Professor of Cancer Epidemiology and Medical Statistics at The University of Sydney, Australia
Indeed Dr. Eslick, my son too had an adverse reaction event in the hours after the DTaP vaccination. Thereafter the ‘event’ involved six excruciating weeks of nightly fever and pain. We were told that vaccines were safe and that this is just a typical effect that will go away. My son never again looked us in the eye after almost that very hour of the ‘typical adverse event’. As parents, we were not trained to recognize this as a symptom of cerebral trauma – and neither was our physician in reality. Neither was he even asked to watch for its occurrence. My son’s function changed from one of bright eyed, expressive and engaging – to what we recognize now was encephalitic, brain injury, shut off from us all – in a matter of hours. Now at age 17 he still cannot tie his shoes, count change, nor tell time.
Our first documentation of a persistent functional-skills problem came in K-4 kindergarten. The diagnosis inside a medical plan did not arrive until age 7. Too late to apply for NVICP remedy, too late to be included your ‘best evidence’ Madsen-Hviid styled ‘study’ – a study design which sampled an average medical plan age of 4.5 years, essentially claiming that my son’s type of injury does not even exist.26 My son’s case was one of severe impact. How was this study supposed to detect cases of even milder impact? And how many cases of milder impact are there? The simple fact is Dr. Eslick, you and your team of authorities do not know these answers, and you have designed your studies to avoid these questions. This is what serves to establish them as academic pseudoscience.
One is asked by the experts to believe without any evidence whatsoever,
that the distribution function of such injury is discrete: either death/profound brain injury or perfectly fine – nothing in between.
This is probably the single most obtuse and harm-imparting absurdity ever inferred, in mankind’s short history.
No, the reality persists that parents are having a hard time attaching the neurological/autoimmune/endocrine malady to its cause – precisely because of their separation in time, a lack of doctor education/vigilance, our collective inability to measure such impacts and the current political ill will surrounding the issue. Not the converse that vaccine and malady are ‘coincidentally juxtaposed in child’s age’ as you and your cabal have pushed without evidence. More cases are obfuscated than are manufactured, by a long shot. You are simply exploiting the convenience that most of the public cannot grasp the trick of disproof-statistics you have pulled. I, and millions of other parents including scientists, engineers, lawyers, doctors and other highly educated professionals, contend that
1. You carry a fantasy in your institutionally-cocooned mind that vaccine caution voices all live in rural American trailer parks and get our information off anti-science websites. The reality is that you get your information from pre-cooked propaganda, not actual science nor scientific method. You boasted with the word evidence, as this evidence was about 1% inductive into the subject domain at best. The parents challenging you are by and large, those with direct experience (vaccine injured kids); they are brilliant and fully grasp the processes/standards of science. You are the one who needs a change in understanding, not them.
These parents want me to show them long-term [vaccine] safety studies, which I am unable to find. Some demand true double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled (using saline controls, not adjuvants) trails proving efficacy, which simply do not exist, even though we keep telling everyone that this is the gold standard in medicine. But my patients don’t accept [unproven safety and efficacy] anymore, not without seeing some proof.
So when I receive all of these communications from different state health organizations telling me how I am supposed to combat the growing threat of vaccine deniers, I feel like a straw man because these communications never present actual evidence to respond to the questions of these parents.
They are just talking points, empty claims and official pronouncements.
~Dr. Ray Andrew, MD, Moab Family Health
2. To someone who understands and has done real science, your meta-analysis was not a meta-analysis in the least; but rather an Interpretive/Abstract ‘Meta-Synthesis’.27 You could not combine statistical power between these studies – as they were all apples-to-oranges in both quantitative and qualitative attribute (a requirement of a meta-analysis). You conducted no Cochrane assessment screening – which would have served to disqualify every study in the mix of ‘best ten’.28 Who are you trying to kid? Calling an interpretive abstract survey a ‘meta-analysis’ is a well known trick of science fraud. I am surprised and disappointed that you employed this inside such an important issue to so many people.
Nor was it even that good as an interpretive summary article – as its hypothesis was not supported by the sufficiency nor type of inference employed. ‘Believing the data’ means nothing, as it is the study design, accidental exclusions and inclusions and how you treat them, the way in which the study draws its inference, confidence and method of attachment to hypothesis, along with the parsimonious incremental risk nature of the hypothesis, which are important in science. All features of real science which this study failed miserably. The fact that you did not get this, is illuminating. Cancer epidemiology is not a sound underpinning for understanding systemic epidemiology (see Systemic Failure chart above and to the right). One is discrete, the other is continuous – totally different objective/analytical bases.
3. You do not know that your kids were not harmed, because you have no direct-measure nor reference usable in telling so. This style of injury will only show up in backward-looking longitudinal aggregate case and control comparatives (hints below). You should have already known this as an epidemiologist. It was, and is, your responsibility now (ignoro eventum). ‘My child had a severe reaction and is fine.’ is called an anecdote. ‘My child had a severe reaction and was harmed for life.’ is called ‘Ockham’s Razor necessity’ under hypothesis reduction theory, and is not equivalent to anecdote. This is usually taught in undergraduate Biomedical Informatics 233: Intermediate Biostatistics: Analysis of Discrete Data, Study Design and Epidemiology, just in case you missed that class. Study up on the topic sometime, it might be useful in your career. Our neurological special needs kids are filling entire leagues in softball and basketball now, and not simply a team in our American towns. The parents attending these events, when I speak with them, they all know something is up. But they are rendered powerless by your group of ‘experts’.
“20% of emergency room visits for children under 5 are due to an adverse reaction to a vaccine.”29
absens sciens absens iniuria – literally, no knowledge – no harm. A procedural fallacy or error in principle similar to ‘what they don’t know, won’t hurt ’em’. An erroneous principle which cites that a person cannot be harmed if they do not know that they were harmed. Alternatively, if a group of people is unaware that a harm has been done, then no one in that group has been harmed. A form of pluralistic ignorance exploitation.
The explosive growth of our town’s special needs kids softball league, is simply a matter of better recruiting.
4. You possess no awareness (being an Australian not American citizen) that the VAERS/NVICP system is a joke and serves/does absolutely nothing, except make people like you feel good, or provide a buzzword to allow you to pose (to the dilettante) as if you know something of merit about this issue. They may fall for it, but a parent who has been through this knows it better than do you.
5. You are not aware that the vast majority of even severe vaccine injuries get no compensation by this banana republic award court (NVICS) fantasy you carry in your mind to assuage your conscience over the vaccine injuries you do know about. Despite my son’s permanent disability, we were not able to get it diagnosed and understood until a full 4 years after the court filing window closed. We were told that it would pass; as our doctors were not trained on recognizing vaccine injury to begin with.
6. Despite this ethically being your job, you have not examined scientifically the measures for 1995-and-later, novel and subclinical and moderate encephalitis, as exemplified by A’ and B’ in the Poisson Arrival chart in section 6. below. You are not truly engaged in your profession, nor fully versed in the claims you publish as ‘science’. Fortunately two researchers have developed injury estimates in your absence (as annotated on Poisson arrival distribution graphic below).30 I have to do this analysis as my third job – after my first two jobs, to pay for the $2.6 million needed to care for a disabled child. People like me have to do the real work, while you and your peers sit on your snide and pretensive asses; doing very little except work to increase your personal acclaim and fortune.
7. Brain inflammation markers need to be measured for each vaccinated child at 4 months (pre-vax) and 3 years of age (post-vax), and be regularly tracked through longitudinal time-series study – just the type of (conclusive) deductive research that the NCVIA of 1986 (42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to 300aa-34) legislation had specified be done, but was never implemented. Yes, the matter is that important – and this serious definitive and probative study would comprise conclusive deductive methodology without endangering lives through cohort-risk direct observation. In absence of such ethical diligence you are guessing (lying to the public) about your knowledge of this topic. And finally,
8. I want to see the Risk Strategy which needed to be ethically completed for this extensive a Risk Horizon in medical intervention impacting so many people in such a monumental way – conducted on behalf of your clients, the at-risk stakeholders. This is what professional technology strategists, such as myself, do when ethically making decisions which pertain to deployment of a risk-bearing technology or treatment. In fact, I have begun to catalog the ‘thousand studies’ and ‘best evidence’ which your industry has foisted upon a propaganda-vulnerable and injured-but-not-aware-of-it public. A process which will show the shallow, paltry and linear induction effort placed thus far in to assessing vaccine safety. That Risk Strategy will be published at a later date.
If Big-Parma has conducted all the scientific diligence necessary in the rollout of this risk-bearing medical intervention,
then show me the Risk Strategy they employed and should have posted & available for at-risk stakeholder review.
Third party systematic reviews conducted after the rollout of the technology or treatment, do not constitute sufficient ethics nor science.
Yes, this is the unethical system you and your cohorts support – but you, and the obtuse apparatchiks who spout the mandatory rhetoric are too lazy to look at this. What you are supporting Dr. Eslick is called an Omega Hypothesis. It is pseudoscience – and in this case, highly harm-imparting pseudoscience, and not just a blurry photo of Bigfoot. You have compromised the integrity of science, knowing that you would never in your at-risk career dare publish a result which ran counter to the prevailing dogma.
Omega Hypothesis (HΩ) – the argument which is foisted to end all argument, period. A conclusion promoted under such an insistent guise of virtue or importance, that protecting it has become imperative over even the integrity of science itself. An invalid null hypothesis or a preferred idea inside a social epistemology. A hypothesis which is defined to end deliberation without due scientific rigor, alternative study consensus or is afforded unmerited protection or assignment as the null. The surreptitiously held and promoted idea or the hypothesis protected by an Inverse Negation Fallacy. Often one which is promoted as true by default, with the knowledge in mind that falsification will be very hard or next to impossible to achieve.
Harm is happening, and we have no way of immediate measuring nor tracking it. Social resistance is enormous towards conducting any study of mechanism which will threaten it. Harm is a continuous, partly occulted function; not a discrete one as Dr. Eslick would have you (and himself) believe. Below we examine part of the robust intelligence base held by vaccine caution voices, which outlines the social manifesting of this harm function.
It is not the studies by vaccine caution scientists which have swayed me the most.
Rather it is the very studies which vaccine proliferation voices throw at me, which have convinced me of the need to raise alarm.
The Six Horsemen of the Vaccine Injury Generation
Yes, the smallpox and polio vaccines were critical. Yes vaccines can eradicate certain types of disease. But there is a cost – on the order of $185 billion to US households alone, and only if you count the burden borne by the families of the 5% most severely impacted by early and frequent immune activation (see Newborn immune activation may have long-term negative impact on brain function).31 32 Those who enforce vaccine policy, and knowingly and willfully ignore this cost are just as guilty as if they had caused the maladies themselves. Six defined and undeniable trends are already underway, most well represented inside the Vaccinial Generation of kids – those born after 1994. Six related, statistically verifiable and risk-indicating trends which are ignored by the holier-than-thou defenders of pharmaceutical corporate profits. Yes, while a 7 event vaccine schedule can be argued to be a necessary decision of mercy – a 54 event one cannot. It is fueled simply by profit (as we saw above).
The real cost of this profit, the six gross indicators of childhood injury are as follows:
note: these are not ‘correlations’, rather fingerprint signals, a much higher consilience in inference than simple correlation. Understanding the difference is critical inside any claim to be scientifically literate.
1. Fingerprint Signal Rise in Autoimmune Disorders
Rheumatic, endocrinological, gastrointestinal and neurological autoimmune diseases exhibit the following global annual percentage increases per year: 7.1, 6.3, 6.2, and 3.7, respectively. While these rates of increase are rather pronounced, the rates of increase in such maladies in the West, and in particular with respect to kids in the United States, are alarmingly higher than even the global average.33 These increases parallel the surge in cancer incidence – something which is not subject to change in diagnostic protocols. This is strong inference that something which is more prevalent in practice in the US, is causing damage to our kids.
Vaccines are linked scientifically, and by legal precedent to a whole host of autoimmune disorders.34 The tip of this ice berg is only just now being studied. It has already been established that mother’s with autoimmunity disorders have a higher incidence of children on the autism disorders spectrum.35 This is the first of the six horsemen to watch for. The rapid and sudden rise in the rates of autoimmune diseases in our kids, since 1994.
2. Fingerprint Signal Rise in Developmental Delays
A Centers for Disease Control study of children ages 3 – 17 in the United States indicated a 17% annual increase in the incidence of developmental delays in our kids.36 If you examine the details of the study, the trends run counter to the idea that changes in diagnostic protocols are to blame. The increases are focusing on groups by income class and genetics and gender – not DSM IV protocol rollout patterns. The idea that these increases are attributable to changes in diagnostic protocols is an Einfach mechanism. It just sounds good to a layman. It is pseudo-theory, not even a hypothesis in scientific merit. Simply enforced as an answer on the part of those bearing agency. It is one thing to be credulous and investigate something which is possible, and another level of malice altogether to doggedly deny a calamitous risk, based upon no research and no evidence. The two cases of ignorance are not morally comparative. The latter not constituting skepticism nor science at all.
Physical (PT) and occupational (OT) therapy prescriptions have risen dramatically over the last decade and a half in particular.37 The rise in the employment of PT and OT, particularly in boys in the US, contrasts with the rates of the same presciptives in countries which vaccinate less than do we. This is the second horseman of this apocalypse in national security.
Vaccination before 1 year of age was associated with increased odds of developmental delays (OR = 2.18, 95% CI 1.47–3.24), asthma (OR = 4.49, 95% CI 2.04–9.88), ear infections (OR = 2.13, 95% CI 1.63–2.78) and gastrointestinal disorders in a recent Simpson University study. Moreover, a greater number of vaccine doses administered during the first year of life, was associated with an even greater incidence of each of these malady groupings.38
3. Rise in Incidence of Dyskinetics/Ataxia
While rates of dyskentics attributable to cerebral palsy types of injury curiously doubled from the 1970’s to the 1990’s,39 the rates of non-physical birth trauma/hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy dyskinetics/ataxia overall have risen, especially in the United States. Associated physical changes, such as is the case with scoliosis, have seen a dramatic increase in the last two decades inside the United States.40
My recent (anecdote) sample at a public basketball game, resulted in an estimated 26% of the boys participating in the league, exhibiting some variation of dyskinetic/ataxia malady above and beyond normal youthful clumsiness.41 Habitually contracted extremities and unconscious repetitive motions, as well as the associated physical malformations are all on the rise. Research into this malady category is growing at a fast pace, yet remains in its infancy.
“The most common causes of acute ataxia in children are excessive drug ingestion, drug intoxications and post-infectious cerebellitis” ~Pavone, et. al. Ataxia in children: early recognition and clinical evaluation”42
These symptoms (mild forms thereof) are indicative of cerebral injury/encephalopathy of an origin which is not birth physical trauma nor hypoxia in nature. The injury is stemming from something recent and pronounced in change. Something introduced around 1995. This is the third horseman.
4. Coincident Falling Trend in Both Standardized Testing and IQ Scores Beginning in 1986
SAT scores are falling, and began this current accelerated downward trend in 2002.43
Over the past decade, math and reading scores for fourth- and eighth-graders in the United States dropped since 2017, and the decrease in reading achievement has government researchers particularly concerned. “There has been no progress in either mathematics or reading performance, and the lowest performing students are doing worse.” Most notable were the score drops in reading, which occurred in 17 states with regard to fourth grade reading scores and in 31 states for eighth grade reading scores. On average, reading scores declined for fourth graders by 1 point and for eighth graders by 3 points compared to 2017. “A 3-point decline for the country is substantial in as much as 31 states are driving it, large states, small states – and it’s a very meaningful decline,”
~ Peggy Carr, associate commissioner of the National Center for Education Statistics44
IQ scores are falling, and began this current downward trend in 1986 after decades of increases.45
The fall in IQ scores in the West is perhaps the most under-reported story of our era. For most of the twentieth century, IQ rose by around three points per decade globally, probably because of better nutrition. [This is called The Flynn Effect]. But that trend has recently gone into reverse in developed countries. [The Flynn Effect has reversed dramatically, starting in 1986, the year Reagan signed the The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA – 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to 300aa-34)]
You hadn’t heard? I’m not surprised. Journalists and politicians won’t go near the subject and you can see why.
But a new study from Norway, which examines IQ scores from 730,000 men (standardized tests are part of military service there) disproves all these ideas, because it shows IQ dropping within the same families. Men born in 1991 score, on average, five points lower than men born in 1975. There must, in other words, be an environmental explanation [- recent in scope and pronounced in magnitude].
~ Dan Hannan, Washington Examiner: Opinion 22 Oct 201846
This is the fourth horseman, and is very stark and well documented.47
5. Shrinking/Asymmetric Cranial Deformations
Countering a 150 year trend in head size growth,48 a United Kingdom study in 2015 confirmed the trend wherein the average head circumference of children in the UK was on the decline.49 While the study cites that data regarding neuro-cognitive delays and head circumference is scarce, it does indicate concern that declines persist independent of any known associated microcephaly cause.
Infants with developmental deficits demonstrate delayed acceleration of head circumference velocity, compared with typical infants in the first 2 months. Infants with motor delay manifest decreased velocity, compared with infants presenting other developmental deficits.
~ Tal, Cohen, et al.; Decreased head circumference velocity as related to developmental deficit in infancy; Pediatric Neurology50
More data on this is needed, but eventually merchandising systems for retailers who sell hats should begin to show a decline in average youth head circumference since 1995. Watch for this horseman to continue to develop over the next two decades.
6. Rise in Youth Anxiety Depression and Suicide
The odds of adolescents suffering from clinical depression grew by 37 percent between 2005 and 2014, according to a study by Ramin Mojtabai, a professor at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.51
The suicide rate for white children and teens between 10 and 17 was up 70% between 2006 and 2016, based upon the latest data analysis available from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.52. For the second decade in a row, the number of children and teenagers taken to the emergency room for suicide attempts or behavior has almost doubled, and the median age is just 13 years of age. Suicide rates among young people are rising, reaching the highest levels since 2000, a June 2019 JAMA published study found.53. But most alarming, the researchers said, was a 21 percent rise in boys aged 15-19 dying by suicide in 2017 from the year before.
This is not anecdote, rather scientific conslience, that both autism and neurological pathology induced suicide are just ‘coincidentally’ hitting United States boys hard as a demographic and are both rising fast in every heavily vaccinated population. To wave this off is criminal in its level of ignorance.
“The numbers [child and teenage suicide] are very alarming. We are seeing an acceleration of this issue, and I worry that we have not yet seen the peak.” ~ Brett Burstein, pediatric emergency room physician from McGill University.54
In a 2014 report in The Lancet Neurology, neurologists Philippe Grandjean and Philip Landrigan cite that a “silent pandemic of neurodevelopmental toxicity” is disabling children around the world and contributing to the meteoric rise of ADHD, ASD, and other behavioral disorders.55 From that study is drawn the following quote:
Disorders of neurobehavioural development affect 10–15% of all births and prevalence rates of autism spectrum disorder and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder seem to be increasing worldwide. Subclinical decrements in brain function are even more common than these neurobehavioural developmental disorders.
In addition, a study by Kraft and Aschner, et. al. identifies the concept of ‘silent neurotoxicity’; in as “high as 29% of the kids surveyed”, a malady defined as one which only exposes itself clinically in our kids, well after their childhood years (A’ and B’ below).56 Finally, if the following results from a study by Mostafa GA, et al. in the European Journal of Paediatric Neurology do not concern you, then you are scientifically brain dead.57
Autistic children had significantly higher percent positivity of serum antineuronal antibodies (62.5%) than healthy controls (5%), P<0.001. The frequency of the positivity of serum antineuronal antibodies was significantly higher in children with severe autism (87.5%) than children with mild to moderate autism (25%), P<0.001. Similarly, the frequency of the positivity of these antibodies was significantly higher in female children with autism (90%) than male autistic children (53.3%), P=0.001.
Accordingly, I have updated my Poisson Arrival Distribution chart below. In my best sample estimates working with kids as a highly trained observer, the kids impacted by these subclinical and more severe decrements in brain function comprise as much as 26% – 30% of all births. This is why this issue is a matter of national security:
This is the final horseman and really, the final straw for parents. The only missing element was that – they need to be informed as to what is happening, in order to be able to spot it – and take legislative action. We are tired of being lazily called ‘anti-vaxx’ by people who neither understand any of the above, nor care to know the actual answers. They had them figured out from day one.
If this continues to replicate, our best and our brightest minds will be encephalitic-compromised, and our nation will stand on the precipice of collapse – from chronic injury to our most valuable resource. This could not have happened faster if it had been planned this way. Many of the kids in my neighborhood have suffered chronic and unreasonable levels of autoimmune, endocrine and neurological disorders.
None of this results from a change in diagnostic methods. Examine the evidence, as it speaks clearly on this.
And one final suggestion. Keep count of the number of times the word ‘anecdote’ pops into your head per hoc incidents just like this over the coming decade. If your seared excuse for a conscience lets it get past 10,000 – just maybe someday, the irony of this play may compel you to call it ‘data’. But be sure, if you stand intransigently in the doorway on this and ignore CDC officers becoming 8-digit multimillionaires commensurate with the decline in the wellbeing of our youth – and don’t give a darn – you are going to be trampled by angry and powerful, and yes, very scientifically literate and brilliant parents. Mark my words.
Well, the day of the pretend science enthusiast is coming to a close. Having your kid harmed serves to hone your skills at detecting pseudoscience fairly sharp. A new form of smart, energized and highly science-informed skeptic is arriving on the horizon. One much less tolerant of willful bullshit and incompetence. Parents who will be seeking prison time from the pseudo-scientists and fake skeptics who caused, sustained and obfuscated this enormous holocaust in young persons, not simply excoriation in the media.
Supplemental Annotation (May 2021): After this article was written a clear signal developed in falling birthrates/fertility in the United States. 2020 fertility rates continued this 13-year trend, with a 4% decline for 2020, as shown in the NVSS Vital Statistics Rapid Release, Report 12, May 2021.58 Below, one can see this trend in fertility versus the onset of liability-free vaccines which were delivered to both men and women of this age-range in fertility. The date of onset in this decline is remarkable in its timing, and were it the only indicator under consideration might even fall to a clever one-liner from the faithful. But given the above sets of data, such hand waving skepticism is not only unwise – but also may well constitute a lazy human rights offense. One owes their fellow man a great deal more than armchair and rhetorical science on this issue.
Remember, there are two mechanisms at play in this trend. Not simply deleterious impacts to reproductive and endocrine systems, but also negative contributions to cognitive function and lifestyles for this age group. Impacts which prove to be less conducive to traditional child-bearing activity. In other words trend-impacts in terms of both the biological and social facets of fertility.
To ignore this data above is not ignorance, rather it is a Court defined standard called Malice and Oppression.59 Skeptics love to speak about ‘The Four Horsemen’ – in their obsession over disproving their favorite hated religion. Yawn. Well here are six horsemen which should send one’s investigative instincts into overdrive. An apocalypse is forthcoming in the courts of America over this issue, and the malicious and oppressive forces who have enjoyed legal immunity thus far, are about to be shocked at what will transpire in the coming decade.
The Ethical Skeptic, “Six Vaccinial Generation Trends Fueled by Concealed Profits”; The Ethical Skeptic, WordPress, 26 Dec 2018; Web, https://wp.me/p17q0e-9bq