The Century of Evidence That Vaccines Cause Infant Deaths
A key theme I have tried to illustrate is the need to stand up for the forgotten victims of medicine (over the years I have formed a close connection with many of these victims). I believe it is imperative we all stand up for them because in almost all cases malicious agendas by those in power are first tested on vulnerable groups no one advocates for, then once the methods are sufficiently refined and implicitly condoned by the public, those same atrocities are committed on the general population.
For example, much of what has happened throughout COVID-19 parallels the early days of the AIDS epidemic. Fauci fought to kept a variety of effective treatments for AIDS off the market so that he could push through a deadly and ineffective (but highly lucrative) drug to treat HIV, AZT (which oddly enough has much in common with Fauci’s recent pet project Remdesvir and the other COVID-19 medications). Once AZT entered the market, rather than end the epidemic, it significantly worsened the trajectory of AIDS (this book and this book provide the untold history of what happened, a that history allowed me, in late 2019, to predict the identical course that COVID-19 followed).
Because the gay community was still heavily marginalized in the late 1980s, despite being extremely outspoken and often accusing Fauci of being a mass murderer, their plight was ignored and Fauci instead became the most powerful scientist in America. Since then, his influence has grown and he has transformed the NIH (and related agencies) into pharmaceutical pipelines that prioritize profits over human lives.
Imagine how different our world would be now if we had taken the concerns of these protesters seriously. Unfortunately, the prevailing attitude within America is to never focus on issues that do not directly affect our lives (e.g. the human cost of our wars in the Middle East). Thus, there is often no one left to speak out for everyday Americans when the same abuses they passively condone elsewhere finally arrive on their own doorsteps (this is also the subject of a well known poem about Nazi Germany).
Thanks for reading The Forgotten Side of Medicine! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
Being successful in business is often a question of finding a way to break a rule that should not be broken, capitalize upon the economic benefit from doing so, and finally, leverage this newfound wealth to ensure that the rule can continue to be broken. For example, you are not supposed to bribe public officials, but if you find a way to (such as through "lobbying"), it creates a massive advantage over smaller competitors who still follow the rules and as recent years have shown, the paid off officials will eventually legalize each novel form of bribery.
Historically, the best example of this predatory capitalism is told within The Robber Barons. It tells the story of a group of conniving scoundrels, such as John D. Rockefeller, who broke every rule imaginable in the post Civil War era and monopolized America’s fledging industrial system to become some of the richest individuals in history. This story is still very much relevant because those economic predators defined our national character and in the centuries since their rise to power, have applied similar tactics to dominate almost every facet of American life (my own focus relates to how they transformed medicine).
Contemporarily, one of the best examples of this principle lies within the COVID-19 response where countless critical rules were flagrantly violated by pandemic profiteers. Deadly hospital protocols with no evidence supporting them were mandated throughout America, untested experimental vaccines with highly concerning safety data were rushed to the market, the manufacturers of these deadly products obtained complete immunity from any harms they caused, and the general populace lost their fundamental human rights through forced lockdowns and mandatory vaccinations. Much of this was illegal, but because an "emergency" situation was created, the wiggle room existed to bypass every existing legal protection for the public. Pfizer bent every rule it could, and by doing so gained immense power and made a lot of money.
In the pharmaceutical industry, two recurring issues always emerge:
•How to regularly test countless experimental drugs with high potential toxicities in order to identify the one that could become a commercial success.
•How to create guaranteed markets for unsafe pharmaceuticals of questionable benefit.
In most cases, bribery plays a key role in addressing these challenges. For example, I documented the Bush family's involvement with forcing SSRI antidepressants onto the market and the FDA’s subsequent decades of complicity with suppressing all evidence of the extreme harm from these drugs—the FDA ignored a tsunami of credible adverse reports, put gag orders on employees who tried to report them, authored fake studies defending SSRIs and even fought against congressional investigations. This saga I would argue provides an excellent case study for understanding many aspects of the FDA’s egregious conduct throughout COVID-19.
Once the regulatory hurdles have been cleared, these commercial needs are then often fulfilled through exploiting vulnerable groups who are either experimented upon or forced to become a captive market for various lucrative pharmaceuticals.
Unethical Human Experimentation
In the earlier days of American medicine, dangerous medical treatments were often forcibly tested on prisoners, colonized indigenous populations, the mentally handicapped, and orphans (some of the more well-known examples are summarized in this wikipedia article). Following the Nuremberg trials (where many Nazi doctors argued they should not be convicted as their ethical principles in human experimentation matched that conducted throughout the United States) and the Anti-Vivisection movement campaigning against unethical human experimentation, a changing political climate made it far more difficult to continue those experiments. The business-focused members of the medical field thus (reluctantly) switched to conducting future grotesque experiments in a less visible fashion.
This new approach included experiments on children in foster care that were no longer published within medical journals, outsourcing this research to the third world (where no one would raise questions), and regularly making use of the military’s command structure to force lower-ranking servicemen to participate in highly controversial “research” studies.
Almost every successful business is built upon creating a source of recurring revenue, and the entire pharmaceutical industry is structured to do this in as many ways as possible. For example, the industry continually funds corrupt guidelines that advocate for large segments of the population to consume countless non-beneficial and often harmful pharmaceuticals, then sells more drugs to treat the side effects of the original pharmaceutical they spread to every corner of America.
This process can best be observed in the elderly, upon whom countless drugs are prescribed, until eventually the combined toxicity of these medications causes enough degeneration to land the patient in an isolated nursing home or hospital. After this, even more (sometimes necessary) medical therapies are provided until a critical point is inevitably reached and the elder dies. Suffering a miserable and highly isolating conclusion to one’s life is typical within the modern profit driven medical system and futile medical spending in the final year of life accounts for approximately 25% of all spending by Medicare. In contrast, societies exist around the world with more traditional forms of medicine that do not prioritize profit and emphasize cultivating vitality. Within them, you will often observe elders who maintain their health and functionality to the very end of their lives.
I feel our approach to “managing” aging is particularly tragic because in the quest of extracting as many billable medical services as possible from the elderly (who often lack the ability to refuse receiving them), they are subjected to a variety of torturous medical interventions that directly disrupt the dying process (doctors typically will refuse these intervention themselves). One of my foundational beliefs (which is shared by many religious faiths) is that the death process represents one of, if not the most important, moments in our life and medicine’s interference with it has profound consequences for the human soul (for those interested in learning more, this is the best book I have found on the subject).
Amongst the most common recurring pharmaceutical products are the endless annual vaccinations, and those with knowledge of this business model suspected that once the COVID vaccines were shown to be highly ineffective, instead of being discarded, health officials would pivot to implementing an annual COVID immunization program. In fact, a key driver behind the mRNA vaccine technology was it having a shortened production cycle, enabling it to be deployed on short notice, whereas existing vaccines (e.g. influenza) need to be manufactured far in advance, which is why the flu shot almost always ends up being for the wrong strain.
Something that is less appreciated about each of these universal vaccine programs is that when individuals are given the choice to not receive a vaccine, many will opt out. For example between 80-90% of children are vaccinated (this figure includes influenza vaccinations), whereas last year only 50.2% of the adult population received a flu shot, and in many cases, those adults who vaccinate only do so because of work requirements.
The key demographics I know of who are forced to receive vaccinations in the United States are pets, children, those in foster care, the elderly, prisoners, servicemen, students, and health care workers. In most cases, the business model around vaccines places strong pressures on the vaccinators to vaccinate: veterinarians and pediatricians cannot financially support their practices without vaccinating most of their patients, corruption is rife throughout the military’s experimental vaccine programs, and Medicare through “quality” measures (a component of Obamacare), such as this one, financially penalize doctors who fail to vaccinate most of their elderly patients (many private insurances have similar incentives for vaccination).
There are many sad stories of the forced medication of these groups (e.g. I have many astounding stories from friends who were raised in foster care). For the elderly, over the years I have heard many stories of nursing homes where numerous residents suffered significant illness immediately following the annual vaccination of their facility, I have worked in the hospital with older patients who were admitted for a severe injury that onset immediately following an influenza or pneumococcal vaccination, and I have numerous friends whose parents suffered a rapid and subsequently fatal cognitive decline immediately following COVID-19 vaccination.
This is one (shortened) comment I received after the previous article (quoted with their permission). I have run across other similar cases, and in almost all instances, the vaccine is never considered as a potential cause:
My dad developed dementia when he was 80. He was the picture of health and had not been in a hospital since the day he was born in 1928. The youngest of 4 brothers, his 3 older brothers all lived into their 90s with full mental faculties. Dad's dementia downfall was swift and sobering to watch. His decline frustrated him more as he was always a very healthy man. We had no idea what could cause this decline, but over the next 4 years, it was a contentious battle to get him the care he needed. He always knew who I was, not so much for other members of the family. When he died, he was 84, and I was beside myself to understand what the **** happened to my dad. Well, going thru his papers and medical records, I found evidence that he had received the annual influenza vaccinations (pushed on him by his then girlfriend who worked for the medical industrial complex) for several years immediately preceding his dementia downfall. Was THIS the cause of his dementia? Or was I just fishing for a cause? I don't know. But I will say that I can find very little research on flu vaccination and dementia.
I feel the way we treat our elderly is particularly tragic because they often hold the collective wisdom that can divert us from many of the catastrophic directions the predatory economic system has reshaped society to follow. Instead of listening to our elders though, we warehouse them in facilities where they can be held out of sight and out of mind as their bodies decay from the inevitable consequences of a profit driven medical model that does not cultivate health and vitality.
For the remainder of this article, I will review how another vulnerable demographic that fully lacks the ability to advocate for themselves has been harmed by unsafe pharmaceuticals. If you can review the previous installment in the series prior to reading the remainder of the article, it will provide immensely valuable context towards understanding the critical lessons to be learned from sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS).
Medical Blindness and SIDS
Although to this day I harbor a great deal of animosity towards some of the physicians I trained under (that I believe is justified based on how they have conducted themselves throughout their careers), I also had the opportunity to train under many remarkable human beings I am forever grateful to. One pediatrician for example genuinely cared about his patients, was immensely intelligent, and although we had radically different perspectives on many issues, he was very kind and open-minded towards the parts of myself I shared with him.
At the very start of my medical education, he made a point during lecture to state he believed with absolute certainty that vaccination was the greatest medical innovation in human history. A few years later, when I worked with him in clinic, over and over I saw him perform a remarkable job caring for his patients, but I also periodically saw cases that led me to seriously question his judgement. For example, we once saw a patient who had an unambiguous adverse reaction to a vaccine and upon being presented with clear evidence this had transpired, I observed the pediatrician suddenly enter a hypnotic trance where he became completely unable to recognize the existence of that evidence.
I share this story because I sincerely believe medical gaslighting is evil, but, at the same time I believe many of the gaslighters are anything but evil. For this reason, I wrote an article to examine where medical blindness originates from and another article discussing why doctors so often refuse to acknowledge medical injuries. Quite a few of the points within those two articles were originally inspired by the pediatrician.
This pediatrician coincidentally was responsible for teaching the lecture on SIDS. At the start of that lecture, I still clearly remember him (give or take) stating the following:
To this day, we are not sure what causes SIDS but from a lot of research we have been able to determine that it clusters around two months of age, four months of age, and six months of age after which point it sharply declines. Currently, we believe SIDS arises from infants suffocating after sleeping in a facedown position and the Back To Sleep campaign, by preventing these deaths, has been one of the most successful public health accomplishments in history.
My immediate thought as the words exited his mouth was to look up the childhood vaccination schedule (note: the vaccine schedule has been repeatedly expanded since I first saw it in medical school, but the relevant parts to this story have remained unchanged):
To this day, it still amazes me how few medical students have thought to ask the same question I did when this fact was shared in lecture (there is so much to learn in medical school, which is by design, that students typically focus on memorizing information rather than critically examining it). I am nonetheless immensely grateful to the pediatrician for explicitly stating his biases and blind spots at the very start. Had he not done so, I likely could have made a verbal misstep around him or his colleagues that would have prevented my graduation from medical school.
One of the most challenging experiences throughout my medical education was having to repeatedly bear witness to children being clearly injured from vaccinations (that for some reason the health care workers I trained with could never recognize) and again and again seeing the terror that would often appear in a child’s eyes whenever they saw someone in a white coat because they knew what was coming next.
To this day I still vividly remember a girl screaming for her mommy and pleading for her not to break her promise the girl would not get shots that visit as the child was forcefully restrained by two large nurses who joked about the fact it would be over before the girl even noticed the needle had gone in. I made a point to keep an eye on her after this ritualistic initiation and was able to observe her for approximately 30 minutes, throughout which her demeanor did not improve and her vitality continually worsened (this unrelated video also shows the discomfort of vaccination is not due to the needle puncturing skin).
In sharing all of this, I hope it helps to illuminate both the commercial advantages and ethical questions of pushing pharmaceutical products on individuals who do not have the ability to advocate for themselves and refuse those products. A large part of why I am putting so much time into the articles here is because of how much it gnawed at me that I could do nothing in these circumstances other than bear witness to what was occurring (as a medical student you cannot question the decisions of your superiors).
Historical Evidence Connecting Vaccination to SIDS
In many cases, the only ones who can recognize the impact of an environmental change contributing to a disease are those who were in practice before and after the toxin was introduced. One of my foundational objections to evidence-based medicine is that our current religion of science holds the belief that humans are irrational and incapable of accurately interpreting events in their environment. Because of this, whenever someone observes a correlation that questions a medical dogma (ie. my healthy father died immediately after his COVID vaccine), it is reflexively argued no causation (and often no correlation) exists and the perception it did was simply the product of a variety of erroneous cognitive biases.
The problem with this argument is that the "science" to establish causation on most controversial topics will never be done (due to the controversial nature of the subject) so an impossible standard is created for any unconventional viewpoint to meet. Additionally, while the unconscious biases explanation can be credibly argued to dismiss a causation that only has a weak correlation behind it, if a strong correlation is present and no other explanation exists for the correlation, the burden of proof (and the need for further scientific studies) rests on disproving rather than proving the causation.
These conflicting epistemological perspectives have far-reaching consequences. In the earlier days of medicine, countless valuable insights could be obtained by reading the early medical literature and the treatment successes of physicians making their best attempts to understand the diseases they were encountering. For example, many of my original (successful) protocols for treating COVID-19 were developed from studying the long forgotten approaches to managing viral pneumonias that were devised by individual doctors on the front lines and subsequently proven throughout the 1918 influenza pandemic.
Nowadays, it is incredibly rare to read case reports highlighting the same vital investigative process by clinicians, as anyone who authors such a report exposes themselves to significant liability for violating the standard of care and “experimenting” upon their patients (better to let them die than dare to experiment with safe therapies). I am only able to hear of these reports through word of mouth from many valuable contacts I have cultivated over the years, and as a result, the knowledge base that can successfully treat a wide range of complex illnesses is virtually inaccessible almost everyone else as they lack that same access.
Since its inception, the Diphtheria-Pertussis-Tetanus vaccination (DPT and DTP are used interchangeably) has been plagued with controversy. Before we continue, I should disclose that I hold a bias towards this vaccine because two members of my extended family experienced permanent brain damage from the original whole cell formulation.
The early history of DPT is discussed in a previous article on the many attempts to create population reducing vaccines:
The DPT vaccine has a very questionable past. Due to a longstanding animosity between England and Ireland that originally arose over an English King wanting a divorce to be granted by the church, the English treated the Irish terribly. Irish orphanages, not surprisingly were used to source (likely forced) research subjects for trials of the early vaccine prototypes.
In 2014, unmarked mass graves belonging to Irish orphans were discovered. Further research revealed these graves belonged to a group of 2,051 children upon whom an early diphtheria vaccine was covertly tested in the 1930s. Additionally, an earlier investigation had shown that early vaccines experiments (including DPT) were conducted in 1960s to 1970s at Irish care homes and the test subjects included babies and handicapped children.
When the DPT vaccine entered the market, statements can be found from many physicians of the time who observed it caused the emergence of SIDS (previously termed crib or cot death due to babies being found dead in their beds). Although these statements most likely are authentic, in most instances, I have not been able to find the original source of the physician asserting that link and hence cannot reference them.
One exception would be for Robert Mendelsohn, an amazing pediatrician, patient advocate and early pioneer for vaccine safety, whom I recently learned mentored a reader here. In our correspondences, that doctor informed me of a conversation which followed him asking Mendelsohn why he was willing to sacrifice the eminent position he had earned to speak out against the medical system:
Mendelsohn told me that during his appointment as Medical Director of Project Head Start’s Medical Consultation Service in 1968, he was horrified by the discussions held privately in the White House with his medical colleagues. They were openly discussing how they could control the population of the poor by promoting infant formula [one of the many benefits of breast feeding is a significant reduction of SIDS] vaccinations, sadistic hospital birthing practices, deficient government schools, and neighborhood abortion clinics. This was just too much of an assault on his strong Jewish faith and his Hippocratic oath.
In How to Raise a Healthy Child in Spite of Your Doctor, Mendelsohn wrote:
"My suspicion, which is shared by others in my profession, is that the nearly 10,000 SIDS deaths that occur in the United States each year are related to one or more of the vaccines that are routinely given to children. The pertussis vaccine is the most likely villain, but it could also be one or more of the others."
Note: Although I believe the pertussis (DPT) is the vaccine most strongly linked to SIDS, other vaccines also appear to share an association. For example, a 2007 VAERS analysis of neonatal (less than 1 month old) deaths evaluated the 29 unexplained deaths that had been reported following the hepatitis B vaccine. 24 were classified as SIDS and of the 29, 13.8 % died within 24 hours, 32 % within 3 days, and 44.8 % within 7 days. Earlier in 1999 legislative testimony by Philip Incao, MD makes the case for the hepatitis B vaccine being associated with SIDS. A key piece of evidence Incao cited for this claim was SIDS not occurring in those under 2 months of age until that vaccine entered the market. Hepatitis B is the only vaccine given prior to two months of age, a time when the immune system’s ability to develop the desired antibodies that result from vaccination is impaired, and as the vaccine wears off over time, too early to later protect a child during the years they might engage in the blood to blood contact (e.g. sharing drug needles) necessary to transmit the disease.
A Shot in the Dark
In 1985, DPT, A Shot in the Dark was published. This damning indictment of the DPT vaccine played a pivotal role in the cheaper but more dangerous whole cell formulation being withdrawn from the domestic market (it was replaced by an acellular formulation) and the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program being established twenty months later.
Note: anytime you get a tetanus vaccine, it will be combined with the problematic diphtheria and pertussis components; the tetanus only vaccine was discontinued. If a physician tells you otherwise they are lying—I have multiple friends and family members who have been misled on this subject in the ER (vaccination for tetanus is often advocated for after tissue wounds; I do not agree with this practice).
From that book, I learned that the pertussis (and to some extent diphtheria) bacteria were highly immunogenic pathogens with many toxic components. As a result, the existing manufacturing techniques (based on culturing and then killing large numbers of the bacteria to create the raw vaccine material) could never produce a clean vaccine free of side effects. I also suspect the later development of a less toxic acellular DPT vaccine (which took quite a bit of work) was initiated in response to a wave of lawsuits for injuries by the more toxic whole cell formulation.
As somewhat of a parallel, Meryl Nass MD, is one of the foremost experts on anthrax vaccine injuries (I previously sought her perspectives on that debacle). She informed me she does not believe the squalene hypothesis I advanced to explain the severe injuries that afflicted over 100,000 servicemen is the most probable explanation for the toxicity of these vaccines. Nass (who was able to directly review documents unearthed by a congressional investigation of the vaccine) instead believes the most probable cause of the vaccine’s toxicity was it being an inherently dirty vaccine on account of the anthrax bacteria itself. The vaccine manufacturer, Bioport, then further worsened the vaccine by making the misguided choice to use larger filters (which let more problematic contaminants into the final vaccine) because the smaller filters were getting clogged by the vaccine ingredients (large quantities of killed anthrax bacteria).
Due to the significant danger of an infection with the highly immunogenic pertussis bacteria (which disappears in exclusively breastfed infants), the medical field and the governing bodies overseeing immunization programs, adopted the position that a certain number of injuries were an acceptable trade off to mitigate the significant dangers posed by pertussis. However, after pertussis became a relatively benign illness, most likely due to improvements in public sanitation or public nutrition (hence no longer justifying a dangerous vaccine), there was enough inertia behind DPT that attempts to curtail its use met fierce resistance.
As reports of injuries from the DPT vaccine exploded following the continually increasing administration of the vaccine, widespread allegiance to the vaccine resulted in the victims of DPT and the physicians who reported the injuries being attacked instead of listened to. Some of these reports, including those resulting in death, were summarized within DPT, A Shot In The Dark, and the indented passages that follow are direct quotations from it.
Note: For those of you who are not able to locate an electronic copy of the book, many of the cited studies here are also synopsized within this committee’s report (I do not agree the committee’s attempt to refute the link between DPT and SIDS, which like almost every other official evaluation of this issue appears heavily biased towards arriving at its predetermined conclusion, but at the same time, I also believe it is extremely important to consider both sides of each argument).
Death was the first reaction to be associated with the pertussis vaccine. Thorwald Madsen, the Danish vaccine pioneer, published an article in 1933 describing the deaths of two babies a few hours after they had been vaccinated. One had hiccups and convulsions, while the other had nothing more visible than a bluish tint of the skin. Following his report, other physicians added their own case histories of infant deaths immediately following pertussis vaccination.
In 1946, Werne and Garrow described the deaths of identical twins within twenty-four hours of their second shot.
Cases of identical twins developing a condition immediately following an intervention are often considered to be a gold standard in proving causality. If SIDS occurs spontaneously it is virtually impossible it would happen the same amount of time after vaccination in twin infants—this article reviewing thirteen cases of simultaneous twin deaths, 10 of which were officially certified as SIDS discusses the near impossibility of these events being due to chance.
Due to the political ramifications of these types of reports, in the current era, American physicians are highly reluctant to publish these incidents. Nonetheless, many case reports (such as the ten cited in the above article do exist). Some cases are as follows:
To quote a 2006 case report from Turkey: “Twin girls (3.5-month-old) were found dead by their mother in their crib, both in supine position [lying on their backs]. The infants were identical twins and delivered at a hospital by cesarean section. Both infants were healthy and did not have any serious medical history. Two days prior to the incident, the twins had received the second dose of oral polio, DPT and the first dose of hepatitis B vaccines and they had fever on the first day of the vaccination and been given teaspoonful of acetaminophen [catastrophic vaccine injuries often follow the administration of acetaminophen for fevers and infant distress that follow vaccination—I have seen this first hand]. Death scene investigation, judicial investigation, parental assessment, macroscopic and microscopic autopsy findings and the toxicological analysis did not yield any specific cause of death.”
Other case reports of twins dying immediately following vaccination include:
•A 1987 case report of twins who simultaneously succumbed to sudden unexpected deaths 3 hours after DPT vaccination
•A 2007 case report of healthy 15-week-old identical twins who both died suddenly 2 days after receiving oral polio, hepatitis B, and DPT vaccines and were found by their mother both in supine position.
•A 2010 case report of 12-week-old identical twins who died "lying on their backs" 5 days after receiving six vaccines concurrently.
•A 2013 case report of 10-week-old twins who were found dead both in the supine position and ten days earlier they had received their first doses of DPT and oral polio vaccines.
In 1947, Matthew Brody, at the Brooklyn Hospital, gave detailed descriptions of two cases involving brain damage leading to death after the [DPT] shot. [It was common for infants to develop prolonged intense screaming spells and generalized muscular rigidity immediately following DPT, indicating brain or neurological irritation and possibly damage].
In 1978, Griffith studied severe reactions occurring after fifteen million doses of pertussis vaccine were administered to children in England. He stated that one child “was admitted to the hospital with pyrexia, signs and symptoms of meningeal irritation; transferred after three days with provisional diagnosis of encephalomyelitis but died thirty days after vaccination; necropsy showed no specific changes; recorded cause of death: encephalopathy due to injection of triple vaccine.”
At the Thirty-fourth Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Neurology in 1982, Torch presented a study suggesting a link between the DPT shot and certain cases of SIDS. After observing four sudden deaths within nineteen hours of DPT vaccinations in Nevada, Torch studied the relationship between this shot and SIDS in over two hundred randomly reported SIDS cases.
In a preliminary report on the first seventy cases. Torch stated that two thirds had been vaccinated prior to death. Of these 6.5 percent died within twelve hours of vaccination; 13 percent within twenty-four hours; 26 percent within three days; and 37, 61, and 70 percent within one, two, and three weeks, respectively. He found that SIDS frequencies peaked at age two months in the non-DPT group and had a biphasic peak occurrence at two and four months in the DPT group.
Torch added, cot death occurred maximally in the fall/winter season in the non-DPT group, but was nonseasonal in the DPT group. Death occurred most often in sleep in healthy, allergy- free infants following brief periods of irritability, crying, lethargy, upper respiratory tract symptoms, and sleep disturbance. Autopsy findings in both groups were typical of SIDS (e.g. petechiae of lung, pleura, pericardium, and thymus; vascular congestion; pulmonary edema; pneumonitis; and brain edema).”
But it was Torch's conclusion that infuriated neurologists and government health officials attending the meeting: “These data show that DPT vaccination may be a generally unrecognized major cause of sudden infant and early childhood death, and that the risks of immunization may outweigh its potential benefits. A need for reevaluation and possible modification of current vaccination procedures is indicated by this study.”
[In 1986, Torch also summarized case reports of more than 200 deaths that occurred following DPT vaccination, as reported by 37 authors in 12 countries. About half of these deaths occurred within 24 hours, 75 % within 3 days, and 90 % within 1-week post-vaccination. For most of these deaths a specific cause could not be found, although many were labeled as SIDS.]
It should also be mentioned that the federal government has adopted a long-standing position that information which challenges public faith in the immunization program is not in the public’s interest to be exposed to.
Although this policy was formally stated in 1984 (in reference to concerns about the purity of the polio vaccines), it appeared to have been in effect long before this date. It is hence insightful to observe how the frequent harm from the DTP vaccine was suppressed by the authorities, to the point the FDA even overrode a manufacturer who wanted to disclose the potential harms!
The FDA’s pertussis vaccine specialist, Charles Manclark, commented in 1976: "Pertussis vaccine is one of the more troublesome products to produce and assay. As an example of this, pertussis vaccine has one of the highest failure rates of all products submitted to the Bureau of Biologies for testing and release. Approximately 15-20 percent of all lots which pass the manufacturer’s tests fail to pass the Bureau’s tests.”
In 1978—79, eleven babies were found to have died within eight days of a DPT vaccination (in Tennessee). Nine of the eleven had been vaccinated with the same lot of pertussis vaccine, Wyeth #64201, and five (four from the same lot) had died within twenty-four hours of vaccination.
A statistical analysis of the clustering of deaths revealed that the likelihood of observing four or more deaths occurring randomly on any of the first eight days after the use of lot #64201 was 3 in 100. This meant that such a clustering could occur purely by chance only 3 in 100 times. E. B. Mortimer later reported that the probability of this being a chance association was even lower—between 2 and 5 in 1,000.
In June, CDC director Foege wrote a memo to the Surgeon General stating that the experts “did not feel that a causal relationship had been established between vaccination with DPT from Wyeth's lot #64201 and sudden infant death in infancy. However they did not feel that a causal relationship could be totally excluded.”
Three weeks later, Foege’s interpretation of the events stated in this memo to the Surgeon General was used by Harry Meyer, Director of the FDA Bureau of Biologies, as evidence to oppose a request by Wyeth Laboratories to list among its pertussis vaccine contraindications circumstances thought to predispose to SIDS. Meyer told Wyeth in a July 11 letter, “Based on the available data we do not see a medical basis for listing circumstances thought to predispose to SIDS as contraindications to the use of DPT vaccine. We do not agree, therefore, with your proposal on page two of the circular under ‘Contraindications.’ There is no evidence that such a change would prevent SIDS.
Wyeth apparently also decided to act to prevent a clustering of deaths following DPT vaccination from a single lot from ever occurring again in a single geographical area. On August 27, 1979, a Wyeth official wrote in an internal Wyeth memo, “After the reporting of the SIDS cases in Tennessee, we discussed the merits of limiting distribution of a large number of vials from a single lot to a single state, county or city health department and obtained agreement from the senior management staff to proceed with such a plan.”
The memo revealed that Wyeth would attempt to distribute no more than 2,000 packages of vaccine from one lot number to a single destination. Another 1983 memo confirmed that policy of limiting shipments of DPT vaccine from a single lot to a geographical location, referring back to the “SIDS episode.” If this practice is shared by all the vaccine manufacturers, it is easy to understand why the Tennessee “SIDS episode” has never been repeated and why the tracing of hot lots of vaccine is so very difficult in America [this is EXTREMELY important to understand when examining the question of hot COVID-19 vaccine lots exist and the FDA’s previous discovery that significant variability exists between Pfizer lots] .
Vaccine manufacturers [also] mention the connection to SIDS in their product information inserts. In 1984, Wyeth Laboratories insert stated: “The occurrence of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) has been reported following administration of DTP. The significance of these reports is unclear. It should be kept in mind that the three primary immunizing doses of DTP are usually administered to infants between the age of two and six months and that approximately 85 percent of SIDS cases occur in the period 1 through 6 months of age, with the peak incidence at age 2 to 4 months.” In 1986, Connaught’s insert stated, “SIDS has occurred in infants following administration of DTP,” but went on to state that one study showed that there was no causal connection.
On March 19, 1979, a special meeting was called by the FDA on the Relation Between DPT Vaccines and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. Daniel Shannon, MD, who is director of the Pediatric Pulmonary Unit at Massachusetts General Hospital and a principal investigator of SIDS, spoke about his research:
“We do have a number of parents whose infants . . . have been doing entirely well after their initial near death spell who then go to the doctor, get a DPT and a polio and that is usually the two combined on the same day, and within twenty- four hours have either prolonged apnea [intermittent cessation of breathing] with the alarm going off or the need for resuscitation, having not needed one since the first time, perhaps a month preceding. Whether we would advise the parents to not have any further immunizations or not at that point does not really matter. They will not. Until we tell them that we feel the infant is out of danger, perhaps six or seven months later, you could not get them near the pediatrician’s office.”
He added, “We do have this data. It is all recorded on tabular sheets and we have it on nearly 200 infants that we have evaluated this way. It is in a capacity that it can be pulled.”
In 1982, when Shannon published an extensive two-part study on SIDS in the New England Journal of Medicine, a study which was financed in part by the Public Health Service, he did not once mention his data on the near-miss SIDS infants who had prolonged apnea after their DPT shots. When questioned about this omission, he replied in a letter, “I did not mention DPT shots in my review article on SIDS in the New England Journal of Medicine because there are no data collected in a scientific way that support an association (Shannon at the time of this statement was also aware of Dr. Torch's report, which is detailed above).”
Shortly after the 1979 meeting, the CDC also completed its own analysis in 1980 of 23 deaths that occurred within 28 days of DPT vaccination. 12 (52.2 %) occurred within 24 hours and 18 (78.3 %) occurred within 1 week. In 16 of the 23 deaths, autopsy findings were consistent with SIDS. Of the 16 SIDS deaths, 6 (37.5 %) occurred within 24 hours and 12 (75 %) occurred within 1 week.
Archie Kalokerinos MD, was a young Australian doctor, who after graduation elected to pursue advanced medical training in England and returned to Australia in 1957. Uncomfortable with the profit driven mindset he found had taken over the direction of medicine in his brief time away, he requested to be transferred from the wealthy urban parts of the country and assigned to care for the neglected rural Aboriginal communities. For context, the Aboriginal people have been subjected to the worst of colonialism for over a century, which included terrible social and physical living conditions.
In these communities, diseases such as pneumonias, severe ear infections, severe infant irritability and a frequent inability to feed afflicted the children, and the infant mortality rate was over 10%, an unprecedented figure that greatly exceeded the 2% death rate found in the surrounding white communities. The poor health of the community in turn was written off by the local medical community as simply being a result of poor child rearing habits by their uncivilized parents and the widespread filthy living conditions.
Kalokerinos became driven to address this problem, broke from his peers, and eventually discovered each of these issues primarily arose from severe vitamin C deficiencies (colonial powers often destroy the diets of native populations), and in many cases saw infants on the verge of death recovering minutes after vitamin C injections (he also found their inability to feed was due to zinc deficiency rather than poor parenting alongside other issues arising from missing B vitamins). Initially Kalokerinos faced significant opposition to this perspective, but after igniting a media firestorm to defend a woman accused of murdering her child (as the bruising that occurs from vitamin C deficiency was assumed in that case to have resulted from child abuse), the vitamin C approach was proven, accepted, and when implemented profoundly improved the childhood diseases that had plagued the Aboriginal communities.
Having already observed that vitamin C levels would often be depleted during viral infections (which sometimes caused the symptoms of severe vitamin C deficiency to emerge), Kalokerinos then witnessed the infant death rate in one Aboriginal community reach 50% (yes 50%) after an immunization campaign and realized that the same process occurred following vaccination. Kalokerinos was able to prove that widespread vitamin deficiencies existed in the aboriginal community and postulated that vitamin C deficiency was likely why so many cases of infant diseases and deaths following vaccination campaigns. Kalokerinos was later able to obtain proof in an animal model that vitamin C supplementation prevented the animal deaths commonly seen after vaccination and eventually convinced the local medical authorities hear his case that the vaccines could be causing unintended deaths.
It should also be noted that at the same time Kalokerinos developed his vitamin C protocols in Australia, Frederick R. Klenner MD independently discovered vitamin C (administered either orally or by injection at comparable doses to those used by Kalokerinos) yielded profound benefits similar to those observed by Kalokerinos for protecting pregnant women and their children. Klenner also discovered vitamin C could also be used to effectively treat a variety of infectious diseases including polio. It is quite sad that to this day, no knowledge of their discoveries exists within either gynecology or pediatrics.
Lastly, in the same way that vaccines, particularly the DPT vaccine have been connected to SIDS, the DPT vaccine has also been connected to childhood ear infections by many physicians including Kalokerinos who were able to directly observe the suspected causation. The strongest proof I know of for this hypothesis came from a friend’s brother who was an American MD that spent time in an ashram (monastery) in India and decided as a medical missionary to provide all the children there with the DPT vaccine. Not long after, most of the children developed middle ear infections, a condition he had not seen once in the ashram in the years prior to his vaccination campaign. From reviewing Kalokerinos’s research (detailed within his 1976 book) I suspect the vitamin C deficiency induced by the DPT vaccine is likely a key cause of the ear infections that follow that vaccination.
Raymond Obomsawin PhD was a dedicated researcher (a recent obituary from the CHD can be read here) who unearthed many of the harms from the widespread vaccination programs (such as Canada’s vaccine program in Thailand increasing death and disability for those vaccinated, which was of course never published).
In the period of 1970-1974, when DPT vaccination was begun at 3 to 5 months of age, the Japanese national compensation system paid out claims for 57 permanent severe damage vaccine cases, and 37 deaths. During the ensuing six year period 1975-1980, when DPT injections were delayed to 24 months of age, severe reactions from the vaccine were reduced to a total of eight with three deaths. This represents an 85 to 90 percent reduction in severe cases of damage and death [per vaccine given].
[When the infant mortality rate (per 1000 births) in Japan during the mid-1970s was later compared to the mid-1980s (ten years after the age of vaccination was moved from 3 months to 2 years of age), it declined from 12.4 to 5. That is a big deal, and in the context of Obomsawin’s quote, again speaks to the massive underreporting factor in all vaccine injury reporting systems.]
I discovered this excellent presentation he provided on vaccinations which I then shortened to a 12 minute version covering the links presented between vaccinations and SIDS . I understand everyone’s time is limited, but I would highly advise watching this presentation if you are able to.
For those who cannot, the key points are:
•Obomsawin knew Kalokerinos personally and shared his stories of the forced vaccinations the aborigines experienced and the hostility Kalokerinos received from the Australian medical system for challenging their entrenched dogmas.
•Global data shows infant mortality increases as more vaccines are given to children.
•An Australian group developed a way to continuously monitor infants at home and like many others was able to demonstrate non-fatal disruptions of breathing spiked following Polio and DPT vaccination (severe cases of these episodes is the most likely cause of SIDS) and this disruption continued for over 6 weeks post vaccination (hence overlapping with the typical period of death that has been observed to follow vaccination).
•Simultaneous administration of multiple vaccines can create brain damage.
•When SIDS cases at morgues are examined, they cluster at exactly 2, 4 or 6 months of age (rather than throughout the 2 to 6 month period), which can only explained as a consequence of vaccination—however this association is rarely if ever considered by coroners or physicians.
•There are widespread and often serious contamination issues with many vaccines on the market.
•Certain cases of SIDS are erroneously assumed to be due to abusive parents shaking or beating their children (also known as shaken baby syndrome). Because of this, parents have been unjustly jailed for a murder they never committed. The only parallel I can draw to this evil are the many cases of mentally healthy individuals being placed on antidepressants, turning psychotic, brutally murdering a treasured loved one, and then being locked away for that murder.
Historical Trends in SIDS
SIDS is defined as the sudden and unexpected death of an infant which remains unexplained after a thorough investigation, including performance of an autopsy and review of the clinical history (both of which share many characteristic findings). My hope is that the following sections will illustrate why this definition is obscene.
It is often argued that SIDS is entirely due to vaccination (few were aware crib death even occurred prior to the national immunization programs that began in the 1960s where multiple vaccines were suddenly given throughout the country) and argued that SIDS subsequently increased as more and more vaccines were brought to the market.
This statement from James Howenstine, MD is one such example:
The incidence of Sudden Infant Death syndrome SIDS has grown from .55 per 1000 live births in 1953 to 12.8 per 1000 in 1992 in Olmstead County, Minnesota. The peak incidence for SIDS is age 2 to 4 months the exact time most vaccines are being given to children. 85 % of cases of SIDS occur in the first 6 months of infancy. The increase in SIDS as a percentage of total infant deaths has risen from 2.5 per 1000 in 1953 to 17.9 per 1000 in 1992. This rise in SIDS deaths has occurred during a period when nearly every childhood disease was declining due to improved sanitation and medical progress except SIDS. These deaths from SIDS did increase during a period when the number of vaccines given a child was steadily rising to 36 per child.
The opposing (and far more common) argument is that SIDS is an inexplicable phenomenon that suddenly emerged out of thin air and is due to infants suffocating from sleeping face down (which for some reason never was an issue prior to the 1960s). Thus by having infants sleep face up, it resulted in a profound decline in infant deaths, and as existing data shows, the Back To Sleep campaign appeared to be one of the most successful public health measures in history.
Despite data that clearly supports this narrative, I nonetheless question it. This is primarily because of how commonly I encounter cases of SIDS where the dead children were not lying face down (e.g. the many twin deaths referenced earlier and heartbreaking stories told to me by mothers who saw their babies die in other positions). Additionally, there are a variety of subtle neurological issues that result from the distortion of the skull (plagiocephally) that often arises in infants who are forced to always lie on their backs.
I will also note a case can be made SIDS arises from the crib itself. This can either be due to their mattresses off-gassing toxic chemicals (which may be more toxic if the baby is face down), or from the infants being at a greater risk of death when isolated from sleeping with their parents (infants thrive from close contact with their mothers)—this was a potential cause of SIDS Mendelsohn frequently considered (as changing “crib death” to “SIDS” psychologically influenced where parents chose to have their babies sleep). While I believe it is possible these two factors could each influence the overall chance of SIDS occurring (in the same way breast feeding reduces it), from a preliminary look at the evidence, I believe their possible influence on the disease process is much smaller than the effect of vaccination.
Many of the discrepancies between these two explanations for SIDS are challenging to clarify because prior to 1969 (the time at which the condition had become too frequent to sweep under the rug), SIDS was not classified as a disease entity (and hence “crib death” was not documented in the vital statistics). By 1972, SIDS had become the leading cause of death in the first 1-12 months of life within the United States, and in 1973, the National Center for Health Statistics (part of the CDC), had made SIDS a category for documentation of infant deaths that occurred. Unfortunately, likely to conceal the chronology of these events, most references to the incidence of SIDS will only show you data starting when the Back To Sleep started (hence making it impossible to determine if SIDS was increasing prior to the decline the compilers of those statistics wished to show).
The only dataset I have found so far that tracked the incidence of SIDS since 1969 came from Australia, rather than the United States (where the trend in theory would be much more apparent), but does nonetheless confirm a gradually increasing incidence of SIDS.
Let’s now review the CDC’s (annotated) data:
From reading this annotated chart, two different interpretations emerge:
The first is that the decline in SIDS resulted from the acellular TDaP vaccine entering the market, and because it took time for it to be adopted (it only became the standard recommendation in 1996), the removal of the more harmful whole cellular TDwP was gradual. The missing data I could not locate to further evaluate this argument is the rate at which that shift occurred, but I feel it is reasonable to assume a gradual shift occurred as many parties were trying to avoid being sued for TDwP injuries.
The second is that the Back To Sleep was a resounding success (which some argue was simply a PR campaign to address the concerns of American parents surrounding the increasingly common cases of SIDS reaching a fever pitch—for example in 1984 congressional hearings were conducted on vaccination and SIDS).
Although the above timeline appears superficially to support the success of Back to Sleep (and I will admit I have not researched the data on it in depth) I am nonetheless quite skeptical of the campaign’s impact. The decline of SIDS clearly began prior to when the Back To Sleep was launched and the campaign had no appreciable effect on the existing trend of SIDS. The key piece of data I am missing here is the effect of the American Academy of Pediatrics 1992 recommendation to physicians to advocate for infants sleeping on the back, but I am doubtful these recommendations could have had an impact that was in anyway comparable to the later massive 1994 campaign by the federal government.
I thus suspect Back To Sleep (which is viewed as one of the most successful health initiatives in history) ultimately served as a way to distract the public from the damage caused by the TDwP vaccine. This is somewhat analogous to polio vaccine being introduced at the same time DDT was pulled from the market (DDT caused an illness indistinguishable from polio and produces nearly identical lesions to the spinal cord), and the polio vaccine then becoming a mythology the success of modern medicine was based upon. Similarly, it can be credibly argued that the widespread adoption of lead (particularly in gasoline) was a key cause of the still unexplained explosion of heart disease we experienced in the last century, and its withdrawal from the market (e.g. the removal from gasoline) was actual factor responsible for the later reduction in heart disease the medical community has repeatedly claimed credit for.
These events are also somewhat analogous to the societal mythology that the earliest vaccines were responsible for ending the era of infectious disease in spite of the fact the eradication of those diseases was a result of improved living conditions and most of the eradication preceded vaccination. The correlation is not causation argument is always thrown around to debunk any claim which challenges the authority of modern medicine, but as this example shows, some of the most sacred mythologies of medicine rest on shaky foundations and highly questionable correlations.
For those wishing to learn more about the actual early history of vaccination, the first article on this substack covers the early data on immunizations (many of the most deadly diseases that declined in that era never had a vaccine) and shows how smallpox vaccination (which killed many young children) was a century long tragedy that was not in any manner responsible for eradicating smallpox.
There are two competing hypotheses (both of which I agree with) to explain the decline of polio after the polio vaccination campaigns. In addition to the DDT hypothesis discussed above, it has also been argued that the diagnostic criteria for polio was changed so that almost every condition that previously qualified as polio were relabeled as something else. Bureaucrats love to tinker with classifications to advance political agendas (e.g. the recent redefining of “vaccine”). This behavior recently came to the attention of the general public after it became recognized that most (but not all) of the deaths attributed to COVID-19 did not alter the total number of deaths occurring, demonstrating many COVID-19 “deaths” were simply other fatal conditions being reclassified as COVID-19 deaths.
A similar situation also may exist here as a change in diagnostic classifications could explain the decline I attribute to removing the TDwP vaccine from the market Prior to 1979, the WHO’s ICD system (which is required to be utilized in the paperwork for every death that occurs) listed vaccinations as a cause of death. In 1979, ICD permanently removed this classification, thereby making it impossible, even if the doctor wished to, for there to be any official record of a vaccines causing an infant’s death (instead these deaths were shunted to the nebulous category of SIDS where debunkers could then argue the deaths had nothing to do with vaccination). It is difficult for me to imagine this was not done intentionally to conceal the issue.
There is also data suggesting this diagnostic shunting expanded during Back to Sleep and the campaign’s benefit was primarily an artifact of different ICD codes for death being utilized after the campaign started (potentially because doctors believing in the value of their advice, did not then want to classify the death of an infant whose mother had followed the doctor’s instructions to sleep on their back as SIDS).
The all-cause postneonatal mortality rate declined 27% and the postneonatal SIDS rate declined 55% between 1992 and 2001. However, for the period from 1999 to 2001 there was no significant change in the overall postneonatal mortality rate, whereas the postneonatal SIDS rate declined by 17.4%. Concurrent increases in postneonatal mortality rates for unknown and unspecified causes and suffocation account for 90% of the decrease in the SIDS rate between 1999 and 2001.
However, while this hypothesis is also compelling (and a more detailed explanation can be found here), it does not appear to fully account for the trends shown above in the CDC’s data (the classification began around 1997 whereas the decline began around 1991) or trends I found on overall infant mortality in the USA. This suggests an error exists in the data underlying one of both of these opposing viewpoints (a . and I must acknowledge it is beyond my ability to determine where that error lies (a more detailed discussion on the misclassifications of SIDS that potentially extends beyond the three categories contained within SUID can be found here).
Lastly, although some inherent challenges exist in comparing the historical trends of SIDS to vaccination, a recent 2011 study found another means to assess this association by comparing the current infant mortality rates of the 34 nations with the lowest infant mortality (34 were chosen since the USA is #34) to the number of required childhood vaccines in the country. The relationship is unmistakable:
Whole Cell Pertussis in Africa
Because the whole cell pertussis vaccination is cheaper to produce than the safer acellular formulation, once it was removed from the Western marketplace, its primary use shifted to the third world.
Peter Aaby, a renowned vaccine scientist and promoter of vaccination, was commissioned by the WHO to study the effects of vaccines commonly utilized in charitable programs by the international community on infant mortality. For context, these types of studies are almost never conducted, which is why we still do not have the data to determine if the vaccines we give our children provide a net benefit or harm.
The results were not what Aaby expected. While a significant reduction in death was observed from MMR (to my knowledge this is the only study that has ever found a clear benefit from a vaccination program, likely on account the immune stimulation from the MMR vaccine to protecting against a variety of often fatal infectious diseases endemic to the area), the opposite was found for DTP and Aaby’s data suggested the program needed to be scrapped.
“DTP was associated with 5-fold higher mortality than being unvaccinated [DPT increased deaths 3.93 times in boys and 9.98 times in girls] . No prospective study has shown beneficial survival effects of DTP. Unfortunately, DTP is the most widely used vaccine, and the proportion who receives DTP is used globally as an indicator of the performance of national vaccination programs.”
“It should be of concern that the effect of routine vaccinations on all-cause mortality was not tested in randomized trials. All currently available evidence suggests that DTP vaccine may kill more children from other causes than it saves from diphtheria, tetanus or pertussis. Though a vaccine protects children against the target disease, it may simultaneously increase susceptibility to unrelated infections.”
Aaby’s results were of course buried. Since his publication, instead of being re-evaluated, the distribution of DPT has only increased, largely due to Bill Gates shifting the focus of the WHO towards vaccination (rather than public health projects that save lives, a concern that has been repeatedly shared with me by employees of the WHO).
Peter Gøtzsche MD, is a renowned expert on research fraud and has been a critical reformer in evidence-based medicine who has repeatedly stuck his neck out to speak truth to power (Gøtzsche nonetheless fully supports most but not all vaccines). After Aaby’s report, Gøtzsche was requested to provide a systematic review of the DPT program. Gøtzsche in turn concluded "evidence tells us that it is likely that the DTP vaccine increases total mortality in low-income countries."
A standard criteria for proving causality is if a dose response relationship exists between a disease causing agent and a disease or if logical predisposing factors increase the likelihood of an agent causing a disease. Neil Miller, in Miller's Review of  Critical Vaccine Studies located a series of studies published within the peer-reviewed literature demonstrating those relationships and his hard work made this section possible (so please consider purchasing his book).
The particularly sad thing about these exacerbating factors is that if they were acknowledged by the medical field, the practice of immunization could be easily modified to continue vaccinating but avoid many of the high risk immunization strategies. However, this is never done because doing so requires acknowledging vaccines are not 100% safe, which is fundamentally unacceptable to the medical field (pediatricians who still vaccinate but simply space them out are frequently retaliated against). I have discussed the evidence outlined in this section with colleagues who are trained pediatricians, and without exception they all told me they were never aware this evidence existed.
Existing data suggests multiple vaccines being given simultaneously (e.g. through vaccines that combine multiple immunizations into a single shot), particularly the hexavalent vaccines (DTP + Polio + Haemophilus Influenza B + Hepatitis B) correlate with an increased incidence of SIDS. The following three studies support that link:
1. After GSK’s hexavalent vaccine was made available in Europe in 2000, a number of reports of infant deaths immediately following administration of that vaccine emerged. This prompted a 2005 study of Germany’s adverse event database that analyzed the risk of sudden unexpected death in young children within 1 to 28 days after receiving a hexavalent vaccine. The study found standardized mortality ratios (SMR) were non-significantly higher than expected on the first day after receiving a hexavalent vaccine during infancy and that in the second year of life, children were significantly more likely to die within 1 day (SMR = 31.3) or 2 days (SMR = 23.5) after hexavalent vaccination.
2. A followup to the German study using Italy’s national database of death certificates found that administering a hexavalent vaccine to infants of 1-24 months of age increased their risk of death in the 14 days after vaccination by 2.2 times (when six antigens were administered in a different manner, a smaller increase was also observed). Although these results were statistically significant, the authors nonetheless concluded they did not represent a significant concern for vaccine safety (a conclusion I suspect was either due to already existing biases of the authors or because they did not understand the underreporting factor of vaccine injuries).
3. On account of the data suggesting a link between hexavalent vaccines and SIDS, in 2011, an Italian judge ordered the release of GlaxoSmithKline’s confidential safety monitoring data within Italy. Although GSK’s report stated less deaths than would naturally be expected occurred following vaccination (which suggests fraud as none of the vaccinated diseases cause sudden death—suspect government COVID-19 data sets have made similar claims the vaccine reduces deaths unrelated to COVID-19), GSK’s database, also showed that approximately 90% reported infant deaths clustered in immediate proximity to vaccination.
A later confidential report by GSK was submitted to European regulators in 2015. Of the vaccine linked deaths that were reported within, 52.5% clustered within 3 days post-vaccination, 82.2% occurred within 7 days post-vaccination, and 97.9% of all sudden deaths following the first dose of hexavalent vaccination (four doses are recommended) occurred in the first 10 days post-vaccination. In comparison, just 2.1% occurred in the next 10 days.
GSK’s reports thus once again substantiate the link countless others have found that SIDS disproportionately occurs immediately after vaccination. If by some quirk of fate those suspect vaccines had coincidentally been administered at the exact same time SIDS would have occurred naturally (which is what debunkers have the audacity to suggest), the timing that is consistently found for SIDS would not occur and the cases of death would be evenly spaced out over the entire 2-6 month period rather than being clustered to immediately follow vaccination.
An argument can also be made that this clustering is a result of parents being more likely to recognize and report a death that follows vaccination (conversely many parents, including public figures, will do everything they can to deny that connection). I do not believe this theory can account for the high degree of clustering that is consistently observed in deaths reported following vaccination or the numerous datasets that are independent of data comes from parental observations and likewise show this clustering occurs.
Providing vaccines earlier in life, particularly for premature infants, has been observed to correlate with an increased likelihood of a potentially fatal disease episode (e.g. severe inflammatory responses, heart issues and most importantly impairment or cessation of breathing, that when sufficiently severe results in SIDS). This association is common enough that a large number of studies have been conducted on the subject and mainstream journals have published articles suggesting the need to monitor for these complications in premature infants.
Beyond the key systems of the body being less able to tolerate the stress of immunization in an incompletely developed (premature) body, since vaccine doses are not calibrated to an infant’s weight (instead a one size fits all model is followed), premature infants effectively receive a much higher vaccine dose. Since this “higher” dose correlates to a higher likelihood of a life-threatening vaccine injury, a dose response relationship to vaccination is also demonstrated here. In each of these studies where premature infants were evaluated, “cardiorespiratory events” typically referred to interruptions of breathing (apnea), a slowed heart rate (bradycardia) and/or reduction of tissue oxygenation.
If cardiorespiratory events are not addressed, they are often fatal and since premature infants are often kept in the hospital for monitoring, they represent the one cohort whose vital signs will be measured in the period following vaccination (a key role of the NICU is to monitor vital signs and save babies who develop dangerous vital signs—whereas many other adverse reactions would be unlikely to be recognized in this setting).
Based on the evidence presented throughout this article, I believe it is fair to advance the hypothesis that many cases of SIDS involved incidents of cardiorespiratory events that progressed to death while the infant could not be attended to as they lay in their crib. Keep in mind that the previously mentioned Australian study detected long term disruptions of breathing when infants were monitored at home following vaccination and that there are numerous reports of parents initiating CPR immediately following respiratory arrest of their child.
Some of the studies assessing the effect of vaccination on premature infants are as follows:
•A 1997 study monitored premature infants for 24 hours before and after they were vaccinated at 2 months of age. Prior to vaccination, 1 of 98 preterm infants had a cardiorespiratory event, while 17 of 98 experienced one following vaccination. Of those 17 who did, 29% required respiratory support.
•A 1998 study found 30% of premature infants had a cardiorespiratory event within 24 hours after vaccination. In all but one of these infants, key inflammatory markers rose to abnormal levels following vaccination—I have seen multiple hospitalized patients who developed a severe inflammatory response immediately following vaccination which was then classified as sepsis without a known source of infection (systemic infections frequently alter vital signs and are screened for on this basis).
•A 2001 study found adverse vaccine reactions occurred in 38% of premature infants, and roughly half of the injuries (20% of the premature infants) were cardiorespiratory events. 33% of premature infants vaccinated at 70 days of age or less had major adverse reactions compared with none who were vaccinated at over 70 days of age, and those who experienced cardiorespiratory events were significantly younger and smaller at the time of vaccination than those who did not.
•A 2005 study found recurrent or increased severity of cardiorespiratory events occurred in 13% of preterm infants following vaccination.
•A 2006 study found vaccinated preterm infants were 2.41 times more likely to have a resurgence of, or increased episodes of cardiorespiratory events than unvaccinated controls. Low weight at the time of vaccination increased the risk of these events.
•A 2007 study found 11% percent of vaccinated premature newborns experienced cardiorespiratory events. Of the infants with already existing chronic disease, 21.7% experienced a cardiorespiratory event.
•A 2007 study found cardiorespiratory events were observed in 0-22% of infants who received a single vaccine (this rate varied by vaccine, TDaP was the highest at 22%) and in 32% of those who received multiple vaccines simultaneously (who were on average 3.62 times more likely than those receiving a single vaccine to develop a cardiorespiratory event). 13% of those receiving multiple vaccines subsequently required ventilation and an abnormal elevation of inflammatory markers occurred in up to 70% of those given a single vaccine and 85% of infants administered multiple vaccines.
•A 2008 study found that 51.5% of all vaccinated premature infants had a cardiorespiratory event after their first vaccination, and 18% of these had a recurrence after their second vaccination.
•A 2010 study found cardiorespiratory events occurred in 10.8% of very low birth weight infants after vaccination, and that when apnea occurred, those infants were 6.4 times more likely to develop bradycardia.
•A 2011 study found that of preterm infants who experienced apnea after their initial vaccinations, 18% had recurrent apnea with subsequent vaccinations.
•A 2012 study found that cardiorespiratory events occurred in 35% of very low birth weight preterm infants after vaccination, and that this risk increased with low gestational age or the infant already requiring respiratory support prior to vaccination.
•A 2012 study found nearly 32% of vaccinated premature infants had cardiorespiratory events following vaccination. Adverse reactions were more common in younger and lower weight infants.
VAERS also suggests these factors increase the likelihood of vaccine injury:
A 2012 analysis reviewed all reports in VAERS for infants between 1990–2010 (remember these injuries are massively underreported and VAERS only registers between 1-3% of total vaccine injuries). Those 38,801 reports were then filtered for cases of hospitalizations (6279) and deaths (1881) and compared with the number of vaccines received and the child’s age. The hospitalization rate increased linearly from 11.0% (107 of 969) for 2 doses to 23.5% (661 of 2817) for 8 doses and decreased linearly from 20.1% (154 of 765) for children aged <0.1 year to 10.7% (86 of 801) for children aged 0.9 years. Children who received 5-8 vaccine doses were 1.5 times as likely to die as children who received 1-4 doses (3.6% to 5.5%), and boys were 1.4 times as likely to die as girls.
Were the COVID-19 Lockdowns a Blessing in Disguise?
A key reason why it has been impossible to improve the safety of existing vaccines is because clinical trials that evaluate the safety of vaccinations are for all practical purposes forbidden (and when they are conducted the researchers experience extreme persecution many believe is designed to discourage other researchers from pursuing the same research for fear of being “Wakefielded”).
The rationale provided for this prohibition is that vaccines are so incredibly safe and effective that it is unethical to conduct a trial that withholds these life saving therapies from children who serve as the controls. Conversely any evidence presented which indicates vaccines are unsafe is always dismissed by stating there is no placebo control data to substantiate that harm.
This circular logic designed to shield the available vaccinations from any type of scrutiny (which due to their toxicity profiles they could not withstand) has been an endless source of frustration for the vaccine safety advocates. Because the harms from vaccination are so far reaching, they only become clear in control groups (such as this cohort or this cohort), and consistently show an absence of, or a significant reduction for most chronic illnesses. This is likely why such a relentless push has been made to ensure unvaccinated comparison groups cannot exist (this was also floated as a reason for governments around the world having a fanatical drive to vaccinate the population as otherwise they will face profound liability for the obvious wave of injuries only seen in those who received the spike protein producing vaccines).
At this point in time, we have witnessed a century long cat-and-mouse game of authorities concocting reason after reason to reject each new way that is found to prove profound adverse vaccine reactions occur. My hope is that this article has provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate a clear and indisputable between vaccination and SIDS in spite of the fact clinical trials that could directly test this association always being prohibited…until the events of 2020 inadvertently broke the embargo on testing this association.
When the COVID-19 lockdowns happened and nonessential medical services were terminated (including the routine visits with pediatricians for scheduled immunizations), the vaccine safety advocates realize this represented a once in a lifetime chance to prove the immunization schedule causes infant deaths because there would be a brief period of time where the childhood vaccine uptake substantially dropped.
Before we go any further, I want to note that this was for all practical purposes a prospective study (which is considered to be far more valid than a retrospective study) because so many physicians in the communities I belonged to announced their intent to study this issue the moment the lockdowns were announced. I will now cite a few figures from a report that was compiled on this data.
Although deaths for many segments of the population increased during the early days of COVID-19, one group instead experienced an unexpected decline in 2020.
Curiously, this decline was primarily found in children at the same age as those who experienced SIDS.
It was also noticed that the greatest reduction in mortality occurred within ethnic minorities (who often experience the most severe vaccine injuries).
Odder still, an unprecedented decline in vaccination also occurred at the same time within the United States.
This effect was likely not confined to the United States. The WHO issued a press release on May, 22, 2020 stating that, “Since March 2020, routine childhood immunization services have been disrupted on a global scale that may be unprecedented since the inception of expanded programs on immunization (EPI) in the 1970s.”
It should also be noted the most common refutation to this data set suggesting declining vaccination rates reduced infant deaths was the CDC recording a small increase in the cases of SIDS in 2020; however given that such a large drop in overall childhood mortality occurred in 2020, I am not sure if this small increase is significant (and whether or not it is the result of erroneous classifications in death that occurred during 2020 such as those arising from less diagnostic resources being available).
To some extent, Igor Chudov also confirmed not vaccinating saves lives with a different dataset.
One of my major questions with the COVID-19 vaccine program was what motivation could have possibly justified forcing such a dangerous and ineffective vaccination on the public. Although the lust for money is commonly cited as reasonable justification, I do not agree with this explanation because it was a given from the start (especially when considering the political changes Donald Trump had created in America) this campaign would red pill so many people against vaccinations for the rest of their life that the money made from selling a year of COVID-19 vaccinations would be dwarfed by the money lost from a sizable portion of the population permanently boycotting the existing immunization programs.
Due to the political climate of Florida, the state was uniquely suited to lead this trend (as far as I know no other state has had a similar recent decline in vaccine uptake). In 2021, Florida’s childhood vaccination rate decreased from 93.4% in 2020 to only 79.3% in 2021. At the same time this happened, all-cause mortality for babies under 1 year of age also decreased by 8.93% in Florida (which is even more significant if you consider that the year before the opposite trend existed with infant mortality increasing by 0.67%). As a 14 percent decrease in vaccination coverage was associated with 9 percent decrease in infant mortality, this led Chudov to conclude that roughly half of the infant deaths in Florida could potentially be attributed to vaccinations.
Lastly to assess the evidence concerning this hypothesis, I independently consulted VAERS where I discovered many compelling (and tragic) cases (some are listed here) whose descriptions identically match the patterns described in this article and often include the key objective diagnostic findings that have been associated with vaccine caused SIDS (the consistent autopsy findings, such as those reported here and here, are another key piece of evidence for vaccines causing this disease will be discussed in the final part of this series).
It also clear from VAERS (you can quickly replicate my work) that the TDP vaccine was the vaccine most commonly linked to infant deaths (then again it is also one of the only ones given in that age range), deaths in infants that occurred following vaccination in the first year of life were much more common in the 2-6 month TDP age range (which technically does not refute the conventional hypothesis that SIDS spontaneously occurs at this age for no apparent reason) and the timing of deaths that occurred was dramatically more common in the days immediately following vaccination.
Historically, I could not determine if the trends reviewed earlier during the 1990s were supported or refuted by the VAERS data of the time, while during the year of the COVID-19 lockdowns, a decrease in infant deaths did occur that reversed the next year in 2021. However for 2020, it did not appear possible to determine if a reduction of childhood vaccination played a role in that trend (keep in mind, that if less people are vaccinating, regardless of if vaccination is or is not related to the occurrence of SIDS, a decrease in vaccination will guarantee less total cases of a vaccination can occur in proximity to an instance of SIDS).
From further investigating this issue, I discovered Miller (the author referenced before) performed a much more comprehensive 2019 review of the existing VAERS data because a statistically significant association between the timing of a death and vaccination would provide evidence for causality (Miller’s paper was also the source of many references used in this article). In his analysis of the timing of all infant deaths in VAERS restricted to those within 60 days of vaccination (87.2% of the total deaths) he found:
•Of the 2605 reported infant deaths, 58% clustered within 3 days post-vaccination and 78.3 % within 7 days post-vaccination. The remaining deaths occurred between 8 days and 60 days post-vaccination at a rate approximately 69 times less than that found during the first week. This difference is statistically significant (p < 0.00001).
•Of the 1048 SIDS cases within that sample, 51% clustered within 3 days post-vaccination and 75.5% clustered within 7 days post-vaccination. The remaining SIDS cases occurred between 8 days and 60 days post-vaccination, at a rate approximately 57 times less than that found during the first week. This difference was also statistically significant (p < 0.00001). A male-to-female ratio was 61.6%–38.4% was present in these cases (boys are consistently found to have a higher rate of SIDS after vaccination) and 89.9 % of these cases occurred in infants under 6 months of age.
When the mandatory vaccination laws for school children were pushed through at a state level in the years prior to COVID-19, a highly polarized political climate emerged which made it virtually impossible for members of the medical community who were opposed to those mandates to in any way question them around their colleagues. One of the most common arguments cited by that pro-mandate crowd was that anyone who opposed vaccinating the children of America was for all practical purposes a "baby killer.”
In truth, that argument is absurd because almost none of the childhood vaccinations are for a life-threatening illness (and in the cases where they are, the vaccine often fails to prevent the disease and it is extraordinarily rare that an unvaccinated child will develop a fatal infection from the disease).
Data aside, this rhetorical framing left many of us in the situation where we were accused of being baby killers for being opposed to a practice that did in fact kill babies (and cannot be justified on the basis of the relatively small benefits that arise from vaccination). Fortunately, in the space of just a few years, a titanic shift has occurred and it appears the things have evolved enough in the culture that perspectives like the ones I shared here can at last be heard. From the bottom of my heart I sincerely thank you for being a receptive audience to something that has been weighing on me for a very long time (and taking the time to read this exceptionally long piece).
As we conclude this piece we must keep in mind that two key themes mentioned throughout this substack are also pivotal to the story of SIDS.
The first is that physiologic responses to a toxin always distribute on a bell curve. This means that the more extreme responses (i.e. deaths) are rare events that lie at the edge of the bell curve or the tip of an iceberg, while under the water there are far more chronic complications of vaccination that have rapidly become so prevalent in the culture we no longer even think to question their presence. It is by no means an exaggeration to claim books could be written (many already have been) on the widespread chronic neurological and immunological disorders that are a direct result the ever expanding vaccination programs.
The second is that a central mechanism of the corruption within the medical establishment stems from the committee model we utilize where "unbiased” panels of experts review evidence to produce authoritative guidelines everyone else is expected to follow. In almost all cases, these experts are arbitrarily appointed and hold significant financial interests that make them beholden to advancing the commercial needs of the medical industry. As a result, they consistently will produce guidelines that are crafted to support the needs of their sponsors regardless of the evidence against those decisions (which is not that different from how there is always an agreed upon rationale for the military-industrial-complex’s endless wars).
The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) is one such repeat offender, as whenever a vaccination is approved by the FDA, ACIP will then assume solely by virtue of it being a vaccine it is 100% safe and effective—this is a major reason why our ever expanding vaccine schedule has never been directly tested for safety (even though evidence like that cited in this article shows vaccine toxicity cumulative increases with the number of vaccines given).
Following FDA approval, ACIP will always economically support the manufacturer and vote to add the vaccine to the vaccination schedule. ACIP’s recommendation in turn almost always results in the vaccine becoming mandated throughout America (hence creating a guaranteed market that incentivizes the overproduction of unnecessary vaccines) and many bad vaccines that should not have entered the market have sailed through on ACIP’s good graces.
For example, immediately following the FDA’s widely protested EUA’s of Pfizer and Moderna’s vaccine for young children in June (this brief review of one trial unambiguously shows the decision could not in any way be justified), “ACIP determined that the benefits of COVID-19 vaccination outweigh the known and potential risks” and without hesitation recommended vaccinating our children.
As I showed in an earlier article, the key reason we have not been able to end COVID-19 is because Fauci appointed a committee of corrupt colleagues who were being paid off by remdesivir’s manufacturer, and as a result, the official treatment guidelines for COVID-19 have not permitted any of the proven but no longer patented treatments to enter the official COVID-19 treatment guidelines. Although guidelines have been ruled in federal court to not constitute law, the medical-industrial-complex frequently uses them to bypass the legislative process and have their policies become the de facto law because so many other institutions that wield significant power in our lives inappropriately treat these guidelines as law.
This model has to change.
I believe this is an extremely important story to be told that has not yet received significant exposure, so I have spent a lot of time compiling this article and trying to vet it for accuracy. Nonetheless, I am sure there were oversights on my part. If any of you can identify any errors I made or important pieces of data I did not include, I eagerly invite your feedback.
In the final parts of this series, I will discuss the mechanisms that explain why vaccines so commonly cause harm and then show how these are also responsible for the sudden death syndromes (Moulden had an excellent model to explain SIDS). I sincerely thank you for taking the time to read this passage and to share it with the appropriate audiences.
Thanks for reading The Forgotten Side of Medicine! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.