Good for you! The degree of ignorance and superstition behind the current recommendations is breathtaking, and has taken the breath of many thousands of our children. You're a voice of sanity in this mess
This is like scratching my itch! Saying things that so badly need to be said. Articulated. Out loud. We are the creators of a new reality manifest and J.B.Handley is an essential voice of clarity. I am soooo grateful. I love best Gandhi’s quote which I love stating so here it is:
“Vaccination is a barbarous practice and one of the most fatal of all delusions current in our time. Conscientious objectors of vaccination should stand alone(together)if need be against the whole world in defense of their conviction.” We are in this fight together. Thank you Mr. Handle 🙏
Also: “conscientious objectors” was first introduced into English court in 1898 specifically for the ‘anti-vaccinators’! I JUST LOVE THAT!!❤️
Great summary of the conundrum that the vaccination debate is mired in. Surely the pro-vaxx side is familiar with the safety concerns the other side has, and is just CHOOSING to ignore it. Also, the side familiar with evidence of harm from vaccination is aware of how weak the efficacy data is. There may be small benefits, but they can't possibly be ignorant of the epidemiological data showing that 99% of the improvement in infectious disease prevalence PRECEDED the introduction of vaccines. How does the system prevent each side from engaging the other with what they are ignoring? Why not hold their feet to the fire?
I also wonder why medical ethics has never been introduced as a rationale for not vaccinating. Everyone knows that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and everyone knows about the absence of quality randomized trials looking at safety, so how can you credibly argue that there isn't enough data for harm coming from randomized trials to conclude that the vaccines can't be considered dangerous? The Precautionary Principle and the Hippocratic Oath demand allegiance to the First Do No Harm ethos, so the burden of proof, based on medical ethical principles, should be on those advocating an intervention to provide PROOF OF SAFETY. If you can't come up with studies CLEARLY showing safety, medical ethics would DEMAND that you do so before recommending the proposed product. This argument seems so straightforward to me. Why no-one using it is something that I find to be a mystery.
They existed. The problem arose when we began conflating science and medicine. They operate on differing ethical platforms and the disaster that creates best illustrated by tony fauci
I feel the same way about the so called improvements from taking vaccines. Water borne diseases weren't borne because people weren't living in shit water with no sewage anymore. I don't have the proof necessily but everything in my gut is telling me there are no benefits of vaccinations, even in this supposed case of chicken pox reducing cases.
What if the "data" that "proves" benefit is based on a false foundation, i.e. pathogenic contagion is a myth? What if "disease" definitions and criteria changed after a given vaccine was introduced to the public? What if the entire vaccine paradigm is all risk and no benefit?
"So when Dr. Cody Meissner voted against removing the Hep B birth dose and said he saw “clear evidence of the benefits” but “not the harms,” he was accidentally revealing the entire rotten structure. Of course he doesn’t see the harms. Nobody is systematically looking for them."
Exactly. Meissner's comments at the vote provoked me to righteous anger. It was batsh!t crazy talk from a lunatic. Nothing will change until these indoctrinated, conflicted fools are removed from the process.
No, it was "crazy talk" from a true believer. I'd highly recommend reading Aaron Siri's recent book, "Vaccines, Amen -- The Religion of Vaccines" Meissner appears to be a true believer:
"... the "Vaccines Amen" crowd. ... who have a fervent belief in vaccines. ... often impervious to reason or data, even when it is provided to them by their oracle, The CDC. ... the fanatics are not those who choose not to vaccinate. The fanatics are those who think everyone must be vaccinated ..."
The Vaccine Amenners religion is being threatened to the point of us witnessing a splinter/division in their church. They are breaking away (Il, MA, various church members that are in Congress and the Senate) and will not follow their leader/Pope, the CDC, unless if the heretics are dealt with.
Dr. Meissner also got on my nerves a bit (although the "bearded" ACIP member [Dr. Joseph R. Hibbeln] was much more arrogant and grating). However, I've just read the latest post by the Midwestern Doctor who described why Meissner was selected by RFK:
"... many who watch this [ACIP meeting] will understandably feel resentment towards Cody Meissner MD’s fanatical defense of the hepatitis B vaccine. Given this, I feel it’s important to note Meissner (who had previously held many important vaccine regulatory roles including being on ACIP for four years) was selected by RFK on the basis of him supporting the MAHA agenda (e.g., he broke from his peers to oppose masking children in 2021, opposed COVID vaccine mandates and supported ending COVID vaccination for children and pregnant women). As such, Meissner is actually much more supportive of challenging vaccine dogmas than most members of the medical community, which again illustrates how challenging of a position RFK Jr. is in as he confronts the healthcare bureaucracy." https://www.midwesterndoctor.com/p/the-dam-is-breaking-were-making-america
Saw that and agree with you. I guess it just shows that the vaccine religion has visceral hold on even well-intentioned people who should know better. This is why the entire vaccine edifice must be shattered into a billion pieces.
While I understand the risk vs benefit argument for studies that show the risk of injury, the only way to provide that evidence is to either a)put other children in direct danger of Injury b) not vaccinate which doesn’t prove to these zealots that vaccines are not safe or effective, because they blame all disease on those not vaccinated. How about they just stop interfering in parenting, hold manufacturers responsible for lethal products, and stop taking bribes? How about they learn how to heal and allow our God given biological processes to work? Their prevention is worse than any disease my son would have faced. I had a mom text me enraged because it’s too little too late and too many children’s lives are already destroyed. I agree with her anger even though we must keep striving for truth and justice.
Katie, while I agree with the direction of your post, i gotta disagree with your a. Point (if i understand it correctly). Based on all we now know about the proximate HepB and a whole lot of other vax suspected lack of real world effectiveness plus the strong potential of injury, I think the "putting unvaxxed kids at risk" argument is pretty weak. It seems to me that we put the vaxxed kids at more risk with an unproven vax.
We might be misunderstanding each other. My point is that vaccines are dangerous for many and not a reliable means of protection. We already have evidence that what they put in the vaccines is neurotoxic and causes neurological injury. To continue to test whether it causes more injuries when we know it’s neurotoxic is ethically wrong in my opinion. Personally, I consider the risk to be equivalent to Russian roulette. Five times out of six won’t kill you, but knowing it can, is it ethical to keep endangering the lives of everyone when you know it’s going to catastrophically hurt or kill someone? If I missed your point in my response, please pardon my mistake.
I don’t even believe the “disease prevention” side of the risk vs benefit analysis. Have any long term placebo-controlled, randomized, prospective trials demonstrated disease prevention? Not that I’m aware of. Lacking such “gold standard” evidence, the precautionary principle and “do no harm” should drive policy and mandates must be removed. The safety standards for products administered to healthy babies should be far more stringent than for products given to treat a disease. Risks need to be effectively zero.
I commented earlier that it seems based on the real world evidence we are discussing here it may be more unethical to submit the kids to the unproven vax than the placebo. This particularly so when the disease in question is a childhood one virtually "everyone" got and survived. The only risk to the placebo group is getting an easily surviveable sickness. Not sure how we bring common sense to the paradigm tho.
Why don't they go to an orphanage in Africa and do the study there? It's much safer than the Ebola Vaccine trials Gates and company did in that Continent.
Also vaccines may reduce a particular illness but reduce the immunity to other illnesses. In fact this seems to be a general phenomenon. And even the particular illness may only be reduced for a time and then sometimes it actually increases.
Vaccines are tested to ensure they stimulate a robust antibody response. They are not tested for safety, safe and effective is simply a check the box requirement, so they are checked to say that they are. If the trials were designed for safety they would be done differently, saline would be used as RFK says.
Vaccines operate on the presumption of safety, that is that they are assumed to be safe even in the absence of evidence. Further, the absence of evidence that they do harm is also interpreted as a signal that vaccines are safe.
It’s clear that pressed to provide support for the claim vaccines are safe, phamra and the regulators cannot. It’s clear they have no experience being challenged on this issue, all they mount are baseless claims of safety to disprove that a lack of evidence matters.
The more you learn about vaccines the more you realize it’s an experiment of a witch’s brew.
How many times does the same story need to be told? As many times as is needed! This need for change in the tracking system will change when the roar gets loud enough and the protection for pharma in relation to these shots is reversed. Once again, patience is a virtue while continuing to shout from the rooftops!
Much needed and much appreciated analysis of our vaccine system. I especially liked your choice of the word “harms”, in place of the more frequently used word, “risks”. The distinction between the two words is subtle, but does exist. Perhaps we should change the risk/benefit phrase to benefit/harm instead. Whatever your preference, it’s an expression of comparison, and must include both sides.
As you have clearly stated, only one side is really represented. Of course, that is by intention, and not by accident. The promoters of the vaccines, Big Pharma, are lobbying for the billions of dollars in profits they will receive if no possibility of harm is represented in their persuasive arguments. Just as the concept of Truth, can not be understood in the absence of the concept of Lies, our medical choices must include both sides for an accurate assessment to choose correctly.
A newborn baby, who is vaccinated against Hepatitis B, should have a body weight of 250 kg if tolerable intake of aluminium should not be exceeded, (The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) set a Tolerable Weekly Intake (TWI) for aluminium at 1 milligram (mg) per kilogram (kg) of body weight per week). Aluminium is absorbed with ca. 0,1 % from food. The content of aluminium in Hepatitis B vaccine is 0,250 mg.
Good for you! The degree of ignorance and superstition behind the current recommendations is breathtaking, and has taken the breath of many thousands of our children. You're a voice of sanity in this mess
This is like scratching my itch! Saying things that so badly need to be said. Articulated. Out loud. We are the creators of a new reality manifest and J.B.Handley is an essential voice of clarity. I am soooo grateful. I love best Gandhi’s quote which I love stating so here it is:
“Vaccination is a barbarous practice and one of the most fatal of all delusions current in our time. Conscientious objectors of vaccination should stand alone(together)if need be against the whole world in defense of their conviction.” We are in this fight together. Thank you Mr. Handle 🙏
Also: “conscientious objectors” was first introduced into English court in 1898 specifically for the ‘anti-vaccinators’! I JUST LOVE THAT!!❤️
Great quote , thank you.
Great summary of the conundrum that the vaccination debate is mired in. Surely the pro-vaxx side is familiar with the safety concerns the other side has, and is just CHOOSING to ignore it. Also, the side familiar with evidence of harm from vaccination is aware of how weak the efficacy data is. There may be small benefits, but they can't possibly be ignorant of the epidemiological data showing that 99% of the improvement in infectious disease prevalence PRECEDED the introduction of vaccines. How does the system prevent each side from engaging the other with what they are ignoring? Why not hold their feet to the fire?
I also wonder why medical ethics has never been introduced as a rationale for not vaccinating. Everyone knows that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and everyone knows about the absence of quality randomized trials looking at safety, so how can you credibly argue that there isn't enough data for harm coming from randomized trials to conclude that the vaccines can't be considered dangerous? The Precautionary Principle and the Hippocratic Oath demand allegiance to the First Do No Harm ethos, so the burden of proof, based on medical ethical principles, should be on those advocating an intervention to provide PROOF OF SAFETY. If you can't come up with studies CLEARLY showing safety, medical ethics would DEMAND that you do so before recommending the proposed product. This argument seems so straightforward to me. Why no-one using it is something that I find to be a mystery.
Medical ethics exited the room long ago.
They existed. The problem arose when we began conflating science and medicine. They operate on differing ethical platforms and the disaster that creates best illustrated by tony fauci
I submit they never were in the room
I feel the same way about the so called improvements from taking vaccines. Water borne diseases weren't borne because people weren't living in shit water with no sewage anymore. I don't have the proof necessily but everything in my gut is telling me there are no benefits of vaccinations, even in this supposed case of chicken pox reducing cases.
Where I live, infant mortality was reduced by 2/3 within 3 years...by teaching mothers about hygiene.
This was stated in an article about the history of visiting nurses. They started their work in tge early 1920s
exactly right
What if the "data" that "proves" benefit is based on a false foundation, i.e. pathogenic contagion is a myth? What if "disease" definitions and criteria changed after a given vaccine was introduced to the public? What if the entire vaccine paradigm is all risk and no benefit?
Then some ones, somewhere are making an eye watering amount of money.
Don’t cha reckon.
'They' most certainly are...and worse, 'they' know it and do not want their cash cow destroyed.
YEP, many a "What if" but pretty big on most possible.
What if....indeed!
"So when Dr. Cody Meissner voted against removing the Hep B birth dose and said he saw “clear evidence of the benefits” but “not the harms,” he was accidentally revealing the entire rotten structure. Of course he doesn’t see the harms. Nobody is systematically looking for them."
Exactly. Meissner's comments at the vote provoked me to righteous anger. It was batsh!t crazy talk from a lunatic. Nothing will change until these indoctrinated, conflicted fools are removed from the process.
This is from a quick google search: "Meissner has previously reported taking money from Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Roche, and others for clinical trials.
There goes scientific honesty!...
"It was batsh!t crazy talk from a lunatic."
. . .
No, it was "crazy talk" from a true believer. I'd highly recommend reading Aaron Siri's recent book, "Vaccines, Amen -- The Religion of Vaccines" Meissner appears to be a true believer:
"... the "Vaccines Amen" crowd. ... who have a fervent belief in vaccines. ... often impervious to reason or data, even when it is provided to them by their oracle, The CDC. ... the fanatics are not those who choose not to vaccinate. The fanatics are those who think everyone must be vaccinated ..."
BTW, Siri testified at the ACIP meeting on the childhood vaccine schedule: https://www.cdc.gov/acip/meetings/presentation-slides-december-04-05-2025.html AND CDC video recording: https://www.youtube.com/live/kUgXRUpKal4 (Siri starts @ 2:57, brief Q&A @ 4:38 mostly with Meissner)
The Vaccine Amenners religion is being threatened to the point of us witnessing a splinter/division in their church. They are breaking away (Il, MA, various church members that are in Congress and the Senate) and will not follow their leader/Pope, the CDC, unless if the heretics are dealt with.
Dr. Meissner also got on my nerves a bit (although the "bearded" ACIP member [Dr. Joseph R. Hibbeln] was much more arrogant and grating). However, I've just read the latest post by the Midwestern Doctor who described why Meissner was selected by RFK:
"... many who watch this [ACIP meeting] will understandably feel resentment towards Cody Meissner MD’s fanatical defense of the hepatitis B vaccine. Given this, I feel it’s important to note Meissner (who had previously held many important vaccine regulatory roles including being on ACIP for four years) was selected by RFK on the basis of him supporting the MAHA agenda (e.g., he broke from his peers to oppose masking children in 2021, opposed COVID vaccine mandates and supported ending COVID vaccination for children and pregnant women). As such, Meissner is actually much more supportive of challenging vaccine dogmas than most members of the medical community, which again illustrates how challenging of a position RFK Jr. is in as he confronts the healthcare bureaucracy." https://www.midwesterndoctor.com/p/the-dam-is-breaking-were-making-america
So, I now feel we should be more charitable toward Meissner. Maryanne Demasi said " he struck me as someone who genuinely believed ..." (in Comments of her excellent post covering the ACIP meeting: https://blog.maryannedemasi.com/p/day-2-acip-ends-universal-hep-b-birth
It's difficult for any believer to become a heretic. We should have some sympathy and try to help the man along in the process.
"Belief" is not helpful, scientifically.
Saw that and agree with you. I guess it just shows that the vaccine religion has visceral hold on even well-intentioned people who should know better. This is why the entire vaccine edifice must be shattered into a billion pieces.
Check his bank account. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that some are paid to oppose.
While I understand the risk vs benefit argument for studies that show the risk of injury, the only way to provide that evidence is to either a)put other children in direct danger of Injury b) not vaccinate which doesn’t prove to these zealots that vaccines are not safe or effective, because they blame all disease on those not vaccinated. How about they just stop interfering in parenting, hold manufacturers responsible for lethal products, and stop taking bribes? How about they learn how to heal and allow our God given biological processes to work? Their prevention is worse than any disease my son would have faced. I had a mom text me enraged because it’s too little too late and too many children’s lives are already destroyed. I agree with her anger even though we must keep striving for truth and justice.
God bless you n yours . Love from Sydney Australia.
Katie, while I agree with the direction of your post, i gotta disagree with your a. Point (if i understand it correctly). Based on all we now know about the proximate HepB and a whole lot of other vax suspected lack of real world effectiveness plus the strong potential of injury, I think the "putting unvaxxed kids at risk" argument is pretty weak. It seems to me that we put the vaxxed kids at more risk with an unproven vax.
We might be misunderstanding each other. My point is that vaccines are dangerous for many and not a reliable means of protection. We already have evidence that what they put in the vaccines is neurotoxic and causes neurological injury. To continue to test whether it causes more injuries when we know it’s neurotoxic is ethically wrong in my opinion. Personally, I consider the risk to be equivalent to Russian roulette. Five times out of six won’t kill you, but knowing it can, is it ethical to keep endangering the lives of everyone when you know it’s going to catastrophically hurt or kill someone? If I missed your point in my response, please pardon my mistake.
Yup, i misunderstood, and we are arguing agreement! Better than disagreeing, tho ;)
I don’t even believe the “disease prevention” side of the risk vs benefit analysis. Have any long term placebo-controlled, randomized, prospective trials demonstrated disease prevention? Not that I’m aware of. Lacking such “gold standard” evidence, the precautionary principle and “do no harm” should drive policy and mandates must be removed. The safety standards for products administered to healthy babies should be far more stringent than for products given to treat a disease. Risks need to be effectively zero.
Not sure but think its been declared "unethical" to conduct placebo studies with kids. So....?
talk about assuming the conclusion, right?
I commented earlier that it seems based on the real world evidence we are discussing here it may be more unethical to submit the kids to the unproven vax than the placebo. This particularly so when the disease in question is a childhood one virtually "everyone" got and survived. The only risk to the placebo group is getting an easily surviveable sickness. Not sure how we bring common sense to the paradigm tho.
Why don't they go to an orphanage in Africa and do the study there? It's much safer than the Ebola Vaccine trials Gates and company did in that Continent.
I suspect they do just that. Read the Constant Gardner by John Le Care?
Also vaccines may reduce a particular illness but reduce the immunity to other illnesses. In fact this seems to be a general phenomenon. And even the particular illness may only be reduced for a time and then sometimes it actually increases.
Vaccines are tested to ensure they stimulate a robust antibody response. They are not tested for safety, safe and effective is simply a check the box requirement, so they are checked to say that they are. If the trials were designed for safety they would be done differently, saline would be used as RFK says.
Vaccines operate on the presumption of safety, that is that they are assumed to be safe even in the absence of evidence. Further, the absence of evidence that they do harm is also interpreted as a signal that vaccines are safe.
It’s clear that pressed to provide support for the claim vaccines are safe, phamra and the regulators cannot. It’s clear they have no experience being challenged on this issue, all they mount are baseless claims of safety to disprove that a lack of evidence matters.
The more you learn about vaccines the more you realize it’s an experiment of a witch’s brew.
It all boils down to one simple mindset… if you don’t want to find something, don’t look.
How many times does the same story need to be told? As many times as is needed! This need for change in the tracking system will change when the roar gets loud enough and the protection for pharma in relation to these shots is reversed. Once again, patience is a virtue while continuing to shout from the rooftops!
Im glad im not alone on this.
Natural immunity must be intact, and I stand firm behind as someone living in the spectrum; Salute to you for speaking out.
Much needed and much appreciated analysis of our vaccine system. I especially liked your choice of the word “harms”, in place of the more frequently used word, “risks”. The distinction between the two words is subtle, but does exist. Perhaps we should change the risk/benefit phrase to benefit/harm instead. Whatever your preference, it’s an expression of comparison, and must include both sides.
As you have clearly stated, only one side is really represented. Of course, that is by intention, and not by accident. The promoters of the vaccines, Big Pharma, are lobbying for the billions of dollars in profits they will receive if no possibility of harm is represented in their persuasive arguments. Just as the concept of Truth, can not be understood in the absence of the concept of Lies, our medical choices must include both sides for an accurate assessment to choose correctly.
Congress must somehow remove big pharma's immunity for vaccines.
Finally, something for them to DO.
A newborn baby, who is vaccinated against Hepatitis B, should have a body weight of 250 kg if tolerable intake of aluminium should not be exceeded, (The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) set a Tolerable Weekly Intake (TWI) for aluminium at 1 milligram (mg) per kilogram (kg) of body weight per week). Aluminium is absorbed with ca. 0,1 % from food. The content of aluminium in Hepatitis B vaccine is 0,250 mg.
Food goes in one way (and out); vaccines go in another.
Thank you for the concise, well argued summary.