Vaccine Injury: A Glimpse of the Scale

I have heard these stories a thousand times. I am a board‑certified pediatrician with 46 years of clinical experience. I’ve practiced in group and solo settings, served as Director of Pediatric Education for a residency program, and received numerous awards for child‑health initiatives. My solo practice had 3,500 general pediatric patients. I spent five years as Medical Director of the Autism Research Institute.

By caring for and consulting on more than 600 children with autism from 5 countries and 20 states, and hundreds of children with complex chronic illnesses, I have a unique clinical perspective to share, which mirrors what these families shared today.

My concerns about vaccine safety began in 1999 after my patient experienced a severe and irreversible reaction following a vaccine I gave. Despite exhaustive efforts to identify another cause, I could not. The trajectory of my career changed. I left a secure academic position I loved and opened a solo practice dedicated to children whose medical needs were not being met.

During my career I learned an extraordinary amount from parents who are usually perceptive observers of their children’s health. At ARI we partnered with families to identify medical problems that were overlooked. Their insights guided our research and these actions should guide our actions today. Families directed us to treat gastrointestinal dysfunction, immune dysregulation, and impairments in detoxification pathways. Collaborations with international scientists helped identify mitochondrial dysfunction, methylation abnormalities, cerebral folate deficiency, and prolonged cell danger responses.

Most pediatricians do not know about these issues. Addressing these problems often resulted in measurable improvements in autism symptoms. Some children initially diagnosed with moderate to severe autism entered kindergarten no longer meeting criteria for autism because their medical problems were treated. Other severely affected children treated as toddlers have gone on to college without knowing they once carried an autism diagnosis. 

My concerns about vaccine safety extend far beyond the narrow question of whether vaccines cause autism. Autism and complex chronic illnesses are profoundly heterogeneous. In my experience, antecedents, mediators, and triggers vary widely among children. Vaccines contribute to oxidative or mitochondrial stress in all children. In some kids; they amplify pre‑existing vulnerabilities. For others, early-life factors—such as C‑section birth, antibiotics, or prematurity — create antecedent conditions that interact with later vaccines and precede neurodevelopmental regression.

In 2005, I gave grand rounds at the university where I had been chief resident. Simply raising the possibility that the accelerated vaccine schedule might contribute to rising autism prevalence resulted in my adjunct faculty appointment not being renewed. At the time, I used a modified schedule that reduced aluminum exposure while remaining fully compliant with Virginia’s school requirements. 

 In 2006, I met with AAP leadership to discuss vaccine safety concerns – which were dismissed. Despite no research funding from government or pharma, I published a dozen studies in my spare time. One 17‑year project examined whether autism risk could be reduced by applying insights learned from families. After seven years, my autism prevalence was 1 in 297—at a time when the national rate was worse than 1 in 50. I submitted the findings to the AAP in 2013, expecting interest in a six‑fold reduction in such a serious public health problem. I received no response. 

My clinical observations—confirmed by independent data mining—was that children who got more vaccines were more likely to develop chronic illnesses. In my practice, under‑vaccinated children had lower rates of chronic diseases. 

Keep reading

In Shadow of Pending Lawsuit, CDC Again Recommends COVID Vaccines for Infants and Young Kids

The CDC quietly reinstated its July 2025 COVID-19 vaccination recommendations, including recommending the vaccine for “off-label” use for infants and children, Maryanne Demasi, Ph.D., reported. The changes bring the CDC recommendations in line with a court order issued in March by U.S. District Judge Brian E. Murphy. “CHD’s position is that these vaccines should be off the market,” Children’s Health Defense CEO Mary Holland said today.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) quietly reinstated its July 2025 COVID-19 vaccination recommendations, including recommending the vaccine for “off-label” use among infants and children, Maryanne Demasi, Ph.D., reported.

According to the CDC’s updated webpage, the agency now recommends the COVID-19 shot for all adults ages 18 and older and for children ages 6 months to 17 years who are moderately to severely immunocompromised.

Keep reading

Can You Trust CDC’s Flu Vaccine Effectiveness Estimates? Epidemiologist Says No

Every year, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates how effective last year’s flu vaccine was at preventing flu-related symptoms and hospitalizations.

But are the CDC’s estimates accurate? Can you trust them?

Dr. Eyal Shahar, a professor emeritus of epidemiology at the University of Arizona’s Mel & Enid Zuckerman College of Public Health, says no — because the CDC uses what he says is an inherently biased study design to arrive at those estimates.

In an interview with The Defender, Shahar said that for years, the CDC has insisted on using a “problematic” test-negative study design, even though better designs exist.

“There are many supporters of the test-negative design, and the CDC simply adopted that design long ago,” Shahar said. “There are CDC-associated networks, all of which exclusively use that design to estimate effectiveness. It is time for a change.”

Shahar has authored nearly 200 papers, a book chapter on biases in epidemiological research, and two books, including a textbook on epidemiology and statistics. He has taught courses in methodology and is the former associate editor of the American Journal of Epidemiology.

A test-negative study design method is relatively easy and cheap, but it is known to produce biased and incoherent results, Shahar said.

Test-negative studies on flu vaccine effectiveness enroll people who sought medical care for flu-like symptoms and were tested for the flu. The researchers compare the vaccination status between those who tested positive and those who tested negative.

But that means the study is limited to people who sought medical care and were tested. That’s a form of selection bias, because the study excluded everyone who didn’t do those things. Limiting the study in this way can also cause collider bias, which could skew the results, Shahar said.

Shahar said better study designs would likely yield more accurate results, but they require more effort and money.

Keep reading

Parent poll shows nearly 80% of kids who became suddenly autistic had their last normal day on the day they got vaccinated

I found a large Facebook group of parents of autistic kids that was willing to allow me to do a survey.

So I asked one question: “If your child became suddenly autistic within 90 days after a vaccination, how many normal days did you observe between vaccination and the sudden onset” where “normal” means you observed behavior similar to the period before vaccination. 79% of parents answered 0 or 1 day.

That statistic is inconsistent with the claim that “vaccines don’t cause autism.”

What it shows is that the vaccine is the start of a cascade; if there is a sudden regression, 80% of the time, the day of vaccination is the last normal day of a child’s life.

Keep reading

The Lancet Jumps the Shark

The Lancet’s latest review of mRNA vaccines, by Blakney and colleagues, presents itself as an authoritative synthesis of the evidence.

Titled “Safety and efficacy of mRNA vaccines: a mechanistic and public health perspective,” it promises to examine the mRNA platform from mechanistic, preclinical, clinical, and public health perspectives.

Instead, it delivers a remarkably confident account that gives little attention to many of the scientific and regulatory questions that have shaped debate over the past five years.

What makes the review effective as messaging is not that it ignores controversy, but that it appears to engage with it.

It names difficult issues — residual DNA, biodistribution, frameshifting, and IgG4 class switching — only to swiftly minimise them with reassuring language.

The effect is to create the appearance of critical scrutiny while reassuring readers that these concerns are either resolved or insignificant.

The review describes mRNA vaccines as a “transformative advance” characterised by “rapid clearance,” “lack of genomic integration,” and a “favourable safety profile.” It concludes that the accumulated evidence “affirms” the platform as safe, effective, and adaptable.

Ironically, the review sits behind a paywall. Most journalists will never read it, many doctors will see only the abstract, and policymakers are likely to rely on its conclusions without examining the evidence in detail.

Having spent more than five years examining regulatory decisions, FOI documents, advisory committee meetings, and independent laboratory findings on mRNA vaccines, I expected the review to grapple with the questions that repeatedly emerged during those investigations. But it didn’t.

The authors note that after injection, mRNA lipid nanoparticles “remain largely localised to the injection site” with “limited distribution” to secondary organs. The review also notes that vaccine mRNA has been detected in human plasma for up to 14 days in some recipients, and that mRNA and spike antigen have been found in draining lymph nodes for up to 60 days.

But these findings are quickly reframed as evidence of “rapid clearance” and “short-lived antigen expression” — a conclusion presented with far greater confidence than the underlying evidence appears to warrant.

Only last year, members of the CDC’s vaccine advisory committee questioned the manufacturers after discovering that biodistribution studies had never been conducted using the commercial vaccine administered to millions of people.

When asked directly whether those studies had been performed, company representatives struggled to answer, exposing important gaps in the evidence base. Yet those gaps receive little attention in the review.

Residual DNA is treated similarly.

Keep reading

New Clarity on the Creation of the Virus/Vaccine

Edward Snowden exposed government surveillance of its citizens. Daniel Ellsberg exposed government lies. US Marine Major Joseph Murphy exposed something larger: the biodefense blueprint behind a pandemic that killed millions. Snowden’s leak sparked a worldwide debate about privacy. Murphy’s leak — the DARPA DEFUSE proposal — should have sparked a global reckoning about the real origins of SARS-CoV-2.

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) serves as a venture capital arm of the world’s largest bureaucracy: the Department of Defense. It funds high-risk academic research to protect US troops from future threats. 

One team proposed modifying bat coronaviruses to spread more effectively—not among humans, but mammalian bats. Testing would occur in Wuhan, where the right bat colonies existed. This was not a fringe idea. It was a biodefense concept encouraged by DARPA under the first Trump administration.

Taken together, the 2018 DEFUSE proposal, plus FOIA documents, emails, and peer-reviewed papers, support Murphy’s hypothesis: SARS-CoV-2 was created in US labs but tested in Wuhan, where it accidentally leaked. This theory has since been debated in the scientific literature, including Nature.

The U.S. intelligence community did not miss this. It moved the unclassified 2018 DARPA project, advertised on Twitter, into a classified 2021 folder.

The 2018 Blueprint

The very agencies that claimed to be searching for answers had the facts all along, stored in a top-secret folder. They knew that Peter Daszak (EcoHealth), Zhengli Shi (WIV), Linfa Wang (Duke), and Ralph Baric (UNC) had proposed inserting furin cleavage sites into SARS-like viruses and testing them on Chinese bats in Wuhan.

Keep reading

Florida AG Sues Pfizer, Bourla Over Deceptive Marketing of COVID Vaccines

Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier on Thursday sued Pfizer and its CEO, Albert Bourla, alleging that the drugmaker misled the public by marketing its COVID-19 vaccine as safe and effective while not disclosing the vaccine’s potential risks to pregnant women, children and teenagers.

The 49-page lawsuit alleges Pfizer violated Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act by deceptively marketing its vaccine to the public in turn for making billions of dollars in profit.

According to the complaint, Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine marketing campaign focused on two principal themes: that the shot “posed no material safety risks” and that “mass vaccination was necessary to stop the transmission of COVID-19” — even though Pfizer never tested the vaccine’s ability to stop the virus from spreading.

Pfizer possessed extensive evidence that its vaccine caused serious adverse events — including 1,223 reported deaths following vaccination as of February 2021 and 52 miscarriages among vaccinated pregnant women. However, the company assured the public the vaccine was safe.

“Today we sued Pfizer for deceptively marketing the products as safe — making billions — while pregnant women were miscarrying their babies and teenagers were having heart attacks,” Uthmeier said in a statement.

Keep reading

Nurse: Stillbirths Exploded After COVID Shots Hit Maternity Wards

A California labor-and-delivery nurse says her Fresno hospital went from a handful of stillbirths a year to more than 20 in a single month once COVID shots were pushed on pregnant women, then answered the pile-up with an email on how to handle the dead.

The same product is now sitting in a federal file parents were told not to worry about. An analysis of the National Health Interview Survey, published yesterday, finds COVID-vaccinated children had higher odds of autism, ADHD, anxiety and special-education use than children who never received the shot, and the authors say the shots in children should stop.

Michelle Spencer has worked the antepartum, postpartum and labor-and-delivery floor at Community Regional Medical Center in Fresno since 2017. In interviews that Children’s Health Defense aired, she described the unit before the pregnancy rollout as a place that saw about four stillbirths a year. After the shots started going into pregnant women, she said, it became four a week, and it did not stop.

A total of 22 stillborn babies in 30 days against a baseline of four a year is more than the previous five years combined, on the order of a 6,500 percent jump in a single month. Spencer’s July 30, 2025 complaint in Fresno County Superior Court used a baseline of one fetal death a month before spring 2021 and about 20 a month after, and calls the rise a statistically significant surge of more than 400 percent.

She has said she cannot pull the hospital’s full record, so the monthly figure is her estimate from the floor. The document that is not an estimate is the email.

In September 2022, nurse manager Julie Christopherson wrote to nursing and technical staff about what the hospital called “demise patients.”

Keep reading

“COVID-19 ‘Vaccination’ of Children Should Cease Immediately”

New research has emerged indicating that children who received the COVID-19 shot have experienced significantly higher rates of various health conditions, including increases in autism, Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), neurodevelopmental disorders, special education needs, asthma, anxiety, and more.

The study, titled “Neurodevelopmental Outcomes in COVID-19-Vaccinated Versus Unvaccinated U.S. Children: Analysis of the National Health Interview Survey, 2022–2024,” was published today on Zenodo, a free and open-access research repository managed by CERN and OpenAIRE.

The Gateway Pundit spoke to one of the authors of the study, Nicolas Hulscher, who said, “We analyzed official U.S. government data from 21,990 children and found a consistent association between childhood COVID-19 vaccination and higher odds of autism, ADHD, anxiety, special-education use, and mental-health treatment.”

Keep reading

Federal Survey Of 21,990 Kids Ties COVID Shots To AUTISM, ADHD

A new analysis of the federal National Health Interview Survey finds children who received a COVID-19 shot had higher odds of autism, ADHD, anxiety, asthma and special-education use than children who did not. 

The authors, including epidemiologist Nicolas Hulscher and cardiologist Peter McCullough, say the pattern survived a long list of statistical controls and rose with dose count. 

Their conclusion is blunt: COVID-19 vaccination of children should cease immediately.

The paper, posted October 5 on the Zenodo repository, pools the 2022–2024 Sample Child files. It covers 21,990 children aged 0–17 with a recorded COVID vaccination status, and 19,882 aged 2–17 for the autism, ADHD and learning-disability items. 

“Unvaccinated” in this comparison means no COVID-19 vaccine. It does not mean the child skipped the routine schedule.

Set against children who never received a COVID shot, COVID-vaccinated children had:

  • 32 percent higher odds of current autism
  • 26 percent higher odds of a lifetime autism diagnosis
  • 33 percent higher odds of ADHD
  • 23 percent higher odds of any neurodevelopmental diagnosis
  • 19 percent higher odds of special-education use
  • 24 percent higher odds of asthma
  • 27 percent higher odds of daily or weekly anxiety
  • 57 percent higher odds of mental-health medication
  • 60 percent higher odds of mental-health therapy

The steepest autism estimate landed where parents were told the product was a routine precaution. Among children aged 5 to 7, three or more COVID shots were linked to 154 percent higher odds of current autism. Ages 2 to 7 with three or more doses sat at 137 percent higher odds.

The odds also climbed with the number of shots. Against children who received none, current-autism odds were 3 percent higher after one dose, 25 percent higher after two, and 40 percent higher after three or more.

Hulscher told The Gateway Pundit the association “persisted across numerous adjustment strategies, strengthened with increasing dose count, and reached its largest estimate in some of the youngest multiply vaccinated children.” 

He added: “This is a safety signal that must not be ignored. Endangering the developing brain is a red line. COVID-19 ‘vaccination’ of children should cease immediately.”

Keep reading