Vaccines: The Good, the Bad, & the Ugly

An updated overview of traditional vaccines and mRNA injections

Vaccines have become a controversial issue — partly due to RFKjr, but mostly because of the government’s vaccine policies. Here is a brief overview of this matter, from the perspective of a Scientist, not a medical professional.

The Good Old Days —

When vaccines first came out in the US, they were only approved following rigid Scientific testing and protocols (RCTs). These studies typically took 10± years to carefully asses Safety (especially long-term) and Effectiveness. Here is the CDC's definition of vaccines they had for decades:

“A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease.”

Not surprisingly, as time went on, pharmaceutical companies tried to reduce the high cost of developing these vaccines, as well as the time needed to get approval. Critics claimed that these amounted to shortcuts in the Scientific assessments, and lawsuits became more frequent.

NCVIA (National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act) was a major milestone in 1986. This largely indemnified Big Pharma: “With the stroke of a pen, Congress essentially abolished vaccine injury lawsuits against vaccine manufacturers…” COVID-19 precipitated another major vaccine milestone (see below)…

My outline has thirteen points for you to consider about how we have gone off the rails from what was a successful traditional vaccine program. I could add more, but believe that a baker’s dozen should adequately get the message across…

Problem #1 —

Since traditional vaccines became widely used, some Big Pharma parties apparently concluded that it would be profitable to expand the bandwagon. In other words, if parents would automatically agree to get four vaccines for their child, why not make it five? Then six? How about seven?

Today (e.g., see here) there are nearly twenty different vaccines for children!

But, it’s worse! Look at the number of injections, the CDC is recommending: by the time a child is two (2) years old they will get some FORTY injections!

One does not need to be a Scientist to suspect that this situation is driven by Big Pharmaceutical profits, not the health benefits to children.

Problem #2 —

Although there was some Scientific testing regarding Safety & Effectiveness for most of these different vaccines individually, there does not seem to have been sufficient Scientific testing for these vaccines in combination.

In other words, it is well-established that there can be serious adverse reactions between two otherwise good medical treatments (vaccines, pills, etc.). Has there been adequate scientifically testing about the longterm safety effects on a two-year-old who gets some forty (40) vaccinations?

Not to my knowledge.

Problem #3 —

Why isn’t this being done by the CDC or FDA? Good question!

Why haven’t prominent medical organizations (like the AMA) made more of an issue about this clearly risky situation? Good question!

Note the AMA’s mission is stated to be: “To promote the art and science of medicine and the betterment of public health.”

Regretfully, the answer to both of these questions appears to be that these agencies and organizations are heavily influenced by Big Pharma.

What that also means is that these agencies and organizations have significantly departed from their publicized mission statements.

For example, its website boldly states: “CDC increases the health security of our nation. As the nation's health protection agency, CDC saves lives and protects people from health threats. To accomplish our mission, CDC conducts critical science and provides health information that protects our nation against expensive and dangerous health threats and responds when these arise.”

FYI, these are the same people who insisted on the necessity of COVID masks, despite 100+ studies concluding that they were unsafe and ineffective.

Problem #4 —

Then COVID-19 is dumped into this unscientific caldron.

Make a wild guess as to what “solution” that Big Pharma will tell federal politicians and government agencies that they ought to rely on for this “global medical crisis”?

Since they have government health agency approval, plus doctors’ support, plus parental compliance to give two-year-old babies some forty injections, clearly no one will object to extending this thinking to adults in an emergency!

Wait! Why not prescribe a medication instead? Reread the prior paragraph.

But shouldn't the federal healthcare policy regarding COVID-19 be what is in the best interest of American citizens? Reread “Problem #3” above.

One silver lining of COVID-19 is that this NIH Study explains how it exposed what was already going on regarding the failing US medical bureaucracy.

Problem #5 —

So our Federal health agencies supported the COVID-19 “solution” of a vaccine. However, there was a HUGE obstacle to that plan: Scientific Safety and Efficacy testing for traditional vaccines takes 10± years to do properly.

Their answer was: since we are in a “global emergency” (pandemic), the normal (i.e., Scientific) way of producing a vaccine will not work.

The solution (agreed to by government agencies who are no longer adhering to their mission statements) is to approve a new type of injection: mRNA.

Here is an outline of some of the significant technical differences between a traditional vaccine and an mRNA injection, and some of the mRNA dangers. Near the time that mRNA was being enthusiastically promoted to the public, this voice of reason spelled out realities. Years later this Study bluntly stated:

“To date [2023], there are no published studies on the biodistribution, cellular uptake, endosomal escape, translation rates, functional half-life and inactivation kinetics of synthetic mRNA, rates and duration of vaccine-induced antigen expression in different cell types.”

The justification for approving these technical changes was that mRNA injections could be developed more quickly than a traditional vaccine could.

Problem #6 —

So now that we understand that we will NOT have the same Scientific testing done on mRNA injections that has usually been done for traditional vaccines, let’s look at the Safety part, as there are several concerning differences.

For example, some studies (e.g., here and here) concluded that short-term adverse events from COVID-19 mRNA exceeded those of traditional vaccines.

That said, the most disturbing difference is that there is essentially zero mid-range and longterm safety testing of mRNA injections.

The possible negative consequences of a COVID-19 bio-chemical injection are far-reaching, and many may not be apparent for years. This study identifies eighteen (18!) pre-existing medical conditions that can lead to adverse COVID-19 injection outcomes, including death.

Here are many other medical conditions, which are mostly not tested for prior to mRNA injection approvals. This study says: “No one actually has any idea of medium- and long-term effects of COVID-19 vaccines.”

All this is due to what is marketed as a benefit: mRNA injections can be approved in a year or so, whereas traditional vaccines take 10± years.

Again, the most important part skipped in the mRNA injection approval process, is medium and long-term safety testing. That’s a VERY BIG deal!

Problem #7 —

Another serious safety concern is that pharmaceutical companies have not disclosed (to date) all of the ingredients in the mRNA injection! Their stock excuse is that this is proprietary information.

“Proprietary information” is a legitimate concern when a company has heavily invested in a product and doesn’t want a competitor to copy their product without incurring the time and cost of R&D. (Think China.)

But who are the COVID-19 competitors of Big Pharma (Pfizer, etc.)?

Further, the primary customer for 95%+ of these injections is the government — and Big Pharma already has signed contracts. So how would they be financially harmed by disclosing the contents of their mRNA injections?

Problem #8 —

Yet another serious obstacle that the powers-that-be encountered in getting the American public to accept their COVID-19 “solution,” is that the mRNA injection did not comply with the CDC’s definition of what a vaccine was!

As mentioned above, for decades the CDC's definition of a vaccine was: “A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease.”

Their solution was simple: change the definition!

The new CDC definition of a vaccine: “A preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases.”

Again the takeaway here is that mRNA injections are NOT anything like traditional vaccines, so it is a major misnomer (intended to fool the public) to call them a “vaccine.” The reality is that they are “bio-chemical injections.”

[For some additional concerns about mRNA injections see here.]

Problem #9 —

We probably could have dealt with all of the above, IF there was honest and accurate data regarding the mRNA injections, publicly available. There were two major reasons why this did not happen.

First is the inherent weakness of the voluntary VAERS data system. This Harvard study concluded that (typically) only 1% of adverse outcomes are reported through VAERS! Why wouldn't that have been fixed a long time ago?

Second is that since everyone in the medical establishment involved was laser focused on PTA (instead of Safety and Effectiveness for Americans), accurate mRNA adverse effect data was not going to happen (e.g., see this report). When there were adverse reactions to adults and children getting injected, many of those were ignored, explained away, attributed elsewhere, etc.

As a result, when one looks for data to see what really happened with COVID injections, it is misleading, woefully inadequate, etc — i.e., essentially useless.

Problem #10 —

Yet another pesky problem to the political COVID-19 “solution” was that there was increasing scientific evidence that there were alternative solutions that were: a) effective preventatives/treatments, b) much less expensive, c) had few (if any) side-effects, and d) also had solid long-term safety records.

Ivermectin (IVM) is an example. See the details of some 105 scientific studies.

The FDA’s public mission statement says that they are:

“Responsible for advancing the public health by helping to speed innovations that make medical products more effective, safer, and more affordable and by helping the public get the accurate, science-based information they need to use medical products to maintain and improve their health.”

If that was anywhere near accurate, that would mean that the FDA would certainly objectively investigate such a potentially superior option, right? NO!

It would be one thing if the FDA simply ignored IVM — but instead they actually aggressively attacked it — and mocked IVM users as fools for using a “veterinary” product!

It’s stunning that the FDA would take such a stance on what is universally acknowledged as not only a medical wonder drug, (it has been documented as being antiparasitic, antibacterial, antiviral, and anticancer!), and also one of the safest pharmaceuticals in history.

To see an agonizing expose about this, watch this short powerful video.

Problem #11 —

Another stunning revelation during the COVID fiasco is that few (if any) preventative options were ever discussed as being beneficial. For example, did the CDC, the FDA, the AMA, or Dr. Fauci ever say anything like:

“Keeping yourself in good health is your first barrier to COVID-19 defense. Part of that would be to take Vitamin D, which has been shown to be a safe and inexpensive anti-viral treatment.” [Note that the study I referenced here was published in 2020, so medical “experts” would have been aware of it.]

Not to my knowledge.

Problem #12 —

An exacerbating situation here is that (pressured by pharmaceutical lobbyists), Congress chose (via the Prep Act, which built on NCVIA ) to protect the interests of vaccine and injection manufacturers, rather than to protect the public’s right to safety, or to provide the public with legal recourse against malfeasance or incompetence by pharmaceutical companies. Hmmm. Didn’t they learn anything from NCVIA?

Big Pharma’s argument was that lawyers were indiscriminate in filing frivolous lawsuits against them, so defending such suits would make it uneconomical for them to produce vaccines, so they would stop.

Certainly, there is some merit to protection from frivolous lawsuits, but it seems like there should be a middle ground here. Instead, it appears that we have gone from one extreme to another.

Problem #13 —

I didn’t initially get much into the Effectiveness concerns with the COVID-19 injections, as it seemed like I had covered enough to get the message across. However I have since been asked about it, so here goes a super condensed response, as I could write pages about this…

a) What Big Pharma is advertising as the “effectiveness” of COVID-19 injections is totally deceptive. See this detailed explanation. That should be all one needs to read!

But for those who revel in swamp exploration, there’s more. b) Despite what the public has been led to believe, getting a COVID-19 injection does NOT prevent a person from getting infected with COVID-19. c) Further, getting a COVID-19 injection does NOT prevent a person from transmitting COVID-19 to someone else (e.g., see here).

I could go on and on here, and cite numerous studies. I’ll end with a suggestion that you carefully listen to this short interview with Dr. Birx (an official voice for COVID-19 vaccines). She unequivocally (and accurately) states: “These vaccines were not going to protect against infection — I think we overplayed the vaccines...”

But after trying to clear up one deception, she can’t help herself so then goes onto the next storyline: “If you're unvaccinated right now, the key is testing and Paxlovid. It's effective. It's a great antiviral.” That is simply more Big Pharma promotion, and it is scientifically misleading... Let’s check the veracity of this expert’s claim, based on independent scientific studies.

Regarding their effectiveness as an early treatment of COVID-19, the SCIENCE says that: a) Paxlovid (based on 74 studies) is 19%. b) Ivermectin (105 studies) is 61%. c) Vitamin D (122 studies) is 60%. Show me where Dr. Fauci, Dr. Birx, the FDA, CDC, AMA, etc., have told you any of that — ever?

The Bottom Line —

So when people like RFKjr cast aspersions on vaccines, don’t be fooled by the wails of lamestream media, and other self-serving or misinformed parties.

The takeaway is that the US “vaccine” business has lost its way, and is long overdue for a complete overhaul from stem to stern.

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 

PS — Some sample references —

Book: Turtles All The Way Down: Vaccine Science and Myth

Book: Dissolving Illusions — Disease, Vaccines and the Forgotten History

Book: A Plague Upon Our House: My Fight at the Trump White House to Stop COVID from Destroying America (Dr. Scott Atlas)

Article: Is Vaccine Hesitancy Causing a Surge in Infections Diseases?

Article: Increasing Number of Parents Waive Vaccines for Children

Article: Absolute vs Relative Risk

Report: Some Scientific Observations on the Medical Establishment’s Handling of COVID-19

Substack: Dr. Peter McCullough

Steve Kirsch Substack: A summary of the evidence against the COVID shots

PragerU video: How Sage Steele Took on ESPN, Sued Disney, and Reclaimed Her Life

---

Here is other information from this scientist that you might find interesting:

I am now offering incentives for you to sign up new subscribers!

I also consider reader submissions on Critical Thinking on my topics of interest.

Check out the Archives of this Critical Thinking substack.

WiseEnergy.org: discusses the Science (or lack thereof) behind our energy options.

C19Science.info: covers the lack of genuine Science behind our COVID-19 policies.

Election-Integrity.info: multiple major reports on the election integrity issue.

Media Balance Newsletter: a free, twice-a-month newsletter that covers what the mainstream media does not do, on issues from COVID to climate, elections to education, renewables to religion, etc. Here are the Newsletter’s 2024 Archives. Please send me an email to get your free copy. When emailing me, please make sure to include your full name and the state where you live. (Of course, you can cancel the Media Balance Newsletter at any time - but why would you?

Thanks for reading Critically Thinking About Select Societal Issues! Please pass a link to this article on to other associates who might benefit. They can subscribe for FREE to receive new posts (typically about once a week).