From birth, we are taught that vaccines were one of the most remarkable discoveries in history, and were so safe and effective that many now unimaginable plagues vanished with few to no side effects occurring in the process. In truth, give or take every part of that mythology is false and because it has never been dispelled, remarkably similar vaccine disasters occur every few decades.
Much of this results from the fact that it is very difficult to make safe vaccines due to both how they work and how they are produced. As such, the best “solution” which could be found to this problem was to insist in lockstep that vaccines were safe and erase any memory that vaccine disasters had in fact occurred, thereby making it possible to gaslight anyone who was severely injured by a vaccine and claim their injury was just anecdotal or a product of anti-vaccine hysteria.
For example, recently I discussed how vaccines cause autism, and focused on a central argument used to debunk the link between the two—that the only reason people believe vaccines cause autism is because a disgraced British doctor published a fraudulent 1998 study claiming they did and then made everyone start hallucinating that vaccine injuries were occurring.
This mythology however, ignores that brain injuries were a longstanding problem of vaccination. For example, this 1982 NBC news program revealed that many parents were having children develop “post-pertussis encephalopathy” after taking the DPT vaccine, that most doctors refused to report this, and that:
Medical knowledge about severe reactions to the whooping cough vaccine goes back to the early 1930s. Report after report has been published in medical journals since then. In 1948, two American doctors reported on case histories of many children who had been brain damaged or died from DPT vaccines in Boston. The following year, another doctor surveyed pediatricians across the country and found still more. Those studies have been forgotten.
Likewise, in 1985, one of the most popular talk shows in America (the Donahue show) hosted a segment where doctors from both sides (and neurologically injured members of the audience) debated the risks and benefits of vaccination and the ethics of mandates. To the best of my knowledge, this was the last time an open debate of vaccination aired on mainstream television, something I suspect was due to a recognition that allowing a public one would only increase vaccine skepticism due to how strong the evidence against vaccines was (e.g., Peter Hotez recently turned down 2.62 million to debate RFK Jr.).
Diagnostic Obfuscation
In both of these 1980s TV programs and many of the earlier studies cited throughout this article, the vaccine brain damaged children were described as becoming “mentally retarded” or “severely retarded.” Likewise, a famous 1964 government film (fully intended to be compassionate) was titled “Introducing the Mentally Retarded.”
In the mid to late 1990s, “retarded” began to be phased out due to it being deemed too stigmatizing, momentum gradually built to use less offensive terminology, and eventually, in 2010, Obama signed a law that replaced all instances in Federal statutes of “mentally retarded” and “mental retardation” with “intellectual disability” (which is the only time a US law was passed that erased a word in such a targeted fashion). As such, this term is rarely used now, and you can get in trouble for uttering it out loud (although many doctors I know will informally use the phrase “MR” to explain the clinical situation of mentally disabled patients to colleagues).
In turn, one of the classic tricks in propaganda is to constantly manipulate and redefine words so that it becomes possible for their client to justify contradictory and unjustifiable positions. In the case of autism, it is commonly argued that the increase in it is not due to an environmental toxin (e.g., vaccines) but rather more and more “normal” things being reclassified as autism. One of the primary studies that supported that argument, a 2009 study from California, indeed shows the reclassification occurred, but what it actually showed is that 26.4% of children who had previously been diagnosed as “mentally retarded” became “autistic” (as did another commonly cited study).
Since autism is deliberately undefined, it encapsulates both profound (severe) autism (25-30% of cases) and autistic traits (e.g., having manageable neurological deficits or “being on the spectrum”). While there are certain traits shared between these two groups, they are very different (e.g., being nonverbal or minimally verbal, having intellectual disability, and requiring substantial lifelong support for daily living vs. being socially awkward with personality quirks or having high functioning autism like Elon Musk).
A key point I’ve emphasized throughout this publication is that when most toxins harm people, the injuries distribute on a bell curve where more severe injuries are much rarer than less severe (and hard to spot) ones, so if you see a cluster of severe injuries, it tells you far more mild ones are hiding under the surface, and likewise that if you see many moderate injuries, more severe ones are present too. As such, of those with “autism” roughly 26.7% of children have “profound autism,” and likewise, while both have increased in tandem with increasing vaccination, per the CDC non-severe autism has increased at a faster rate.
This wordplay then leads to both being blended together to deflect any criticisms of severe autism (e.g., by attacking anyone who states severe autism is a “problem” by claiming that is stigmatizing to all the people with high-functioning autism) and to argue that any claims vaccines cause autism is actually due to the people with autism quirks being given an autism diagnosis (thereby removing the clear increase in severe autism from the debate). Likewise, having the softer label of autism (and pro-autism words like “neurodiverse” or “neurodivergent”) to encapsulate and normalize these injuries makes it much easier to keep the uncomfortable topic out of sight and mind for those who do not have to directly deal with the reality of these injuries (e.g., the parent of a child with severe autism). This hence prevents enough people from speaking out about the issue for something to be done.
I mention all of this for two reasons:
• We believe obfuscating these definitions was deliberately done to conceal the epidemic of vaccine injuries.
• In much of the earlier literature, brain damage we now associate with severe “autism” was described but instead labeled with terms such as “mental retardation” or “encephalitis” or “encephalopathy.”
Note: since I have a large audience, I feel I have a responsibility to use measured language that avoids unnecessarily harming others or inadvertently supporting malicious linguistic propaganda. At the same time, I detest this, in part because I deeply value personal liberty and hate having my language policed and in part because I feel using euphemisms to avoid overtly addressing uncomfortable topic has been responsible for an immense amount of carnage and suffering throughout human history (as critical topics that need to be widely understood to prevent a catastrophe aren’t because no one wants to directly describe them in an uncomfortable way that everyone can clearly understand). For a moment, imagine how different the entire vaccine discussion would be if people instead had simply said things like “vaccines can make you severely retarded” or “Bill’s son became mentally retarded after the shot Sue’s daughter had issues with” or “in just eight years, the number of severely retarded children doubled” rather than how it’s been obfuscated within the ambiguous “autism” label.
Likewise, “conspiracy theories” was deliberately instilled as a label for any viewpoint which disagrees with the standard narrative (hence making that label be necessary to concisely convey a skeptical position to a large audience), but at the same time, that label made it possible to blur clearly provable criticisms of corporate abuse with highly speculative and inflammatory beliefs, thereby making it possible to use that ambiguity to apply to “conspiracy theorist” label to any dissident and then have the extreme “conspiracy theories” consciously or subconsciously discredit their viewpoints (although fortunately since this approach has been so overused the tactic is much less effective now and since COVID many have come to identify as “conspiracy theorists” and are free of the stigma previously attached to the label).
Exempting Brain Damage
The 1986 Vaccine Injury Act was made in response to public pressure against vaccine injuries (e.g., the 1982 NBC program) and had numerous provisions intended to help parents of vaccine-injured children. One was that since DPT brain injury lawsuits were challenging (but possible) to win in court, a “no-fault” system funded by a tax on vaccines was created to replace them (which protected vaccine manufacturers from liability).
For this system, a table of injuries was created through extensive negotiation when the law was passed. Then, if a child suffered an injury on the table shortly after vaccination, compensation was awarded. Finally, since it was recognized that new science and vaccines would emerge, the H.H.S. Secretary was given the authority to add new injuries to the table as science advanced.
Unfortunately, in one way or another, most of the helpful provisions of the law were undermined. For example, since the Federal Government ultimately pays for these injuries, it incentivizes:
• Removing injuries from the table or shrinking their window.
• Never having the HHS Secretary add anything else to the schedule.
• Never having any “non-covered” injury approved by the vaccine court.
• Removing vaccines from the table with costly injuries from the immunization schedule, and not having those same injuries covered for their replacements.
At the time the original injury table was made, every vaccine on the schedule (excluding the inactivated polio vaccine) had covered injuries, most of which were neurological in nature:
Since that time twelve new vaccines were added to the schedule while all but MMR were replaced with alternative vaccines. However, if you look at the current table, despite nearly 40 years of “science” other than Guillain-Barré Syndrome from influenza, brachial neuritis from acellular DPT, and fainting within an hour of vaccination (from a few vaccines), no neurological injuries have been added to the table, while the above table was whittled down (e.g., residual seizure disorders were removed from MMR and the time window for encephalitis was narrowed).
As such:
• The vast body of literature (which was well known in the 1980s) showing vaccines cause neurological damage became “forgotten.”
• It became almost impossible to get compensation for most neurological injuries. In fact, the only time a regressive autism case ever won compensation was in 2010 due to the father being a prestigious neurologist. There, the court concluded a cluster of vaccines (including MMR) “significantly aggravated an underlying mitochondrial disorder, which predisposed her to deficits in cellular energy metabolism, and manifested as a regressive encephalopathy with features of autism spectrum disorder.”
• There was a strong incentive to remove the remaining covered brain injury (MMR’s encephalopathy) from colloquial use, replace it with non-compensable “autism” and then perpetually demonize anyone who claimed MMR caused autism (which is what happened to Andrew Wakefield).
Note: Peter Marks, the head FDA official who relentlessly covered up all the reports of COVID vaccine injuries they were receiving and overrode the FDA’s top vaccine experts to rush a formal approval for it and the boosters (so the unconscionable mandates could be enacted) recently went on national television and made many false statement about MMR including that it “does not cause encephalitis.”
Additionally, a systematic effort was made to prevent any further research into these neurological injuries from occurring or being published. For example, dogma was instilled that vaccines are so safe and effective that it’s “unethical” to conduct a placebo-controlled vaccine trial (as this would deny children a “lifesaving” vaccine), while simultaneously proclaiming all research showing the harms of vaccine injuries is “junk science” because that data does not have placebo controls.
The post The Forgotten History of Neurological Vaccine Injuries appeared first on LewRockwell.
0 comments on “The Forgotten History of Neurological Vaccine Injuries” Add yours →