By John Droz Jr. on vaccines
On March 2, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. issued a “call to action” after the death of a child with measles in Texas.
Kennedy urged parents to consult with their physicians about the MMR vaccine, which covers mumps, measles, and rubella, and directed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response to provide support to Texas.
As these actions take place, it is important to understand the nation’s history of vaccine development and how this has led to the vaccine skepticism we see today.
Slow, Costly Process
When vaccines became available in the United States nearly 90 years ago, they underwent rigid scientific testing and protocols, such as randomized control trials, before being approved for distribution. These studies typically took 10 or more years to assess safety (especially long-term) and effectiveness.
The CDC defined vaccines as “a product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease.” As time went on, pharmaceutical companies tried to reduce the cost of developing these vaccines and the time needed to gain approval. Lawsuits became more frequent.
In 1986, President Ronald Reagan signed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, which largely indemnified the drug makers. Vaccine development took off on a rapid trajectory, which has raised questions about safety and effectiveness.
Vaccine Explosion
In 1995, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Association of Family Physicians “harmonized” the childhood immunization schedule. Today, there are nearly 20 different vaccines recommended, resulting in some 40 injections by the time a child turns two.
Ramping up the vaccine schedule was a way drug makers could make vaccine development more profitable. If parents were willing to take in their children for a handful of traditional shots, why not add more to the list?
Since then, reports of vaccine side effects have grown. Cases of autism and other childhood diseases have escalated. Not surprisingly, the ramped-up vaccine schedule came under suspicion.
Although there was scientific testing regarding individual vaccine safety and effectiveness, there has been little to no investigation of effects of vaccines when given in combination. Such an inquiry is warranted because it is well-established contraindications can occur when medications are taken together.
Getting to the bottom of vaccine safety is paramount, and government policy needs examination in light of the knowledge gap.
Pandemic Expansion
Vaccination having become the norm, Big Pharma was able to easily convince politicians and government agencies that injections for the COVID-19 “global medical crisis” were the best way to control transmission.
However, there was a huge obstacle to that plan: scientific safety and efficacy testing for traditional vaccines takes about 10 years to do properly. To get around this obstacle, Big Pharma introduced a new type of injection, the mRNA, which government agencies, now far removed from their original mission statements, readily approved.
Faux Vaccines
The mRNA shots are genetic engineering that “codes” for the antigen of a particular virus. “It relies on carefully removing this particular nucleic acid from the virus and then purifying and using it to form a vaccine; this vaccine is then delivered to the person in a fluid containing lipids,” states differencebetween.net.
Traditional vaccines are made from virus proteins that are injected into biological material like an egg to produce an antigen response, which is then used to create the vaccine.
As recently as 2023, the mid- to long-range safety record of mRNA shots was in question. “There are no published studies on the bio-distribution, 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,” K. Acevedo-Whitehouse and R. Bruno state in a paper published by NIH.
Convenient Redefinition
More troubling is the mRNA shots did not comply with the CDC’s definition of what a vaccine is. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the CDC simply changed the definition.
Instead, a “product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease,” the CDC now states vaccines are a “preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases.”
It is incorrect to call mRNA shots “vaccines.” They are biochemical injections that can be developed more quickly than traditional vaccines.
Crowd-Out Effect
One of the most unfortunate developments in the history of vaccines is the “crowding out” of other approaches to addressing disease. The focus is on “prevention” instead of “treatment,” but prevention is not always better or safer.
During COVID-19, health care agencies went out of their way to denigrate drugs with proven safety records, such as ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, as early treatments for infection. This was stunning given ivermectin’s safety and effectiveness track record of safety and effectiveness as an antiparasitic, antibacterial, and antiviral. Researchers are now testing the drug as a cancer treatment.
Mission Drift
The FDA’s mission statement says the agency is 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.”
The new administration could do well by reviewing that statement and determining how vaccine policies may have gone off the rails.
John Droz, Jr. ([email protected]) is a physicist and the founder of the Media Balance Newsletter. A version of this article appeared on the Critically Thinking blog.
