I was asked by Children's Health Defense and the parents to review the medical records of twins found dead in their bed eight days after multiple vaccinations. Related? Yes, says the hidden science.
you can’t claim the vaccines save lives if all children are vaccinated and none would die either way, like with Covid. We know they are accustomed to talking $&¥+
Since this post, almost 1 year after(!), the apparent 'measles' death must have been given up and the establishment came up with something even more LETHAL: 'murder' by the mother!!!???
The medical CARTEL is so infinitely EVIL that no word can describe their dark character!
Whoever saw the parents interview by CHD, must have noticed the deep HONESTY of both parents, and their clear stand related to the vaccines received.. There is just one point missing here, BUT VERY important one, what kind of INGREDIENTS were both twins injected with????
The main point of the murderous prosecution right now is: there is no way that twins will die in exactly the same time AFTER the jabs!!!??? According to the news, the mother awaits possible DEATH penalty!!!! PLEASE HELP!
The later murder indictment doesn't prove the twins weren't harmed by vaccines, just as Kory's article didn't prove they were. Both claims require evidence.
The criminal case is still pending, and an indictment is an allegation, not a conviction. Likewise, sincere, grieving parents are not evidence for or against a medical cause of death. Their honesty in interviews cannot establish what happened medically or legally.
If investigators believe the twins were murdered, they will need to present forensic evidence that supports that conclusion. If someone claims vaccines caused the deaths, they also need medical and pathological evidence, not timing alone. The same standard of evidence should apply to every hypothesis.
What good is it to use words like "pathophysiologies" in an article to average people, like me.
This is evidence of the "cult of medicine" where THEY put the burden on US, the public and readers, to seek to understand their language.
Doctors are "pathological" liars - they perpetuate a lie that "modern medicine" is helping them, the medical and scientific communities care about people. They care about keeping their jobs and money and if there are casualties along the way, that's not their problem. They didn't create capitalism or the laws. Evil ones created and/or influenced the making of laws that allowed for this abomination.
The paid Pharma troll Creativologist is hard at work in this comments section. You cannot win with these clowns; you say the sky is blue, they'll say it's green. Only paid trolls have time to work so hard to refute every comment pointing out this Russian Roulette medicine. They get paid per reply.
I Feel for these parents although the brainwashing runs so deep, they can't say they are anti-vax after the medical murder of their children.
There has been no illness proven to come from a virus. There is no proof of transmission of illness between humans. Those spreading the virus lie are guilty of these murders along with Pharmaceutical companies and the government that extorts your tax dollars to support these murders. Vaccines have been proven to cause a huge amount of deaths and even more injuries and big Pharma is protected. Even though they murder, they receive no punishment. The same for the government that finances them and finally the doctors that claim people need vaccines and the nurses PAs and pharmacists that pump the poisons are all murderers, and yet they all walk free. And by the way many vaccines including all 3 covid vaccines use murdered babies to bring their poisons to market. No one cares.
Quite the statement from the self proclaimed father of the vax and father of warp speed along with appropriating millions of extorted tax dollars to go to Pfizer and other criminal vaccine producers. Politicians are all liars and Trump is right at the top of the heap.
STEVE. IT IS SO VERY SAD ABOUT THE TOTALY AVODABLE DEATHS FROM ALL TYPES OF VACCINES. ESPECIALY THE ONE ABOVE AS VERY WELL DOCUMENTED. WE KNOW THE TRUTH BUT IT IS SAD THAT THE MEDICAL PROFFESIONALS FOLLOW BIG PHARMA AND BLIND THEIR EYES TO THE DEADLY RESULT.. THEY NEVER READ THESE REPORTS AND ONLY DO WHAT BIG PHARMA TELLS THEM. AFTER ALL THEY WERE ALL TRAINED BY BIG PHARMA SO BLINDED. WHAT DO DOCTORS OR IN SOME CASES NURSES TELL THE GREVING FATHERS OR MOTHERS. PREHAPS THEY DO NOT THINK TO ASK OR THINK THE DEATHS WAS DUE TO THE VACCINES AS NOT ALWEAYS SOON AFTER JAB. ONE IS PRESSURISED TO GET ONES CHILD JABBED OR YOU WILL BE RESPONSABLE FOR NOT PROTECTING ONE'S CHILD. SO ARE US AFULTS ALSO. STRUCK OFF IF ONE DOES NOT GET JABBED THREAT?
IN WWII GORBBELS HITLERS PROPERGANDER MINISTER STATED. IF ONE TELLS ENOUGHF LIES AND CARRIED ON TELLING THEM OFTEN ENOUGHF THE PEOPLE WILL THINK THEY ARE TRUE. THAT IS WHAT HAPPEND. NOW WE SEE THE SAME WAY IS USED NOW IN OTHER AREAS.
Tragic stories deserve investigation, not assumptions. The problem is that repeating a claim doesn't make it true. Vaccines are continually monitored for safety, and genuine risks are investigated. If there were evidence that vaccines were causing widespread child deaths, it would show up in population data—not just anecdotes. Comparing doctors to Nazis or invoking Goebbels is rhetoric, not evidence. If the evidence supports your claim, present the evidence. If not, outrage isn't a substitute for proof.
Every single person that has had a hand in this MURDER since inception, will be held to account by God Almighty! NOT ONE will escape their fate! That includes those in the medical industry that administered the POISONS!
Accusing millions of doctors, nurses, and scientists of mass murder requires extraordinary evidence—not certainty or outrage. If you have evidence of intentional killing, present it. If not, condemning people without proof isn't justice; it's an accusation.
False. The scientific consensus is that routine childhood vaccination **does not increase the risk of SIDS**. In fact, multiple large case-control studies and meta-analyses have found that vaccinated infants have a **lower** risk of SIDS than unvaccinated infants, likely because vaccinated children receive better preventive healthcare overall.
2. "VAERS proves thousands of babies are killed by vaccines."
False. VAERS is a passive reporting system. Anyone can submit a report, and reports are accepted regardless of whether the vaccine caused the event. VAERS is designed to detect **signals**, not establish causation. A report occurring after vaccination is not evidence the vaccine caused the event.
3. "The twins died because they were vaccinated."
Unsupported. The article presents one physician's opinion but provides **no autopsy proving vaccination caused the deaths**, no pathological evidence of the proposed "micro-strokes," and no direct evidence that neuroinflammation from vaccination killed the children. Temporal association alone cannot establish causation.
4. "100 infant deaths in VAERS means 10,000 really occurred because VAERS only captures 1%."
Misleading. The frequently cited "1% reporting" figure comes from an old pilot project looking at **all adverse drug events**, not vaccine deaths. There is no evidence that fatal infant vaccine reactions are underreported by a factor of 100. Fatal events are among the **most likely** adverse events to be reported and investigated.
5. "Vaccines prevented only an estimated 1.3 million deaths."
The CDC estimate is indeed **a model**, not a literal count. Most public-health estimates are models because you cannot observe the world both with and without vaccination simultaneously. Reasonable people can debate model assumptions, but calling the estimate fraudulent simply because it is modeled is not evidence.
6. "Disease mortality declined before vaccines."
Partly true, but incomplete. Improvements in sanitation, nutrition, and medical care dramatically reduced deaths from many infectious diseases before vaccines were introduced. However, vaccines caused the **incidence** of diseases like measles, polio, Hib, and rubella to collapse after introduction. Mortality and incidence are different measurements.
7. "Giving 12 vaccines at one visit is dangerous."
The number "12 vaccines" is misleading because it often counts **antigens or components**, not 12 separate injections. The routine childhood schedule has been extensively studied, though parents are free to discuss alternative schedules with their pediatrician.
Bottom line
The article mixes:
* tragic real cases,
* legitimate criticism of aspects of medicine,
* speculative mechanisms,
* misuse of VAERS,
* and conclusions that go well beyond the available evidence.
It is emotionally compelling, but **emotion is not proof**. Individual cases deserve investigation, and vaccine safety should continue to be monitored rigorously. However, the evidence presented in this article does **not** demonstrate that vaccines cause SIDS or that hundreds of thousands of infants have been killed by routine childhood vaccination.
You have no credibility here or anywhere. The reason? You’re a liar and the fact you act on behalf of a corrupt industry making vast profits by purposely making children sick, makes you fundamentally evil and a menace to society. As with the pharmaceutical Nazi’s which have killed three hundred thousand innocent children over the last thirty years, you are just as guilty as they are for perpetuating their crimes. You’re warped, vapid and depraved. I wouldn’t be surprised if you had a portrait of Josef Mengele hanging above your bed. People such as yourself deserve to be hated.
Personal attacks aren't evidence. If you think I'm wrong, show where the data, methodology, or reasoning fails. Calling someone a Nazi or "evil" doesn't change what the evidence says—it just avoids engaging with it. I'm happy to discuss facts, not insults like you're in elementary school.
I’m not “calling you a Nazi or evil.” You define yourself from the position you take. Your refusal to consider the many toxins found within all vaccines, might be contributing to the catastrophic health effects within the population itself, proves a sociopathic tendency. Since an overwhelming majority of people from all walks of life, would intuitively assume FDA, CDC, IOM would run robust tests to determine whether the sudden accumulation of toxins from multiple vaccines is safe for ‘anyone let alone an infant.’ No tests were ever done. This, Tony Fauci himself ultimately confessed to Robert Kennedy Jr, after Kennedy was forced to sue him for the evidence he claimed to have. The ‘honest science proving harm from vaccines has been received to the CDC some thirty years ago.’ “They hid it” and changed nothing, allowing the carnage to go forward and build momentum. Whatever you’re looking at stating ‘safety and efficacy’ is only industry contrivance to protect the mercantile interests of the most fined industry in human history. You’ve got NOTHING.
You're making some very serious claims without providing the evidence you say exists. Hitchen's Razor.
"No tests were ever done" is factually false. You may argue the studies were inadequate, too short, or didn't answer the questions you wanted answered, but that's very different from claiming they don't exist.
As for "Fauci confessed to RFK Jr.," provide the transcript or recording. That's an extraordinary claim, and extraordinary claims require evidence.
Finally, "the most fined industry" is not proof that every scientific conclusion from that industry is false. Pharmaceutical companies have been fined for fraud, illegal marketing, and misconduct. That's precisely why independent replication, regulatory oversight, and critical review matter. It's just an attempt to deflect when you can't challenge or provide evidence.
You keep telling me I've "got nothing," yet your argument consists entirely of assertions about conspiracies, hidden evidence, and motives.
Evidence wins debates, not social media hissyfits.
You claim this is an example of Hitchen’s razor, when you’re doing the same thing? What’s your game here? Is it to hold on to the dishonest dogma of the mainstream vaccine narrative? That ship has sunk ‘think Titanic.’ I did not wake up one day and decide to join the anti-vaxx community. Like you - and too many millions of other people, I was indoctrinated by the false religion surrounding the ‘wondrous gift of vaccines’; which is an illusion. You speak of “regulation” The CDC and FDA have been LYING to us for decades. Now why would they do that? Gosh, I dunno. Maybe because those regulatory agencies have been completely captured by the very industry they were created to protect the public against? I’ve been rigorously studying this issue for more than a dozen years. I don’t have enough respect for your ‘dead in the water belief in vaccines’, to provide you my MANY sources of the highly credentialed people with integrity, who’ve been through hell, from telling the hideous truth about them. You OBVIOUSLY lack any ability for critical thinking or have the capacity to consider the possibility that ‘there might be something to this anti vaccine movement.’ If you did - this conversation wouldn’t be happening. The only thing I’ll provide you is the interview where RFK Jr, not only provides the receipts on Fauci but, one hell of a lot of empirical evidence surrounding the goddamn lies regarding the safety and efficacy, of vaccines. The man knows more about vaccines than ANY allopathic physician and every bit as much as the horrible insects that manufacture them. This is why the democrats tried to keep him from becoming HHS Secretary. Not because “he’s not a doctor” - but because he’s much smarter than those pharma sycophants and he tells the truth without embellishment. Watch the Joe Rogan interview with Robert Kennedy Jr, from a few years ago, when he was running for president. Maybe, just maybe you might learn something. I won’t be holding my breath.
You're accusing me of blind faith while appealing to authority yourself, just a different authority.
"RFK Jr. says..." isn't evidence.
"I've studied this for 12 years..." isn't evidence.
"Watch Joe Rogan..." isn't evidence.
If the CDC or FDA lied about a specific claim, show the lie and the evidence that disproves it. That's how science works.
Hitchens' Razor applies because you're making extraordinary claims—that vaccines are broadly unsafe, regulators knowingly deceived the public for decades, and millions of doctors and scientists are either complicit or fooled. The burden of proof for those claims is on the person making them.
And no, suggesting I "watch a podcast" isn't meeting that burden.
You say you've got "many sources," but then refuse to present them because you've already decided anyone who disagrees is incapable of critical thinking. That's not skepticism—that's insulating your beliefs from scrutiny.
If your evidence is as overwhelming as you claim, it would stand on its own. It shouldn't require me to accept your conclusions before you've demonstrated them. That's the difference between evidence and conviction.t
Creativologist -You wrote: ¨In fact, multiple large case-control studies and meta-analyses have found that vaccinated infants have a **lower** risk of SIDS than unvaccinated infants, likely because vaccinated children receive better preventive healthcare overall.¨
The paid Pharma troll Creativologist is hard at work in this comments section. You cannot win with these clowns; you say the sky is blue, they'll say it's green. Only paid trolls have time to work so hard to refute every comment pointing out that this is Russian Roulette medicine. They get paid per reply.
Certainly. These are the studies I was referring to:
1. Vennemann et al., 2007 — German case-control study
Sudden infant death syndrome: no increased risk after immunisation.
SIDS infants had been vaccinated less frequently and later than matched controls. The researchers found no increased SIDS risk during the 14 days after vaccination, including after hexavalent vaccines.
2. Fleming et al., 2001 — UK nationwide case-control study
The UK accelerated immunisation programme and sudden unexpected death in infancy.
The study found no evidence that immunization caused sudden infant death; the association pointed toward lower, rather than higher, risk among immunized infants.
3. Mitchell et al., 1995 — New Zealand nationwide case-control study
Immunisation and the sudden infant death syndrome.
This was a large national case-control analysis using parental vaccination records. It found that immunization was associated with a reduced SIDS risk after adjustment for recognized confounders.
4. Hoffman et al., 1987 — US multicenter population-based case-control study
Diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis immunization and sudden infant death.
This used data from the NICHD Cooperative Epidemiological Study and found no evidence that DTP vaccination increased SIDS risk.
5. Jonville-Béra et al., 2001 — French multicenter case-control study
The researchers compared SIDS cases aged 30–90 days with three matched living controls per case and found no evidence that recent vaccination increased the risk of sudden unexpected infant death.
There is also a 2007 meta-analysis that combined nine case-control studies. The pooled result was approximately OR 0.54, meaning vaccinated infants had about half the observed SIDS risk. The authors explicitly cautioned that this did not necessarily prove vaccination itself was protective, because the “healthy vaccinee effect,” healthcare use and other confounding factors could explain part of the association.
So I would slightly tighten my original wording:
> Multiple case-control studies and a meta-analysis found no increased SIDS risk following routine vaccination; many found a lower observed risk among vaccinated infants. That lower association may partly reflect confounding and should not automatically be interpreted as proof that vaccination directly prevents SIDS.
That is the accurate, non-exaggerated conclusion.
I'm not your performing monkey. All the data is out there. Start proving your argument now without links to incredible sources or refrain from replying to me.
¨Film Exposes Motives Behind Mass HPV Vaccinations and Deadly Side Effects
A substantial new documentary film released online to audiences in the UK and across Europe this week, questions claims made by UK, Danish and Spanish health authorities that widespread administering of the HPV vaccine is both safe and a guaranteed means of preventing cervical cancer. It comes at a time when – flying in the face of independent science – UK and European medical experts are proposing to extend the vaccine’s use from teenage girls, adding teenage boys and children below the age of puberty. 'Manufactured Crisis: What they're not telling you about the HPV Vaccine' exposes cases of severe, life-changing adverse reactions experienced by girls and young women following doses of the commercial HPV vaccines Gardasil or Cervarix – cases from which the public has previously been shielded. Recorded adverse reactions include severe disability, paralysis and even death. Throughout Manufactured Crisis, victims and their families tell their own, often heartrending, stories...¨
Classic assic appeal to anecdotes and a low-credibility source. It doesn't actually rebut any of the points I made
Documentaries and heartbreaking personal stories are not scientific evidence. Individual adverse events absolutely deserve investigation, but they cannot establish that a vaccine caused them.
Vaccine Impact has a long history of publishing claims that are unsupported or contradicted by high-quality evidence. Linking to an advocacy website and a documentary is not the same as presenting controlled studies.
If you believe the HPV vaccines cause severe disability or death at rates that outweigh their benefits, then cite the peer-reviewed epidemiological evidence demonstrating that. Large population studies involving millions of people have been conducted, and they have not found an increased risk of death or chronic neurological disease attributable to HPV vaccination.
Everyone wants vaccines to be as safe as possible. That's why safety monitoring continues long after approval. But replacing population-level evidence with emotionally powerful anecdotes is not how causation is established.
Supreme Court rules vaccines are unavoidably unsafe
¨The Supreme Court has ruled vaccines are "unavoidably unsafe." Vaccines contain mercury, formaldehyde, aluminum, polysorbate 80, cell lines from aborted fetuses, tissue from hamsters, dog kidneys, monkeys, peanut oil adjuvants and much more. Would you put this in your child's orange juice? No! Allowing hazardous material injections into their children's bloodstreams has caused untold grief for tens of thousands of parents.¨
You're misrepresenting what the Supreme Court actually ruled.
In Bruesewitz v. Wyeth (2011), the Court did not rule that vaccines are generally "unsafe." It interpreted the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, which limits certain design-defect lawsuits against vaccine manufacturers when a vaccine is properly manufactured and properly labeled.
The phrase "unavoidably unsafe" is a legal term from product-liability law (Restatement (Second) of Torts §402A, Comment k). It refers to products that can provide substantial benefits while still carrying unavoidable risks—even when made correctly. It also applies to many prescription drugs, anesthesia, chemotherapy, and other medical treatments. It is not a judicial finding that vaccines are defective or unreasonably dangerous.
As for the ingredient list: context matters. Many of the substances listed are not present in every vaccine, some are present only in trace amounts, and some (such as certain fetal-derived cell lines) are used in the manufacturing process rather than remaining as ingredients in the final product. Listing chemical names without discussing dose, formulation, or purpose is not evidence that a product is harmful.
If the claim is that vaccines are causing widespread injury, the evidence needs to come from well-designed epidemiological studies—not from taking a legal phrase out of a Supreme Court decision and attaching a scary-sounding ingredient list.
Conférence pour la Liberté de Choix en Santé. Montreal 2009. English. 1:48:04 min
Dr. Andrew Moulden: Every Vaccine Produces Microvascular Damage
¨Dr. Andrew Moulden recognized that every dose of vaccine given to a person produced microvascular damage whether or not the person was aware of the damage or had debilitating symptoms at the time the vaccines were given. He courageously stepped out of the conventional box of medical diagnosis and treatment, and gave us a new way to look at modern neurodevelopmental illnesses and syndromes.
This series of articles is intended to preserve the work of Dr. Moulden, who unexpectedly died in November of 2013. I want to acknowledge the contribution of this forward-thinking pioneer who worked to explain the truth about vaccine damage. This is article two in a series of four articles about Dr. Moulden’s life work.¨
Moulden's theory that "every vaccine causes microvascular damage" has never been validated by high-quality scientific research.
His hypothesis was based primarily on his own interpretations of physical signs and clinical observations, not on controlled studies. It has not been independently replicated, and it has not been accepted by neurology, pathology, vascular medicine, or immunology researchers.
If every vaccination caused measurable microvascular injury, we would expect to see consistent evidence in millions of vaccinated children and adults through MRI scans, pathology, retinal imaging, blood biomarkers, and autopsy studies. We don't.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. A lecture, a Facebook video, or a tribute article is not evidence that the hypothesis is true.
If someone believes Moulden's theory is correct, the obvious question is: Where are the peer-reviewed studies demonstrating microvascular damage in vaccinated people compared with matched unvaccinated controls? After more than 15 years, those studies still haven't materialized.
Science doesn't reject ideas because they're unconventional. It rejects them when they fail to produce reproducible evidence. That's the problem with Moulden's hypothesis—not that it challenged the status quo, but that it never met the evidentiary standard needed to support such a sweeping claim.
The speech is advocacy, but it is not itself evidence. The strength of its claims depends on the quality of the underlying studies, not on the passion of the presentation. Do better than Rumble videos.
"Sacrificial Virgins" relies heavily on personal stories and alleged vaccine injuries. Those stories deserve compassion and investigation, but they cannot establish causation. To determine whether a vaccine causes a condition, researchers compare large vaccinated and unvaccinated populations while accounting for other explanations—not individual testimonials.
The claim that the HPV vaccine has "the highest reported adverse reactions" is also misleading. Passive reporting systems collect reports of events that happen after vaccination, regardless of whether the vaccine caused them. Higher numbers of reports do not prove higher rates of vaccine injury. Suspected signals must be evaluated with controlled epidemiological studies.
After nearly two decades of use and hundreds of millions of doses worldwide, extensive safety monitoring has not found evidence that HPV vaccination causes widespread serious neurological disease, infertility, or death. At the same time, studies have shown it substantially reduces HPV infections, precancerous lesions, and cervical cancer.
If someone believes the documentary overturns that body of evidence, the question is simple: Which peer-reviewed, independently replicated population studies demonstrate that its central claims are correct? Personal testimonies and films are not a substitute for reproducible scientific evidence.
I've watched enough of Laura Hayes' claims over the years to know that a speech is not evidence.
SB277 was a political debate about whether California should remove personal-belief exemptions for school-entry vaccines. Passionate testimony—whether for or against the bill—doesn't establish that the factual claims made in the speech are true.
If Laura Hayes claims vaccines are unsafe, cause autism, violate constitutional rights, or that vaccine science is fraudulent, then those claims need to be supported by peer-reviewed evidence, not applause, anecdotes, or rhetoric.
The irony is that nearly a decade has passed since that speech. If the extraordinary claims made there were correct, we should now have robust, reproducible scientific evidence confirming them. We don't.
Public policy should be based on the totality of evidence—not on who gives the most emotional speech at a rally. Passion is not a substitute for proof.
Posting another YouTube channel doesn't strengthen the claim.
Moulden's central assertion—that every vaccine causes microvascular damage—has never been validated by reproducible, peer-reviewed research. Despite having medical and neuroscience training, he published no peer-reviewed research on vaccines or vaccine injury supporting this theory.
A YouTube channel is not scientific evidence. If Moulden's hypothesis were correct, it should be supported by independently replicated studies demonstrating measurable microvascular injury after vaccination across different populations. Those studies do not exist.
Science isn't decided by the number of videos, interviews, or followers someone has. It's decided by whether the evidence is reproducible and withstands independent scrutiny. Fifteen-plus years later, Moulden's hypothesis still hasn't met that standard.
you can’t claim the vaccines save lives if all children are vaccinated and none would die either way, like with Covid. We know they are accustomed to talking $&¥+
https://amindlesswasted.substack.com/p/fact-checking-pierre-korys-claims
Since this post, almost 1 year after(!), the apparent 'measles' death must have been given up and the establishment came up with something even more LETHAL: 'murder' by the mother!!!???
The medical CARTEL is so infinitely EVIL that no word can describe their dark character!
Whoever saw the parents interview by CHD, must have noticed the deep HONESTY of both parents, and their clear stand related to the vaccines received.. There is just one point missing here, BUT VERY important one, what kind of INGREDIENTS were both twins injected with????
The main point of the murderous prosecution right now is: there is no way that twins will die in exactly the same time AFTER the jabs!!!??? According to the news, the mother awaits possible DEATH penalty!!!! PLEASE HELP!
The later murder indictment doesn't prove the twins weren't harmed by vaccines, just as Kory's article didn't prove they were. Both claims require evidence.
The criminal case is still pending, and an indictment is an allegation, not a conviction. Likewise, sincere, grieving parents are not evidence for or against a medical cause of death. Their honesty in interviews cannot establish what happened medically or legally.
If investigators believe the twins were murdered, they will need to present forensic evidence that supports that conclusion. If someone claims vaccines caused the deaths, they also need medical and pathological evidence, not timing alone. The same standard of evidence should apply to every hypothesis.
https://amindlesswasted.substack.com/p/fact-checking-pierre-korys-claims
https://x.com/i/grok/share/c808e9d5de2c46a6b0d4a126bb6d9f04
🙏🙏🙏
What good is it to use words like "pathophysiologies" in an article to average people, like me.
This is evidence of the "cult of medicine" where THEY put the burden on US, the public and readers, to seek to understand their language.
Doctors are "pathological" liars - they perpetuate a lie that "modern medicine" is helping them, the medical and scientific communities care about people. They care about keeping their jobs and money and if there are casualties along the way, that's not their problem. They didn't create capitalism or the laws. Evil ones created and/or influenced the making of laws that allowed for this abomination.
The paid Pharma troll Creativologist is hard at work in this comments section. You cannot win with these clowns; you say the sky is blue, they'll say it's green. Only paid trolls have time to work so hard to refute every comment pointing out this Russian Roulette medicine. They get paid per reply.
the moment someone has to invent my paycheck instead of refuting my sources, they've already conceded the argument.
I Feel for these parents although the brainwashing runs so deep, they can't say they are anti-vax after the medical murder of their children.
There has been no illness proven to come from a virus. There is no proof of transmission of illness between humans. Those spreading the virus lie are guilty of these murders along with Pharmaceutical companies and the government that extorts your tax dollars to support these murders. Vaccines have been proven to cause a huge amount of deaths and even more injuries and big Pharma is protected. Even though they murder, they receive no punishment. The same for the government that finances them and finally the doctors that claim people need vaccines and the nurses PAs and pharmacists that pump the poisons are all murderers, and yet they all walk free. And by the way many vaccines including all 3 covid vaccines use murdered babies to bring their poisons to market. No one cares.
Why is their mother now charged with their murder? Is this how far Big Pharma will go to try and hide their culpability when it comes to SIDS?
I hope you will be a witness for the defense.
On September 8, 2025, as Commander in Chief of the U.S. military, Trump called ALL vaccines “poison,” “EVERY. SINGLE. ONE.”
Why then are military members still subjected to them and with zero tolerance for religious accommodation/exemptions for those forced injections?
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DOWoC4ADy0y/?l=1&hl=en
At what point does it become mockery?
Quite the statement from the self proclaimed father of the vax and father of warp speed along with appropriating millions of extorted tax dollars to go to Pfizer and other criminal vaccine producers. Politicians are all liars and Trump is right at the top of the heap.
STEVE. IT IS SO VERY SAD ABOUT THE TOTALY AVODABLE DEATHS FROM ALL TYPES OF VACCINES. ESPECIALY THE ONE ABOVE AS VERY WELL DOCUMENTED. WE KNOW THE TRUTH BUT IT IS SAD THAT THE MEDICAL PROFFESIONALS FOLLOW BIG PHARMA AND BLIND THEIR EYES TO THE DEADLY RESULT.. THEY NEVER READ THESE REPORTS AND ONLY DO WHAT BIG PHARMA TELLS THEM. AFTER ALL THEY WERE ALL TRAINED BY BIG PHARMA SO BLINDED. WHAT DO DOCTORS OR IN SOME CASES NURSES TELL THE GREVING FATHERS OR MOTHERS. PREHAPS THEY DO NOT THINK TO ASK OR THINK THE DEATHS WAS DUE TO THE VACCINES AS NOT ALWEAYS SOON AFTER JAB. ONE IS PRESSURISED TO GET ONES CHILD JABBED OR YOU WILL BE RESPONSABLE FOR NOT PROTECTING ONE'S CHILD. SO ARE US AFULTS ALSO. STRUCK OFF IF ONE DOES NOT GET JABBED THREAT?
IN WWII GORBBELS HITLERS PROPERGANDER MINISTER STATED. IF ONE TELLS ENOUGHF LIES AND CARRIED ON TELLING THEM OFTEN ENOUGHF THE PEOPLE WILL THINK THEY ARE TRUE. THAT IS WHAT HAPPEND. NOW WE SEE THE SAME WAY IS USED NOW IN OTHER AREAS.
Tragic stories deserve investigation, not assumptions. The problem is that repeating a claim doesn't make it true. Vaccines are continually monitored for safety, and genuine risks are investigated. If there were evidence that vaccines were causing widespread child deaths, it would show up in population data—not just anecdotes. Comparing doctors to Nazis or invoking Goebbels is rhetoric, not evidence. If the evidence supports your claim, present the evidence. If not, outrage isn't a substitute for proof.
Every single person that has had a hand in this MURDER since inception, will be held to account by God Almighty! NOT ONE will escape their fate! That includes those in the medical industry that administered the POISONS!
Accusing millions of doctors, nurses, and scientists of mass murder requires extraordinary evidence—not certainty or outrage. If you have evidence of intentional killing, present it. If not, condemning people without proof isn't justice; it's an accusation.
If these were my children or grandchildren, I’d be wearing an orange jumpsuit right now.
Let's fix this aniivax pathos dumpster fire.
1. "Vaccines cause SIDS."
False. The scientific consensus is that routine childhood vaccination **does not increase the risk of SIDS**. In fact, multiple large case-control studies and meta-analyses have found that vaccinated infants have a **lower** risk of SIDS than unvaccinated infants, likely because vaccinated children receive better preventive healthcare overall.
2. "VAERS proves thousands of babies are killed by vaccines."
False. VAERS is a passive reporting system. Anyone can submit a report, and reports are accepted regardless of whether the vaccine caused the event. VAERS is designed to detect **signals**, not establish causation. A report occurring after vaccination is not evidence the vaccine caused the event.
3. "The twins died because they were vaccinated."
Unsupported. The article presents one physician's opinion but provides **no autopsy proving vaccination caused the deaths**, no pathological evidence of the proposed "micro-strokes," and no direct evidence that neuroinflammation from vaccination killed the children. Temporal association alone cannot establish causation.
4. "100 infant deaths in VAERS means 10,000 really occurred because VAERS only captures 1%."
Misleading. The frequently cited "1% reporting" figure comes from an old pilot project looking at **all adverse drug events**, not vaccine deaths. There is no evidence that fatal infant vaccine reactions are underreported by a factor of 100. Fatal events are among the **most likely** adverse events to be reported and investigated.
5. "Vaccines prevented only an estimated 1.3 million deaths."
The CDC estimate is indeed **a model**, not a literal count. Most public-health estimates are models because you cannot observe the world both with and without vaccination simultaneously. Reasonable people can debate model assumptions, but calling the estimate fraudulent simply because it is modeled is not evidence.
6. "Disease mortality declined before vaccines."
Partly true, but incomplete. Improvements in sanitation, nutrition, and medical care dramatically reduced deaths from many infectious diseases before vaccines were introduced. However, vaccines caused the **incidence** of diseases like measles, polio, Hib, and rubella to collapse after introduction. Mortality and incidence are different measurements.
7. "Giving 12 vaccines at one visit is dangerous."
The number "12 vaccines" is misleading because it often counts **antigens or components**, not 12 separate injections. The routine childhood schedule has been extensively studied, though parents are free to discuss alternative schedules with their pediatrician.
Bottom line
The article mixes:
* tragic real cases,
* legitimate criticism of aspects of medicine,
* speculative mechanisms,
* misuse of VAERS,
* and conclusions that go well beyond the available evidence.
It is emotionally compelling, but **emotion is not proof**. Individual cases deserve investigation, and vaccine safety should continue to be monitored rigorously. However, the evidence presented in this article does **not** demonstrate that vaccines cause SIDS or that hundreds of thousands of infants have been killed by routine childhood vaccination.
You have no credibility here or anywhere. The reason? You’re a liar and the fact you act on behalf of a corrupt industry making vast profits by purposely making children sick, makes you fundamentally evil and a menace to society. As with the pharmaceutical Nazi’s which have killed three hundred thousand innocent children over the last thirty years, you are just as guilty as they are for perpetuating their crimes. You’re warped, vapid and depraved. I wouldn’t be surprised if you had a portrait of Josef Mengele hanging above your bed. People such as yourself deserve to be hated.
Personal attacks aren't evidence. If you think I'm wrong, show where the data, methodology, or reasoning fails. Calling someone a Nazi or "evil" doesn't change what the evidence says—it just avoids engaging with it. I'm happy to discuss facts, not insults like you're in elementary school.
I’m not “calling you a Nazi or evil.” You define yourself from the position you take. Your refusal to consider the many toxins found within all vaccines, might be contributing to the catastrophic health effects within the population itself, proves a sociopathic tendency. Since an overwhelming majority of people from all walks of life, would intuitively assume FDA, CDC, IOM would run robust tests to determine whether the sudden accumulation of toxins from multiple vaccines is safe for ‘anyone let alone an infant.’ No tests were ever done. This, Tony Fauci himself ultimately confessed to Robert Kennedy Jr, after Kennedy was forced to sue him for the evidence he claimed to have. The ‘honest science proving harm from vaccines has been received to the CDC some thirty years ago.’ “They hid it” and changed nothing, allowing the carnage to go forward and build momentum. Whatever you’re looking at stating ‘safety and efficacy’ is only industry contrivance to protect the mercantile interests of the most fined industry in human history. You’ve got NOTHING.
You're making some very serious claims without providing the evidence you say exists. Hitchen's Razor.
"No tests were ever done" is factually false. You may argue the studies were inadequate, too short, or didn't answer the questions you wanted answered, but that's very different from claiming they don't exist.
As for "Fauci confessed to RFK Jr.," provide the transcript or recording. That's an extraordinary claim, and extraordinary claims require evidence.
Finally, "the most fined industry" is not proof that every scientific conclusion from that industry is false. Pharmaceutical companies have been fined for fraud, illegal marketing, and misconduct. That's precisely why independent replication, regulatory oversight, and critical review matter. It's just an attempt to deflect when you can't challenge or provide evidence.
You keep telling me I've "got nothing," yet your argument consists entirely of assertions about conspiracies, hidden evidence, and motives.
Evidence wins debates, not social media hissyfits.
You claim this is an example of Hitchen’s razor, when you’re doing the same thing? What’s your game here? Is it to hold on to the dishonest dogma of the mainstream vaccine narrative? That ship has sunk ‘think Titanic.’ I did not wake up one day and decide to join the anti-vaxx community. Like you - and too many millions of other people, I was indoctrinated by the false religion surrounding the ‘wondrous gift of vaccines’; which is an illusion. You speak of “regulation” The CDC and FDA have been LYING to us for decades. Now why would they do that? Gosh, I dunno. Maybe because those regulatory agencies have been completely captured by the very industry they were created to protect the public against? I’ve been rigorously studying this issue for more than a dozen years. I don’t have enough respect for your ‘dead in the water belief in vaccines’, to provide you my MANY sources of the highly credentialed people with integrity, who’ve been through hell, from telling the hideous truth about them. You OBVIOUSLY lack any ability for critical thinking or have the capacity to consider the possibility that ‘there might be something to this anti vaccine movement.’ If you did - this conversation wouldn’t be happening. The only thing I’ll provide you is the interview where RFK Jr, not only provides the receipts on Fauci but, one hell of a lot of empirical evidence surrounding the goddamn lies regarding the safety and efficacy, of vaccines. The man knows more about vaccines than ANY allopathic physician and every bit as much as the horrible insects that manufacture them. This is why the democrats tried to keep him from becoming HHS Secretary. Not because “he’s not a doctor” - but because he’s much smarter than those pharma sycophants and he tells the truth without embellishment. Watch the Joe Rogan interview with Robert Kennedy Jr, from a few years ago, when he was running for president. Maybe, just maybe you might learn something. I won’t be holding my breath.
Irony.
You're accusing me of blind faith while appealing to authority yourself, just a different authority.
"RFK Jr. says..." isn't evidence.
"I've studied this for 12 years..." isn't evidence.
"Watch Joe Rogan..." isn't evidence.
If the CDC or FDA lied about a specific claim, show the lie and the evidence that disproves it. That's how science works.
Hitchens' Razor applies because you're making extraordinary claims—that vaccines are broadly unsafe, regulators knowingly deceived the public for decades, and millions of doctors and scientists are either complicit or fooled. The burden of proof for those claims is on the person making them.
And no, suggesting I "watch a podcast" isn't meeting that burden.
You say you've got "many sources," but then refuse to present them because you've already decided anyone who disagrees is incapable of critical thinking. That's not skepticism—that's insulating your beliefs from scrutiny.
If your evidence is as overwhelming as you claim, it would stand on its own. It shouldn't require me to accept your conclusions before you've demonstrated them. That's the difference between evidence and conviction.t
Creativologist: We are here to help the kids. Open your heart and think about it.
Hey Creativologist: I am still waiting for your case-control studies. Do you have a problem?
Already provided them. Pay attention
Really? Where are the links? If you cannot find it yourself, perhaps you could ask your boss.
Already addressed it, find it
Creativologist -You wrote: ¨In fact, multiple large case-control studies and meta-analyses have found that vaccinated infants have a **lower** risk of SIDS than unvaccinated infants, likely because vaccinated children receive better preventive healthcare overall.¨
Could you show us those case-control studies.
See my comment above:
The paid Pharma troll Creativologist is hard at work in this comments section. You cannot win with these clowns; you say the sky is blue, they'll say it's green. Only paid trolls have time to work so hard to refute every comment pointing out that this is Russian Roulette medicine. They get paid per reply.
The moment someone has to invent my paycheck instead of refuting my sources, they've already conceded the argument.
Certainly. These are the studies I was referring to:
1. Vennemann et al., 2007 — German case-control study
Sudden infant death syndrome: no increased risk after immunisation.
SIDS infants had been vaccinated less frequently and later than matched controls. The researchers found no increased SIDS risk during the 14 days after vaccination, including after hexavalent vaccines.
2. Fleming et al., 2001 — UK nationwide case-control study
The UK accelerated immunisation programme and sudden unexpected death in infancy.
The study found no evidence that immunization caused sudden infant death; the association pointed toward lower, rather than higher, risk among immunized infants.
3. Mitchell et al., 1995 — New Zealand nationwide case-control study
Immunisation and the sudden infant death syndrome.
This was a large national case-control analysis using parental vaccination records. It found that immunization was associated with a reduced SIDS risk after adjustment for recognized confounders.
4. Hoffman et al., 1987 — US multicenter population-based case-control study
Diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis immunization and sudden infant death.
This used data from the NICHD Cooperative Epidemiological Study and found no evidence that DTP vaccination increased SIDS risk.
5. Jonville-Béra et al., 2001 — French multicenter case-control study
The researchers compared SIDS cases aged 30–90 days with three matched living controls per case and found no evidence that recent vaccination increased the risk of sudden unexpected infant death.
There is also a 2007 meta-analysis that combined nine case-control studies. The pooled result was approximately OR 0.54, meaning vaccinated infants had about half the observed SIDS risk. The authors explicitly cautioned that this did not necessarily prove vaccination itself was protective, because the “healthy vaccinee effect,” healthcare use and other confounding factors could explain part of the association.
So I would slightly tighten my original wording:
> Multiple case-control studies and a meta-analysis found no increased SIDS risk following routine vaccination; many found a lower observed risk among vaccinated infants. That lower association may partly reflect confounding and should not automatically be interpreted as proof that vaccination directly prevents SIDS.
That is the accurate, non-exaggerated conclusion.
I'm not your performing monkey. All the data is out there. Start proving your argument now without links to incredible sources or refrain from replying to me.
This is only words. I want to see the real studies.
Read it again. I see why you're so confused. I'll help you out for one, you'll have to figure out the rest
". Vennemann et al., 2007"
Pur It in Google. Done.
Go.
It is not to me to search for you.
Actually, it is, I'm not your perfoming monkey. A 12 year old can figure it out. It literally takes 30 seconds.
MANUFACTURED CRISIS
¨Film Exposes Motives Behind Mass HPV Vaccinations and Deadly Side Effects
A substantial new documentary film released online to audiences in the UK and across Europe this week, questions claims made by UK, Danish and Spanish health authorities that widespread administering of the HPV vaccine is both safe and a guaranteed means of preventing cervical cancer. It comes at a time when – flying in the face of independent science – UK and European medical experts are proposing to extend the vaccine’s use from teenage girls, adding teenage boys and children below the age of puberty. 'Manufactured Crisis: What they're not telling you about the HPV Vaccine' exposes cases of severe, life-changing adverse reactions experienced by girls and young women following doses of the commercial HPV vaccines Gardasil or Cervarix – cases from which the public has previously been shielded. Recorded adverse reactions include severe disability, paralysis and even death. Throughout Manufactured Crisis, victims and their families tell their own, often heartrending, stories...¨
https://vaccineimpact.com/2018/manufactured-crisis-film-exposes-motives-behind-mass-hpv-vaccinations-and-deadly-side-effects/
Manufactured Crisis - The documentory :
https://vimeo.com/277078546/7812e25bb1
Classic assic appeal to anecdotes and a low-credibility source. It doesn't actually rebut any of the points I made
Documentaries and heartbreaking personal stories are not scientific evidence. Individual adverse events absolutely deserve investigation, but they cannot establish that a vaccine caused them.
Vaccine Impact has a long history of publishing claims that are unsupported or contradicted by high-quality evidence. Linking to an advocacy website and a documentary is not the same as presenting controlled studies.
If you believe the HPV vaccines cause severe disability or death at rates that outweigh their benefits, then cite the peer-reviewed epidemiological evidence demonstrating that. Large population studies involving millions of people have been conducted, and they have not found an increased risk of death or chronic neurological disease attributable to HPV vaccination.
Everyone wants vaccines to be as safe as possible. That's why safety monitoring continues long after approval. But replacing population-level evidence with emotionally powerful anecdotes is not how causation is established.
Present your evidence in your own words
230 Research Papers Supporting The Vaccine/Autism Link
https://fr.scribd.com/doc/220807175/214-Research-Papers-Supporting-the-Vaccine-Autism-Link
Ginger's list..well debunked
Present just one to me and present your evidence
Supreme Court rules vaccines are unavoidably unsafe
¨The Supreme Court has ruled vaccines are "unavoidably unsafe." Vaccines contain mercury, formaldehyde, aluminum, polysorbate 80, cell lines from aborted fetuses, tissue from hamsters, dog kidneys, monkeys, peanut oil adjuvants and much more. Would you put this in your child's orange juice? No! Allowing hazardous material injections into their children's bloodstreams has caused untold grief for tens of thousands of parents.¨
https://www.hutchnews.com/story/opinion/letters/2016/09/22/supreme-court-rules-vaccines-are/20986870007/
You're misrepresenting what the Supreme Court actually ruled.
In Bruesewitz v. Wyeth (2011), the Court did not rule that vaccines are generally "unsafe." It interpreted the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, which limits certain design-defect lawsuits against vaccine manufacturers when a vaccine is properly manufactured and properly labeled.
The phrase "unavoidably unsafe" is a legal term from product-liability law (Restatement (Second) of Torts §402A, Comment k). It refers to products that can provide substantial benefits while still carrying unavoidable risks—even when made correctly. It also applies to many prescription drugs, anesthesia, chemotherapy, and other medical treatments. It is not a judicial finding that vaccines are defective or unreasonably dangerous.
As for the ingredient list: context matters. Many of the substances listed are not present in every vaccine, some are present only in trace amounts, and some (such as certain fetal-derived cell lines) are used in the manufacturing process rather than remaining as ingredients in the final product. Listing chemical names without discussing dose, formulation, or purpose is not evidence that a product is harmful.
If the claim is that vaccines are causing widespread injury, the evidence needs to come from well-designed epidemiological studies—not from taking a legal phrase out of a Supreme Court decision and attaching a scary-sounding ingredient list.
There is NO Science that shows Vaccines Cause Autism....
EXCEPT in ALL THESE Government Published Studies which show Vaccines Cause Autism
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3878266/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21623535
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25377033
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24995277
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12145534
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21058170
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22099159
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3364648/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17454560
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19106436
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3774468/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3697751/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21299355
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21907498
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11339848
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17674242
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21993250
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15780490
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12933322
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16870260
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19043938
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12142947
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24675092
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25198681
Gish gallop. Present one and show how it proves your case.
DR. ANDREW MOULDEN - VACCINE INJURIES
Conférence pour la Liberté de Choix en Santé. Montreal 2009. English. 1:48:04 min
Dr. Andrew Moulden: Every Vaccine Produces Microvascular Damage
¨Dr. Andrew Moulden recognized that every dose of vaccine given to a person produced microvascular damage whether or not the person was aware of the damage or had debilitating symptoms at the time the vaccines were given. He courageously stepped out of the conventional box of medical diagnosis and treatment, and gave us a new way to look at modern neurodevelopmental illnesses and syndromes.
This series of articles is intended to preserve the work of Dr. Moulden, who unexpectedly died in November of 2013. I want to acknowledge the contribution of this forward-thinking pioneer who worked to explain the truth about vaccine damage. This is article two in a series of four articles about Dr. Moulden’s life work.¨
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1127033491053618&ref=sharing
Moulden's theory that "every vaccine causes microvascular damage" has never been validated by high-quality scientific research.
His hypothesis was based primarily on his own interpretations of physical signs and clinical observations, not on controlled studies. It has not been independently replicated, and it has not been accepted by neurology, pathology, vascular medicine, or immunology researchers.
If every vaccination caused measurable microvascular injury, we would expect to see consistent evidence in millions of vaccinated children and adults through MRI scans, pathology, retinal imaging, blood biomarkers, and autopsy studies. We don't.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. A lecture, a Facebook video, or a tribute article is not evidence that the hypothesis is true.
If someone believes Moulden's theory is correct, the obvious question is: Where are the peer-reviewed studies demonstrating microvascular damage in vaccinated people compared with matched unvaccinated controls? After more than 15 years, those studies still haven't materialized.
Science doesn't reject ideas because they're unconventional. It rejects them when they fail to produce reproducible evidence. That's the problem with Moulden's hypothesis—not that it challenged the status quo, but that it never met the evidentiary standard needed to support such a sweeping claim.
Laura Hayes - “Why Is This Legal?” 1:23:43
https://rumble.com/v4lotxx-laura-hayes-why-is-this-legal.html
Won't even comment on a rumble video lol.
You've said a whole bunch of crap with a bunch of links and have yet to prove your case.
Laura Hayes NO ON SB277 speech Sacramento at The Capitol on April 8, 2015 14:20 min
https://rumble.com/v47llcx-laura-hayes-no-on-sb277-speech-sacramento-at-the-capitol-on-april-8-2015.html
The speech is advocacy, but it is not itself evidence. The strength of its claims depends on the quality of the underlying studies, not on the passion of the presentation. Do better than Rumble videos.
How young girls are being seriously damaged by the vaccine with the highest reported adverse reactions of any existing vaccine 30:03 min
https://www.sacrificialvirgins.org/
A documentary website is not scientific evidence.
"Sacrificial Virgins" relies heavily on personal stories and alleged vaccine injuries. Those stories deserve compassion and investigation, but they cannot establish causation. To determine whether a vaccine causes a condition, researchers compare large vaccinated and unvaccinated populations while accounting for other explanations—not individual testimonials.
The claim that the HPV vaccine has "the highest reported adverse reactions" is also misleading. Passive reporting systems collect reports of events that happen after vaccination, regardless of whether the vaccine caused them. Higher numbers of reports do not prove higher rates of vaccine injury. Suspected signals must be evaluated with controlled epidemiological studies.
After nearly two decades of use and hundreds of millions of doses worldwide, extensive safety monitoring has not found evidence that HPV vaccination causes widespread serious neurological disease, infertility, or death. At the same time, studies have shown it substantially reduces HPV infections, precancerous lesions, and cervical cancer.
If someone believes the documentary overturns that body of evidence, the question is simple: Which peer-reviewed, independently replicated population studies demonstrate that its central claims are correct? Personal testimonies and films are not a substitute for reproducible scientific evidence.
I've watched enough of Laura Hayes' claims over the years to know that a speech is not evidence.
SB277 was a political debate about whether California should remove personal-belief exemptions for school-entry vaccines. Passionate testimony—whether for or against the bill—doesn't establish that the factual claims made in the speech are true.
If Laura Hayes claims vaccines are unsafe, cause autism, violate constitutional rights, or that vaccine science is fraudulent, then those claims need to be supported by peer-reviewed evidence, not applause, anecdotes, or rhetoric.
The irony is that nearly a decade has passed since that speech. If the extraordinary claims made there were correct, we should now have robust, reproducible scientific evidence confirming them. We don't.
Public policy should be based on the totality of evidence—not on who gives the most emotional speech at a rally. Passion is not a substitute for proof.
Dr Andrew Moulden :
executivereasoning2
https://www.youtube.com/@executivereasoning2
Posting another YouTube channel doesn't strengthen the claim.
Moulden's central assertion—that every vaccine causes microvascular damage—has never been validated by reproducible, peer-reviewed research. Despite having medical and neuroscience training, he published no peer-reviewed research on vaccines or vaccine injury supporting this theory.
A YouTube channel is not scientific evidence. If Moulden's hypothesis were correct, it should be supported by independently replicated studies demonstrating measurable microvascular injury after vaccination across different populations. Those studies do not exist.
Science isn't decided by the number of videos, interviews, or followers someone has. It's decided by whether the evidence is reproducible and withstands independent scrutiny. Fifteen-plus years later, Moulden's hypothesis still hasn't met that standard.
Dr. Andrew Moulden's Tolerance Lost - The Problem
https://vimeo.com/1026007979?fl=pl&fe=vl
See previous correction
Creativologist - Take Your Blue Pill and Go Back to Your Blissful Sleep!
Yawn
"Well baby check" to death.
Why do people submit to medicine, science, or the government when their own child is doing well?