Every now and then, regardless of how difficult things are or how much you begin to doubt what you are doing, you will come across something that reminds you that what you are doing matters and you need to continue.
That happened to me today when I saw a recent JAMA study surveying pregnant mothers and parents of young children, which found:
That study, in turn, concluded with:
Given the high decisional uncertainty during pregnancy about vaccinating children after birth, there may be value in intervening during pregnancy to proactively support families with childhood vaccination decisions.
As COVID had been such a severe overreach, I had hoped that the COVID cartel’s greed would awaken people to the issues with vaccination and prompt significant skepticism against the existing pediatric vaccines. However, I did not expect such a large shift to occur so quickly. To briefly put this in context:
First, while there has been an overall loss of trust in vaccination (which I consider to be absolutely profound), the drop in confidence is much greater among the youngest generation, who are actually making the decisions to vaccinate their children. Consider for example, the results of this January survey, where far more than 37% of all Americans fully trusted and intended to follow the CDC schedule.
Second, a total of 37% of American parents fully trust the schedule, which represents a massive drop compared to the historical baseline. Specifically:
• In 2000, 19% of parents had “concerns about vaccines”
• In 2003, 28% of parents had “vaccine hesitancy,” of whom approximately two-thirds delayed or refused only certain vaccines.
• In 2009, 50% of parents had “concerns about vaccines” and 11.5% had refused at least one vaccine for their child (most commonly refusing the injurious HPV vaccine)
• In 2010, 89% of pediatricians reported at least one vaccine refusal by a parent each month, with yearly childhood flu shots being the most commonly refused vaccine.
• In 2011, 13% of parents followed an alternative vaccine schedule (e.g., skipping or delaying some vaccines)—most of whom had originally followed the CDC schedule, along with 2.2% skipped all vaccines.
• In 2013, 9% of parents declined or postponed all immunizations, and 32% had concerns about vaccine safety.
The key context to understand about these figures is that they were alarming to the medical field, as their baseline had been to expect almost all parents would vaccinate without complaining and if someone dared to step out of line by doing something as simple as delaying vaccines (as more vaccines close together at a young age increases the likelihood of an injury) they were crucified by the medical field and often lost their licenses. As such, if you consider the figures they were alarmed by, and then compare them to the current reality, the difference is essentially “night and day.”
Third, a major way vaccine compliance is enforced is through social pressure (e.g., “everyone else is doing it, so you must be crazy or a bad parent if you aren’t”) and mandates. Both of these are predicated on the majority of the population being vaccinated, which essentially is why the medical industry was so concerned about vaccine use dropping below 90%.
As such, I believe a key reason why so many unconscionable and aggressive childhood mandates were pushed across America in 2019 (e.g., the California ones), despite widespread public protest, was because the vaccine industry realized they were losing the majority necessary to justify (an unscientific and unconscionable) vaccine program and hence had to default to forcing them to vaccinate.
Note: in 2020, I realized a very aggressive marketing campaign was being made for the COVID vaccines which would “save us from the lockdowns.” Because of that, I concluded that the vaccine campaign would go through a series of escalating stages (e.g., mass promoting the vaccine as a miracle then selling it on scarcity, remove the scarcity to catch everyone else who’d been pulled in, give gifts for vaccinating, create soft mandates through social restrictions on visiting public areas or businesses, introduce hard mandates at certain companies, create nationwide mandates). This was because the later mandates were unviable unless most of the population was already vaccinated (e.g., if 10% of America was vaccinated, restaurants would never ban unvaccinated customers), so it was critical to vaccinate as many people as possible before trying to push the previously inconceivable workplace mandates. In parallel, one of the only things which has ever gotten California to back down on certain school mandates (e.g., for the COVID vaccines) was so many parents refusing and being willing to pull their kids out of the schools that the state could not afford to lose the Federal Education dollars that would have resulted in.
Fourth, if you look at the recent July results, you will notice that many parents are, to varying degrees, “undecided.” What this means is that we have a real chance to permanently change the vaccine paradigm if we can provide both direct stories of tragic vaccine injuries (especially if the injured party is within the parent’s community) and if we can continue to provide trustworthy and balanced information that clearly shows the actual risks and benefits of vaccinations.
Many like me are doing that, and I believe we are having a real impact. More importantly, RFK Jr. is working with the HHS to release the gold standard evidence on vaccine injury, and once that comes out, the foundation has been laid for those rejecting vaccines to become the majority. This is extremely important, particularly since many are still advocating for vaccine mandates (e.g., I’ve received numerous concerned emails from readers that Hawaii’s left-wing physician governor will soon remove religious exemptions and hence mandate them,1,2,3 just like California’s Dr. Pan did). However, none of that can happen if the majority of America does not trust the vaccines and hence sees vaccines as a corrupt assault on their health and liberty.
Note: these trends are also demonstrated by a recent large JAMA study of 443,445 Americans, which found that in April 2020, 71.5% of them trusted doctors and hospitals, while in January 2024, only 40.1% did
Vaccine Propaganda
The actual evidence against vaccines is atrocious (e.g., independent studies all show they make you 3-10x more likely to develop a variety of chronic illnesses, and there is over a century of literature showing they cause profound neurological injuries). Because of this, the only viable way to maintain the vaccine market has been to prohibit all independent research on vaccine safety (which is why RFK’s government studies are so important) and gaslight the country.
At its core, propaganda exists to sell “unsellable” ideas to the public. To accomplish this, the sale must be emotional rather than logical, as indefensible ideas quickly dissipate when exposed to debate. As such, propaganda relies upon a variety of tactics which are emotional in nature but often masquerade as being scientific.
For example, much of propaganda revolves around using words that elicit emotional responses in people and having the media collectively reinforce that emotional reaction. As such, many debates, regardless of the arguments put forward often devolve into those emotionally charged slurs (e.g., “you’re a racist,” “you are a climate change denier,” “you don’t believe in science” “you’re an anti-vaxxer” “you are a peddler of dangerous conspiracies” “you’re a quack”). Because of this:
• Non-scientific positions are often erected by having a few false slogans to defend them which are shouted until they drown out any competing arguments (rather than the arguments being seriously considered).
• A lot of work goes into sculpting the most emotionally manipulative phrase (or imagery) which can support a desired narrative, at which point it is blasted throughout the entire mass media and then adopted by everyday people who come to believe the phrases were their own ideas.
More importantly, propaganda takes advantage of the fact people are naturally hesitant to stray from the crowd, and as such, if they hear the same message everywhere (particularly if their peers also adopt it), most will quickly adopt it too. Because of this, the mass media will collectively parrot the same messages, collectively denounce those who deviate from them, have an endless stream of “experts” on to defend the status quo, and most importantly, never allow the other side to be heard.
In turn, many of the major problems with medicine in our country ultimately from from a 1997 decision by the FDA to legalize television pharmaceutical advertisements, at which point, the pharmaceutical industry became the mass media’s largest advertiser. Soon after, that financial influence was leveraged to suppress media scrutiny, gradually eliminating news reports questioning the pharmaceutical industry—especially those about vaccines—making it nearly impossible to imagine critical news programs like those that once aired existing today.
Note: news anchors who witnessed this shift, like Sharyl Attkisson have attested to it.
Because of the blank check this monopoly on truth gave them, the vaccine industry became increasingly brazen in its actions (e.g., pushing more and more injurious vaccines onto the market, enacting more and more censorship, and then implementing more and more mandates). Fortunately, like many who suddenly rise to power, they overstepped and created a significant backlash, which has arguably left the industry in its worst position ever.
This is because, in addition to the mounting injuries (as the more vaccines children get, the more injuries they will have), an even larger backlash was occurring against the mass media in general, making it much harder for them to maintain control over unpopular narratives like vaccination.
Note: in recent decades, especially the last one, the media has gotten more and more aggressive in asserting its narrative (regardless of how nonsensical it is) while suppressing all dissenting ones. Since the internet has become integrated into the fabric of society, and well produced content (e.g., those debunking mass media lies the public is against) can rapidly go viral, the existing model no longer works. If anything, the more that it is doubled down on, the more people lose trust in it.
Contorting Medical Injuries
One of my morbid hobbies has been studying how pharmaceutical drugs injure and disable people and within this spectrum, I find the ones that create psychiatric issues alongside physical ones to be particularly cruel.
For example, SSRI antidepressants have many common side effects (e.g. sexual dysfunction, bipolar disorder, emotional numbness, terrible withdrawals and at times psychotic violence), many of which cause the individual to feel as though they are “losing their mind” and desperately want to stop the drugs. However, rather than recognize the drug is injuring them, the doctor will often tell the patient those side effects are due to the patient’s own mental illness rather than being a commonly recognized side effect of the drugs.
As such, the patient will be told to continue taking their drugs. Furthermore, since “mentally ill” patients are often deemed to lack the capacity to make their own judgment, whereas psychiatrists are seen as authority figures, I have seen more cases than I can count where everyone (e.g., the patient’s family and the courts [which frequently mandate treatment]) side with the psychiatrist rather than the patient, in turn all insisting those side effects are due to the patient’s mental illness and force the patient to take even more psychiatric drugs.
Note: this gets even more challenging for the patient when they begin to lose their grip on reality from the side effects of the drug and start questioning their own judgment, or if they should give up on themselves and just blindly trust the authority figures around them.
Some of the classic ways psychiatry gaslights patients include:
• Telling them that any symptom that emerges is due to the pre-existing mental illness.
• When a patient experiences adverse effects from a drug, the dosage is increased rather than acknowledging the side effects.
Note: this is a story commonly seen immediately preceding catastrophic school shootings, but unfortunately, since there is widespread denial in the psychiatric field that SSRIs can make patients turn psychotic, it is rarely recognized (hence leading to it happening over and over again).
• When a patient experiences withdrawal reactions (which is very common and one of the most insidious issues with the SSRIs), telling the patient that those side effects prove the patient “needed” the drug (as it was treating their mental illness) rather than it being recognized as a dangerous withdrawal effect.
• When a patient develops new psychiatric symptoms (e.g., mania) patients are told the drug did not “cause” the symptoms, but rather, that the drug “unmasked” a psychiatric disorder that had always been there (even though it would have never been “unmasked” if the patient had not used the drug in the first place). For example, bipolar disorder is a debilitating condition which around 25% of longterm SSRI users develop (hence leading to an epidemic of bipolar disorder ever since we started mass medicating with SSRIs), and since it is so common, the “unmasking” story has become the party line most psychiatrists use to rationalize the harm being caused to their patients.
Sadly, gaslighting is not unique to psychiatry. For example, throughout many of the clinical trials for the more toxic drugs on the market, trial participants developed severe side effects, but to ensure the pharmaceutical’s approval, those reactions were hidden both from the trial participants and the government by the clinical trial investigators. For example, I’ve detailed the appalling degree to which this was done in:
• The SSRI clinical trials.
• The HPV vaccine trials.
• The COVID vaccine trials.
Note: many were appalled by what whistleblowers shared happened in the COVID vaccine trials (e.g., everyone telling them a clear injury they had wasn’t “real”), but as I tried to illustrate in those articles, these are actually long standing problems in clinical trials (as they cost so much money to conduct, the pharmaceutical sponsors will do everything they can to “prove” the trial showed the drug was “safe and effective”).
Since doctors are trained to believe an injury is only “real” (rather than an anecdotal coincidence or simply imagined in the patient’s mind) if the injury is proven to exist within “unbiased” clinical trials, the gaslighting you see in the clinical trials sets of a chain of gaslighting as doctors around the world will believe what the clinical trials showed is true and hence dismiss the same injuries in their own patients which were covered up the clinical trials (and hence never made it to the final clinical trial report).
Note: since many different drugs cause neurological injuries (particularly in susceptible people) that are misdiagnosed as psychiatric injuries, this creates a huge problem, particularly since those patients are often fed into the psyche funnel, at which point they get put on even more neurologically destructive medications.
