Is the Public Being Told the Truth About Vaccines and Vaccination Studies?

Syringe_Vials_Vaccine 1

By TLB Staff Writer: Christina England

Many researchers and scientists encounter the problematic issue of funding when they investigate the possible dangers of vaccinations. They find out that as soon as they apply for a research grant, they are turned down in favor of studies that back the pharmaceutical industry and the vaccination program.

In 2012, I exposed confidential paperwork that highlighted this issue, supplied to me by an interested party. The papers had been hidden in the archives for many years and revealed that when researcher Doris Jones, a postgraduate medical research student, applied for funding from the Medical Research Centre (MRC) to research what she believed to be the link between vaccinations, antibiotics and the subsequent development of myaglic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), her application was turned down in favor of psychiatric research, which was said to be preferable. To read more on this issue, see my article Secret Papers Reveal Funding Refused to Researchers Looking Into Link Between Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and Vaccinations.

In fact, researchers have discovered that many of the vaccine studies being used by professionals to prove that vaccines are safe and effective are biased and marred by conflicts of interest. This was an issue highlighted in a paper written by Gayle DeLong from the Department of Economics and Finance, Baruch College, New York.

She wrote:

“Conflicts of interest (COls) cloud vaccine safety research. Sponsors of research have competing interests that may impede the objective study of vaccine side effects. Vaccine manufacturers, health officials, and medical journals may have financial and bureaucratic reasons for not wanting to acknowledge the risks of vaccines. Conversely, some advocacy groups may have legislative and financial reasons to sponsor research that finds risks in vaccines. Using the vaccine-autism debate as an illustration, this article details the conflicts of interest each of these groups faces, outlines the current state of vaccine safety research, and suggests remedies to address COls. Minimizing COIs in vaccine safety research could reduce research bias and restore greater trust in the vaccine program.”

Her paper was extremely detailed, fully referenced and full of facts and figures.

Summarizing what she had discovered, she wrote:

“COls can influence the objectivity of vaccine safety researchers. Using the vaccine-autism debate as an illustration, this article describes the COls faced by various research sponsors. Vaccine manufacturers have financial motives and public health officials have bureaucratic reasons that might lead them to sponsor research that concludes vaccines are safe. Advocacy groups have members with legal and financial reasons to support studies that find adverse effects in vaccines. These conflicts do not mean the research is incorrect, but the research could be selective and biased. Currently, most vaccine safety researchers face conflicts, which contribute to consumer confusion as well as more studies concerned with vaccine safety. Reported injuries from vaccines are not investigated and both the public as well as some health workers question vaccine safety research. Ameliorating the COIs–through bureaucratic restructuring and enforced transparency-could lead to less bias, more investigation into reported injuries and increased trust in vaccine safety research.”

If her research is true, then it proves that the majority of vaccination studies used to reassure parents that vaccinations are safe and effective are biased and in favour of Big Pharma and therefore the public are denied the truth.

Biased Study Funded by Big Pharma Reassures Parents that Vaccines are Safe

An excellent example of what appears to be a biased study, is a study written by Margaret A. Maglione, MPP, Lopamudra Das,MPH, Laura Raaen, MPH, Alexandria Smith, MPH, Ramya, Chari, PhD, Sydney Newberry, PhD, Roberta Shanman, MLS,Tanja Perry, BHM, Matthew Bidwell Goetz, MD, and Courtney Gidengil, MD, MPH, titled Safety of Vaccines Used for Routine Immunization of US Children: A Systematic Review.

Due to the growing concerns about the safety of vaccinations and the decline in the number of children being vaccinated the group of experts decided to study vaccination safety, in a bid to reassure parents.

After studying each vaccination in turn, they concluded:

“Our findings may allay some patient, caregiver, and health care provider concerns. Strength of evidence is high that MMR vaccine is not associated with the onset of autism in children; this conclusion supports findings of all previous reviews on the topic. There is also high-strength evidence that MMR, DTaP, Td, Hib, and hepatitis B vaccines are not associated with childhood leukemia.

Evidence was found for an association of several serious AEs with vaccines; however, these events were extremely rare: absolute risk is low.”

Many parents reading this study would have been reassured by this powerful team of experts.

However, would they would be quite so reassured if they knew that these experts were all part of the RAND Corporation an organization known to be heavily funded by the pharmaceutical industry, US Government, World Bank, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. See here and here.

Dr. Jayne Donegan Reveals the Truth

In 2007, Dr. Donegan spoke about her experiences when she began to discover and reveal the truth. She spoke about some issues which she found very disturbing.

She wrote:

“I was shocked to discover that vaccines hadn’t made the great impact that I had been led to believe on people’s health, usually with graphs starting a few years before the vaccines were introduced; instead of showing the figures from fifty or a hundred years before, when you would see that 95-99% of the reduction in deaths from, for example, measles and whooping cough had already occurred before the vaccines were introduced.

I approached the vaccination issue anew, my interest in the subject fuelled by my concern for child health safety. I continued my reading of refereed scientific and medical journals, but with a new and more critical eye.  I soon began to realise that what is held up as ‘science’ is not a truthful quest for knowledge on an even playing field, quite the contrary, you get the science you pay for. This is how it works: first of all you have to get someone to pay for your study – so it has to be on a subject they like. Then you have to produce results that they like – or the results may be canned and never see the light of day.  Then you have to get a journal to publish it – which they won’t if it seems contrary to what they regard as appropriate, and then it has to get through the review by the referees – people who work in the field in which your study/ paper deals and who do not like what does not support the status quo, depending on the strength of the status quo, and vaccination is a very strong one.”

What she revealed next may shock many readers. She wrote:

“Some studies get published by means of tweaking their conclusions for example, in an outbreak of paralytic polio in Oman in 1988-9 that started shortly after (they say ‘despite’) an immunisation program that raised the coverage with three doses of oral polio vaccine (OPV) from 67% to 87% in twelve month old children (hint, oral live polio vaccine can give you polio). They actually state that the outbreak occurred, “in the face of a model immunisation” and that “the region with the highest attack rate (paralytic polio) had one of the highest coverage rates (vaccination) whereas the region with the lowest coverage (vaccination) had the lowest attack rate (paralytic),”and that there was “no correlation between vaccine coverage rates and attack rates by region”. This means that those in highly vaccinated areas were no more protected than those in less vaccinated areas. By the time they get to the concluding paragraph, however, the authors are calling for more vaccines in the schedule, more mass campaigns, new vaccines despite the fact that the one used was found to be of its usual efficacy and so on, and let’s face it, what is the point of a vaccine if it doesn’t protect you when there is an epidemic? (Sutter RW Patriarca PA, Brogan S, Malankar PG, Outbreak of paralytic poliomyelitis in Oman: evidence of widespread transmission among fully vaccinated children, Lancet 1991;338:715-20.)

“This is how you get papers published. So the ‘science’ that we all look up to and the ‘scientists’ that we all trust are made up of nothing more than people who are trying to make a living and pay their mortgages – you get the science you pay for and he who pays the piper calls the tune.” To read her work, click here.

This leaves honest researchers and scientists with a dilemma: who do they turn to for funding if they do not want to have the pharmaceutical industry fund their work and possibly tweak the results if they turn out to be unfavourable?

Who Do Vaccine Researchers Turn to For Independent Funding?

cmsri_logo 3

One of the few organizations to recognize this problem and address the many issues surrounding the dangers of vaccination is an organization called Children’s Medical Safety Research Institute, often referred to as CMSRI. The CMSRI was established in 2012 by Claire Dwoskin, a child health advocate, to provide funding for research to address eroding national health, particularly in very young and elderly populations.

The organization’s mission, as stated on their website, is as follows:

“To provide scientific research to address gaps in the knowledge about the biological and genetic risk factors for vaccine induced brain and immune dysfunction, including lack of adequate safety data, particularly for delayed or chronic health outcomes;

Evaluate the biological and genetic reactivity of vaccine additives such as aluminum adjuvants (immune stimulating agents), mercury preservatives and other toxic ingredients.

Research the effects of multiple vaccine exposures and their potential impact on development of chronic illness, disability, cancer, fertility and neurodegenerative disease.

Evaluate bias in reporting of vaccine risks and benefits.

Research and quantify incidence of novel vaccine-associated autoimmune diseases To provide information to government agencies responsible for developing national vaccine policies, the media and the public to address real and perceived vaccine safety concerns.”

In the few years that this organization has been funding research on vaccinations, several leading scientists and researchers have been able to present very important facts about the dangers of vaccines and vaccine ingredients to the public

I asked Ms. Dwoskin what she felt her organization had achieved since 2012. She answered:

“The CMSRI wanted to discover WHY so many of today’s children are becoming ill. Parents are asking, ‘Why does my child have asthma, allergies, ADD/ADHD, cancer, or autism, when these conditions not run in our family?’

Today’s parents have plenty to worry about. The advent of the digital world has had profound implications for kids’ lives; it has transformed education and socialization and has become a permanent daily fixture. Safety issues surrounding the digital lives of children are a primary concern of well-being and are a focus of the entire community, including parents, health and education authorities, and child health advocates.

Yet, when it comes to chronic illness, parents concerns are met with opposition and/or silence. Increasingly, health issues are dominating family dynamics. Parents spend an inordinate amount of time concerned about the quality and safety of food ingredients, environmental exposures, IEPs, getting their kids to therapies for developmental delays, socialization concerns such as bullying and self-esteem, and the roulette of childhood medications. The increase of mysterious conditions with no diagnosis, cause or treatment have families at a loss to explain what is happening to their children, and few doctors seem be interested in finding answers. ‘Bad luck’ is the new catch-phrase to appease questioning parents.”

She continued by stating that:

“For some reason, the same level of concern about health and medical safety is not at the forefront of the medical community, despite the enormous impact it is having on families, education, national health measures, and the economy. The alarming increase in the number of sick children, which has occurred over the past three decades, has resulted in a highly medicated and chronically ill population, as well as high health care costs relative to other developed nations. A study in Academic Pediatrics counted 54% of all children as having a chronic condition. During the last three decades of declining health, the number of vaccines recommended by the CDC has increased from 8 – 10 doses of 4 or 5 vaccines to 49 doses of 14 vaccines by age six. Eighteen of these doses contain aluminum adjuvants which have been identified as having immune and neurotoxic properties.

Children’s Medical Safety Research Institute was founded in 2012 by Claire and Albert Dwoskin to address the concerns over the rising rates of chronic illness and disability. Although ample attention is devoted to prevention of infectious disease, the causes for the rise in chronic childhood conditions, many of which can also be disabling and even fatal, has failed to arouse curiosity or concern.. We have heard quite a lot about measles outbreaks this year, but for every case of measles that has been diagnosed, there are an estimated 7,000 cases of autism.

CMSRI has recognized that most drugs and vaccines prescribed and administered to children have not been studied for long-term effects on overall health, including carcinogenicity and fertility. This lack of quality research has been identified by the Institutes of Medicine as an unmet research need, which CMSRI is helping to address.

CMSRI has organized and funded a strategic and collaborative research approach to studying the complex interaction between aluminum and the immune and neurological systems. They are evaluating genetic, cognitive, motor, and behavioral changes that take place after oral and injected aluminum at doses relevant to human exposures. A leading team of neuroscientists, autoimmunologists, biochemists, microbiologists, geneticists, neuromuscular disease specialists, physicists, data scientists and internal medicine experts are working together to expand and increase the pace of discovery far beyond what individual scientists or laboratories can achieve.

Published research has demonstrated that aluminum can alter gene expression in animal models in key genes known to be linked to human diseases such as autoimmunity, Alzheimer’s disease, chronic inflammation and autism. Aluminum has been found to induce neurological deficits in mice at vaccine relevant doses, including increased anxiety and aggression and reduced cognitive, motor and social function. Aluminum has been found to travel to the spleen and organs rather than remain at the injection site as was previously believed. These findings underscore the importance of applying rigorous research methods when considering vaccines which are administered to entire populations.

Aluminum has been identified as an instigator of both chronic and acute conditions leading to serious illness and death. Recommendations by some health authorities to remove aluminum from vaccines or to remove some aluminium-containing vaccines from the recommended pediatric vaccines schedule has resulted from CMSRI and Dwoskin Family Foundation funded research. CMSRI research has been featured in documentaries and several books in various stages of publication.”

I asked Ms. Dwoskin what her aim is for the future. She replied:

“CMSRI understands the enormous individual and societal impact of chronic illness and disability, and the suffering by those who are affected, their families and the entire community. We welcome the philanthropic interest and contributions of individuals, foundations, and the medical and scientific research communities to join CMSRI’s efforts to stem the rising tide of chronic health conditions.”

To carry on their amazing work and help fund scientists and researchers independently, the CMSRI depends on donations from the public. If you wish to aid them in their endeavour to fund scientists and researchers who conduct research that is independent from drug companies, you can donate by going to the CMSRI donate page.


When parents read scientific studies, they should try to find out who funded that study. In some cases, vaccination studies are funded by the company that manufactured the vaccine being researched. If this is the case, then it would be reasonable to presume that the results may favor the company funding the study.


TLB Highly recommends you visit CMSRI for more pertinent information and to donate to this vital harbinger of the truth!

Related article:

TLB Special, CMSRI Funding Vaccine Research, Providing the Truth: A Discussion With Claire Dwoskin, The Founder

1 Comment on Is the Public Being Told the Truth About Vaccines and Vaccination Studies?

  1. I wonder how many billions can be wiped off the cost of healthcare if all these outrageous conflicts of interest are removed from the decision boards that direct research grants and get to decide which areas are studied and which are conveniently ignored?

    Here is a very interesting discussion on all the methods used by the pharmaceutical industry to control and distort the publication of medical research….

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.