Proof that Childhood Vaccinations Are a Hoax

It’s taken as an article of faith that vaccinations have improved our lifespan. Most of us take our children to the doctors for their injections without question. Most think of themselves as bad parents if they don’t. It’s simply one of those things that aren’t questioned, as if it’s obvious. It’s gone so far now that parents have been threatened with prison and their children are coerced into vaccinations.

This article exposes the reality: As documented by the American Medical Association’s own Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) in the January 1999 issue, there is no connection between death from infectious diseases and vaccinations. That’s right. None.

First, let’s look at the dates for when vaccinations were first introduced in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control:

  • Measles (one of the Ms of the MMR vaccination): 1963
  • Mumps (the other M of the MMR vaccination): 1967
  • Diphtheria (the D of the DPT vaccination): First licensed in 1921, but not widely used until the 1930′s
  • Pertussis (whooping cough, the P of the DPT vaccination): First developed in the 1930′s, widely used by the mid-1940′s
  • Tetanus (the T of the DPT vaccination): First used as a childhood vaccine in the 1940′s
  • Rubella (German measles, the R of the MMR vaccination): 1969

There are several others, of course, but they are either too recent to take into account or not truly associated with childhood illnesses, such as smallpox and polio, which are more appropriately considered epidemic diseases.

The JAMA Study

The number of deaths from nine different infectious diseases, in some cases, groups of diseases, were tallied. They are:

  • Pneumonia and influenza
  • Tuberculosis
  • Diphtheria
  • Pertussis
  • Measles
  • Typhoid fever
  • Dysentery
  • Syphilis
  • AIDS

All but AIDS were chosen because they were the most common cause of death by infectious diseases in the first half of the 20th century, with the exception of polio, for which data are not available for all years covered by the study.

Graphs showing numbers of deaths by age, by infectious disease deaths as a whole, by specific infectious diseases, and by all disease causes are shown plotted by time, from 1900 through 1996.

Results of the JAMA Study

With the exception of 1918, when the great influenza pandemic struck, the rate of deaths from infectious diseases shows a fairly smooth rate of decrease from 1900 through 1980, at which point a slight rate of increase develops. That alone should raise flags. If the vaccines were truly effective, why would the rate of infectious diseases rise?

Infectious Diseases Mortality Rate, 20th Century (JAMA)

Figure 1. Crude Infectious Disease Mortality Rate in the United States from 1900 Through 1996 (Graph from JAMA)

Deaths graphed by groups of diseases show some variations. The most significant improvements are in typhus and dysentery. Both of these diseases show almost no deaths after 1960. However, take note of the fact that there is no vaccination for dysentery and most people are not vaccinated for typhus.

Pneumonia and Influenza (JAMA Graph)

Figure 2A. Crude Mortality Rates for Influenza & Pneumonia (Graph from JAMA)

Tuberculosis rates show a curve similar to the overall infectious disease rate. Interestingly, the death rate from pneumonia and influenza from 1970 through 1996 shows a slight increase, in spite of the ongoing vaccinations for influenza and the introduction of pneumonia vaccines in 1977 and 1983.


Typhoid and Dysentery Graphs (from JAMA)

Figure 2B. Crude Mortality Rates for Typhus & Dysentery (Graph from JAMA

As noted above, deaths from typhus and dysentery plunge to near-zero by 1960—though there is no vaccine for dysentery and passingly few people are vaccinated against typhus.

Diphtheria, Pertussis, Measles, Polio (JAMA Graph)

Figure 2C. Crude Mortality Rates for Diphtheria, Pertussis, Measles, & Polio (Graph from JAMA)

Diphtheria shows its greatest decrease of deaths prior to 1920. There was a spike in diphtheria deaths during the early 1920′s, shortly after the vaccination was introduced, and then the rate of decrease continued as before the vaccination’s introduction. Whooping cough (pertussis) and measles showed the same general trend of decrease during the 20th century.

Finally, take a look at the chart for death rates from all disease causes. From 1900 into the 1920s, the infectious disease rate goes down at an impressive pace. This is a time during which there were no vaccinations against childhood diseases. The decrease in the rate of deaths continues at about the same pace well into the 1950s. Then, it starts to level out, in spite of the fact that the vast majority of children are vaccinated during this time.

Mortality Rate, All Causes (from JAMA)

Figure 3. Crude Mortality Rates for All Causes (Graph from JAMA)

Now, take a look at the same graph showing the death rates from all diseases. This should make you nervous. The rate of death from noninfectious causes decreases slightly from 1900 through 1920. However, during the 1930s, when vaccinations start to be introduced, the death rate from noninfectious causes started to increase!

What Can Explain the Reduction in Infectious Disease Rates?

Since it’s obvious from the AMA’s own documentation that vaccinations have little or no effect on the outcome of infectious disease deaths, then there must be other issues at play. If one looks at the history of the 20th century in the U.S. then it isn’t too difficult to see what has changed. This was the era of improved overall hygiene and adequate food.

It was when clean and abundant water became the norm. It was when systems to clean wastes from public water supplies became standard. It was when septic and sewer systems to separate people from disease-producing wastes were introduced. It was a time of relative plenty, when people grew larger because of adequate food. In other words, it was a time of relative wealth and public works for good water and sewage treatment.

Adequate food for the masses of people, along with sewage and clean water, are most probably the reasons behind the decrease in infectious diseases, not the medical system’s vaunted vaccinations.

Why Are We Vaccinating Against Childhood Diseases?

This is the multibillion dollar question. Parents usually have their children vaccinated because the idea of not doing it simply doesn’t occur. We have been thoroughly indoctrinated with the concept of “deadly” childhood diseases. Yet, there is no documentation showing that death rates from these diseases have been improved by the vaccinations. As the data that the AMA itself has produced shows, there is every reason to believe that these vaccinations are not effective, that we need to look to other reasons for the decrease in these disease deaths.

Even more significantly, the AMA’s own data show a possible link between an increase in death coinciding with vaccinations. Whether this is a cause-and-effect link is not proven at this time. However, with the AMA’s record of not looking into the effects of vaccinations—of not even requiring that after-effects be reported—it’s clear that the allopathic (standard) medical system is not going to sort this out. That leaves us with no option but to assume the worst—that childhood vaccinations not only do little or no good, they may be doing great harm.

The question, of course, is “Why?” As with any corporate-controlled business—and make no mistake, the medical industry is big business—the answer always goes back to the same thing: money. Filthy lucre. There are millions and billions of dollars, pounds, euros, and other currencies to be made by both the pharmaceutical firms and the doctors themselves.

The Bottom Line

For the medical industry, the bottom line is the bottom line. For each of us and for our children, the bottom line is completely different. It’s the quality of our lives. In the end, the only ones who must live with the results of vaccinations are the children and adults whose bodies have been pierced by the needles injecting them.


This article focused on some of the most common childhood vaccines, the ones noted for childhood diseases and also the ones that have existed for the greatest amount of time. However, readers may find the following information about when vaccines have been introduced to be of interest:

  • Anthrax: November 20, 2002
  • Hepatitis A: HAVRIXR vaccine in 1995, VAQTAR vaccine in 1996
  • Hepatitis B: First in 1982; in 1986 a recombinant DNA vaccine issued; in 1989 a second recombinant DNA vaccine issued
  • Hib (Haemophilus influenzae type b, not a true influenza virus, but a bacterium): First licensed in 1985, but a “new improved” form licensed in 1987
  • HPV (Human papillovirus): June 8, 2006
  • Influenza: First introduced in 1945; ongoing updates developed year after year in attempt to keep up with viral changes
  • Meningococcus: First in 1974 against one of five major subtypes; others introduced 1981 and 2005 for original subtype and three others; no vaccine exists for fifth subtype (B), which is the cause of 65% of meningitis cases under age 2
  • Pneumonia: 1977 for 14 types of bacterial pneumonia; 1983 “improved” vaccine for 23 types of bacteria; a specific vaccine aimed at children under age 2 developed in 2000
  • Polio: Jonas Salk killed virus vaccine in 1955; live vaccine in 1961; “enhanced formulation” introduced in 1988
  • Rotavirus: February 2006
  • Zoster (shingles: stronger version of chicken pox vaccine): May 26, 2006

Read original here:

22 Comments on Proof that Childhood Vaccinations Are a Hoax

  1. There are simply no unbiased unscientific research that has been done on the safety or efficacy of vaccines. Period. Any research that has been conducted has been paid for by the vaccine manufacturers and that’s just not good science, it’s all for-profit. What they’ve done is taken the principles behind homeopathy (which is 100% safe & effective with ZERO side effects) & tried to create a synthetic version of the homeopathic prophylaxis because homeopathic remedies are all created from nature, and nature cannot be patented and sold at astronomical costs to consumers (paid for by insurance companies & government agencies like Medicaid). The problem is, where these homeopathically created solutions are safe and effective, the synthetic vaccines are not safe & we pay dearly for using the sythetic materials in the form of “side effects”. If people were informed as much about the side effect of vaccines as they are about the “deadly childhood diseases–which is a hoax), no one would willingly choose to put vaccinate their child. The vaccine manufacturers knowingly feed off the ignorance (& fear mongering) of uninformed, emotionally raw, new parents. It’s a sick, sick, money-making RACKET that is unnecessarily killing and maiming our children.

  2. We all want to see the scienific proof or facts but it isn’t made always available.

    Here is a Dr. Ben Goldacre that speaks about what amount of positive test results are published and what amount of negative test results are published. Quite interesting….

  3. Sorry some how my comment was submitted before it was done….It should say I am not pro or anti-vaccine. Just want the truth. And at least this article gets people to think and really start looking at the issue. It take courage to even write on this topic because it’s such a hot button.

  4. No, you did not. You did not respond to what’s in the article, nor did you demonstrate that it’s flawed. You made irrelevant comments. You point out that you don’t have time to fact check – yet you assume that the facts are wrong. That hardly adds up to a legitimate argument.

  5. Good article. What remains the same is that they continue to produce more and more vaccines which are made from toxic chemicals like aluminum, formaldehyde and mercury . These include animal cells, petri dish made viruses (not natural strains) and human infant cells which they inject into anyone they can find willing….WITH out much proof they help. What they do, do is overstimulate your immune system and eventually cause autoimmunity. What they do is cause developmental problems, health problems. Its a shame that has been perpetrated on the American public in the name of money. I’m pro or anti…I’m looking for truth. There are too many vaccines being given to infants and young children when they know the damn things wear off in 15 years. So we vaccinate you for Hep B at birth and by the time you are old enough to engage in the behaviors that can cause you to contract Hep B the vaccines isn’t working anymore. (If it worked at all wh

  6. You claim that there’s bad science here – but you haven’t demonstrated any. Of course, we all understand since you’re so very busy.

    Nonetheless, you weren’t too busy to write your completely unsupported claims, but we’re all supposed to accept them as if they’d been delivered from on high.

    You sound like the new generation of shills – the ones who say, “I’m not against X, but I really hate this rotten article.”

  7. 🙂 What I understood was some poor science. I honestly wish I had time to go into all this. I probably shouldn’t have started this conversation because of my lack of time. I’m sorry I was confusing to you. I would straighten it out and explain what I meant when I quoted you and answered your points, but I just don’t have time.

    It just really bothers me when there is poor science. Like I said, I’m not super pro-vax. I’m actually a hold out and we vaccinate very slowly and not all of them. We are fairly suspicious of them with our bunch of kids. It’s when articles come out that demonstrate poor use of science that make me cringe. These don’t do the anti-vax side any favors.

  8. Those articles were chosen because they describe studies that demonstrate the fact that vaccines cause diabetes. You tried to make light of that idea, but you’re wrong.

    You make a claim, then say you don’t have time to look into it. So obviously, you’re simply parroting what you choose to believe – and by your own statement, make clear that you don’t understand.

    You wrote, “Diptheria was part of a chart with several other diseases which went down, relative to the introduction of the vaccines.” The implication was that it was conflated with other diseases. The rest of that paragraph frankly didn’t make sense. You seem to think that the fact that disease rates were already low means that vaccines were effective when they were introduced. That’s rather strange. If you’re assuming that most of the vaccines were introduced before 1950, then you’re dead wrong – so there was NO great success from vaccines.

  9. I wish I had more to say … but I’m truly already a very busy person. That wasn’t what I said about diptheria. I was speaking of the “leveling out”. I’m not someone who accepts popular claims without a healthy dose of skepticism. Neither do I see a boogeyman behind every act of medicine or government.

    Those articles written by you do not prove to me that vaccines cause diabetes. Cause and effect is a very serious science. I don’t pretend to understand it completely, so I wouldn’t have touched that purported “cause” with a ten foot pole.

  10. In point of fact, vaccines are a reason for the increase in diabetes – both types 1 and 2. Yes, the science exists on that fact. Here are two articles that discuss that fact based on studies:

    History is written by the winners, as we all know. Reading history does NOT tell you the truth of whether vaccines were effective. What does is the data. If the introduction of a vaccine did not affect the rate of a disease’s disappearance, then the vaccine cannot possibly have anything to do with it.

    This report is based on the data provided by the American Medical Association on the mortality rates of certain infectious diseases during the 20th century. If you compare that with when the vaccines were introduced, it becomes obvious that the vaccines had little, if anything, to do with it. When you also add in the fact that other infectious diseases had similar rates of disappearance or near disappearance without a related vaccine, that strengthens it.

    Diphtheria was charted separately, just like all the others on that chart. The fact that they were displayed on the same chart means nothing, in spite of your claims that it does.

    No amount of redirection away from what the article documents changes that what the article states is accurate. It’s too bad you’re so willing to accept the popular claim without question. Those who choose to look at it with open eyes are often shocked to find that the truth is far removed from what they’d believed.

  11. I knew that would be mentioned. 🙂 Maybe we could stick with my actual points about the article? I don’t think a polio conversation is going to go anywhere, other than to say … years ago every single person knew people affected by polio. Today, I know no one.

  12. Why do people insist on saying polio was eradicated? It wasn’t! All that happened was the redefining of diagnostic measures. Read the pink book and how the criteria changed. Check the symptoms for guillan barre, acute flaccid paralysis, nonpoliolytic paralysis, etc. all have the same basic criteria as the original diagnosis of polio. If it were truly eradicated, why keep vaccinating?

  13. I took the time to go read the original report. I am not even a big fan of vaccines, but it is articles like this that make the medical establishment roll their eyes. AIDS was part of those charts. They attributed the rise in deaths after the 1980s to AIDS. It wasn’t even a guess on their parts. They had the NUMBERS.

    As to your claim that regarding the slight rise in deaths from influenza and pneumonia after 1970, couldn’t you just have attributed that to women returning to the work force and unable to stay home and properly care for ill children? The claims made in your article and your attempts to read these graphs are outside the realm of the information presented.

    Diptheria was part of a chart with several other diseases which went down, relative to the introduction of the vaccines. To throw suspicion on the “leveling out” of deaths after 1950 is a bit odd. After all, deaths were at a VERY low number, especially low from infectious diseas as compared to all other diseases. That wasn’t something to be suspicious of. It was a grand success!

    And one of your last claims: “However, during the 1930s, when vaccinations start to be introduced, the death rate from noninfectious causes started to increase!” Could this border any closer to the ridiculous? Were you seriously blaming vaccinations on a slight rise in noninfectious diseases? Do you know what those are? Will vaccinations causes diabetes? This was such poor science on your part.

    Yes, better health, discovery of handwashing and other infectious disease practices absolutely contributed to the declines. But if you study history, vaccinations (without arguing their safety aside from protection from infectious disease) were also a large part of that. That explains the eradication of polio. One could just as easily use your methods and look at this chart and completely deduce that deaths would have leveled out after good hygiene was introduced, except for the fact that vaccinations were brought into the equation.

    I honestly don’t have time to fact check your dates for vaccination introduction and widespread use. Based on the careless reading of these graphs, I would also wonder if those were correct.

    My concerns aren’t about getting more or fewer people vaccinated. I just get so tired of the endlessly unscientific “reports”, the inability to assimilate and use science, and the loss of logic. I’m not even that great at it and I can find these flaws. Could we please be more careful? If you want vaccination effects to be taken more seriously, that is what will have to be done.

  14. This whole thing is not who’s right or who’s wrong. That does not matter. It’s all about freedom of choice. Everyone should do as they wish. If I don’t wish a vaccination, then over my dead body will anyone force me into it. If you wish a vaccination, I respect your decision. I’ve heard people say that everyone needs to gets vaccinated so that everyone else is safe – really?…if you’ve been vaccinated then you shouldn’t be worrying about catching anything. As for me, I practice keeping my immune system strong, so I never catch anything. And, I don’t.

    This leaves many wondering “….keeping your immune system strong?” Yes. Exactly. Did you not consider that when living high on the hog without any thought given to healthy eating, supplementation if required, plenty of sleep, exercise, fresh air, positive thoughts and loving with all your heart? Therein lies your problem. This is not the problem of those that are informed enough to know what to do to not have to vaccinate. ‘We’ not vaccinators, don’t just fly by the seat of our pants on this issue.

    Anyways, I am never out to change anyone’s mind on their decision, and I respect all decisions. I feel that the only thing that affects my life is getting the ‘vaccinators’ off my case. If you really feel to need to ‘control’ everyone to do as you wish, then maybe a psychologist is in order to help you out with your ‘control’ issue.

    Leave me in my decision.

  15. Is there any proof anywhere that a vaccine saved anyone from anything?

    Also why are adults not riddled with disease? Because I don’t know many adults who get boosters or even had more than a handful of vaccines their whole life.

  16. If we do our research there are other data out there showing spikes when different vaccinations was introduced. Creating a population control issue as well as playing a big part in learning disabled children.

  17. as a nurse-I don’t take the flu,pnu shots–I don’t trust the government–I have AS—
    still not taking them–when my time comes that’s in God’s hands not the government–It’s my right to make this choice–end of story

  18. Of course the word vaccination wasn’t mentioned – but that’s not a flaw in the article. The article took the info produced by JAMA and compared it with when individual vaccines were introduced. The results are remarkable, clearly demonstrating that vaccines had little, if anything, to do with eradication of these diseases. No claims were made that the JAMA article said anything other than what it did.

    If you don’t like it, then find a flaw in the comparison made. Simply going on the attack and claiming – yelling, in fact – that the article spreads misinformation offers nothing but your obviously unbacked opinion.

    It appears that you have simply looked at the graphs that accompany this JAMA article and reached your own conclusions – that have NOTHING to do with the original study & publication. The word VACCINATION is not mentioned once because that is not what the study is about. YOU ARE GUILTY OF SPREADING MISINFORMATION THAT CAUSES IGNORANT FEAR!!!!!! You are simply fear mongers.

2 Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. skin cancer night sweats
  2. google

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.