Mark Blaxill: Vaccine mandates are bad policies based on false premises
Below is Mark Blaxill's testimony to the Public Health Committee in Massachusetts last Tuesday. Despite a snowstorm that delayed proceedings, more than 600 people attended to voice their opposition to bills including the "Community immunity act." The "day" ended after midnight on Wednesday, such is the dedication of the Health Choice community.
###
Vaccine mandates are bad policies based on false premises
My name is Mark Blaxill. I’m a co-founder of Health Choice 4 Action and the Canary Party. A graduate of Princeton and the Harvard Business School. I lived in Boston and Cambridge for close to 40 years, much of it working for The Boston Consulting Group where I was a Senior Vice President and leader of the Strategy Practice. I’ve written four books, published numerous scientific papers and represented the autism parent community on a range of government panels. Depending on who you talk to, I’m either a stealth representative of the “controlled opposition” or a dangerous “anti-vaxxer” and a serious threat to the public health.
The truth? I’m neither of the above. What I am is the parent of a beautiful 24-year-old daughter who I believe to be vaccine injured. I became an advocate because I want to prevent what happened to her from happening to others.
As an experienced business analyst, I want to highlight one critical point today: there is a great deal of money in the vaccine business. Last year, four companies—Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi and Pfizer- generated $26B in vaccine revenue, with profits just under $10B. That’s after deducting marketing, lobbying and R&D expenses. That many billions of dollars go a long way. They pay for TV ads, for lobbyists, for PR campaigns and a great deal of influence, including (and especially) with medical organizations. And back in 1986, they pushed for and passed federal legislation that exempts vaccine makers from any liability for vaccine injury.
Back them, no one saw what was coming. Now it’s more clear. It’s not enough for pharma to simply protect DTP, MMR and polio vaccines. Now they need the vaccine business to grow. For stock prices to rise. And for opposition to be squelched. But there’s a problem with their growth ambitions: as the program has multiplied, concerns have grown. And what’s the response? Certainly not what it should be, which is more and better science on vaccine safety.
Instead, there is a new PR strategy by vaccine promoters to weaponize measles outbreaks and to pursue a newly aggressive program of vaccine mandates. These mandates are bad policies based on false premises.
Think about how cynical this PR campaign is. If you were really worried about measles, you’d develop targeted health policies focused on measles and measles alone. Instead we’ve seen broad attacks on the basic human right of free, prior and informed consent. We are using fear to raise Merck’s stock price and force parents to accept the entire, liability-free vaccine program, not just measles vaccines. Measles outbreaks are the Trojan Horse the medical industry is using to sell the newly bloated vaccination schedule, an uncontrolled experiment performed on a generation of children.
Massachusetts should provide broader exemption rights, not more mandates. Massachusetts parents have valid concerns about health policies affecting our children, which are failing on a wide scale, with terrible outcomes along multiple dimensions.
- The CDC’s bloated, liability-free vaccine schedule has exploded in the absence of any public health emergency and proper safety science
- Both individual vaccines and the newly expanded vaccine program have never been tested for safety against a valid control, whether it’s (for individual vaccines) an inert saline placebo or (for the new schedule) alternative schedules, including no vaccination at all
- Over 50% of children (in a 2007 survey) have a diagnosed chronic health condition[1] and nearly 3% (in a 2017 survey) have an autism diagnosis[2]
- 20% of emergency room visits for children under 5 are due to an adverse reaction to a vaccine[3]
- We now have among the worst infant mortality results of any developed nation
In short, whatever we’re doing to our children, it’s failing miserably. Something new and terrible has happened to a generation of children.
Some of the lobbyists and bill sponsors would like you to believe that advocates like me are peddling “misinformation” based on “junk science” and “discredited conspiracy theories.” Those are the pharmaceutical industry talking points and we need to recognize them as such.
We can do better. We need to restore a spirit of civil debate to these issues based on evidence, science, and respect for human rights. We need to take financial interests out of public health and mandates out of medicine.
Mark Blaxill
Co-Founder, The Canary Party, Health Choice, Health Choice 4 Action
Author, The Age of Autism, Vaccines 2.0 and Denial
[1] Bethell CD, Kogan MD, Strickland BB, Schor EL, Robertson J, Newacheck PW. A national and state profile of leading health problems and health care quality for US children: key insurance disparities and across-state variations. Acad Pediatr. 2011 May-Jun;11(3 Suppl):S22-33
[2] Zablotsky B, Black LI, Blumberg SJ. Estimated Prevalence of Children With Diagnosed Developmental Disabilities in the United States, 2014-2016. NCHS Data Brief. 2017 Nov;(291):1-8
[3] Shehab N, Lovegrove MC, Geller AI, Rose KO, Weidle NJ, Budnitz DS. US Emergency Department Visits for Outpatient Adverse Drug Events, 2013-2014. JAMA. 2016 Nov 22;316(20):2115-2125.
David L has given some very good information.
It seems that 20 percent of all emergency room visits caused by vaccine reactions is real.
Why after all these years do I still think we are just the rare ones. My gosh how many times did I show up in the ER with my kids after their vaccine reactions. Why I bothered? I don't know? They sent me home with one that could no longer walk.
Takes time and information to clear our heads.
Posted by: Benedetta F Stilwell | December 15, 2019 at 12:01 AM
Actually the Kaiser study of a new MMR says the same thing about ER visits.
"1.9-2.1% rate of serious adverse events" per David.
You have to slow down and really read these things more carefully by what they mean by bad reactions and what the catagories are. Read the conclusions. This is a Kaiser study on a new MMR.
Posted by: Also Concerned | December 14, 2019 at 08:12 PM
David L,
Thank you for the study results you provided.
If that study doesn’t classify those involved as guilty of severe child (infant) abuse, medical malpractice of the worst sort, willful infliction of lifelong harm, and attempted/actual manslaughter/murder, deserving of lengthy/lifetime prison sentences, then what exactly does?
People need to take off their blinders and see the vaccination of innocents for what it is, a heinous crime.
Posted by: Laura Hayes | December 14, 2019 at 10:38 AM
A recent study comparing two MMR vaccines: Merck’s MMR II and the new GSK’s Priorix: Children receiving MMR at the same time with hepatitis A vaccine, varicella vaccine, and also 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13 [Prevnar 13] in US had a unsolicited 47.9-50% rate of general adverse events within 42 days, 6% preventing normal everyday activities, and 10% rate of emergency room visits (10.1% in one group 10.4% in the other group), 1.9-2.1% rate of serious adverse events, 3.4%-3.7% rate of new onset chronic diseases included e.g., autoimmune disorders, asthma, type I diabetes, vasculitis, celiac disease, conditions associated with sub-acute or chronic thrombocytopenia, and allergies over a 180 day period. https://img.auctiva.com/imgdata/1/9/6/8/1/0/0/webimg/1028572636_o.png Children were also even excluded from the study with a history of allergic disease or reactions, or acute disease. That table outlining the adverse events can be found hidden at the very bottom of the study page (below References) in a Word document called Supplementary Materials. https://academic.oup.com/jpids/advance-article/doi/10.1093/jpids/piz010/5372494 Research shows a dose-dependent association between the increasing number of vaccines administered simultaneously and the likelihood of increased risk of hospitalization or death for an adverse reaction. https://tgl.ink/pVkAyF
Posted by: David L | December 13, 2019 at 09:15 AM
Thank you so much, Mark, for all you've done and all you keep doing.
And as far as I'm concerned, this whole argument over 20% or 2% is utterly meaningless and is based upon a false premise that ER doctors -- or any doctors -- correctly diagnose and report and treat adverse reactions to vaccines. Any parent of a vaccine-injured child would laugh at this assumption...if it weren't so incredibly sad.
Posted by: Donna L. | December 12, 2019 at 10:18 PM
Thank You Mark, great presentation
Posted by: Albert Enayati | December 12, 2019 at 06:44 PM
Exactly. " of the emergency room visits that were for an adverse drug " per David above.
So, 19.5 percent of 11 percent of total ED visits means around 2 percent of all visits were for vaccines. I am not sure why this is hard to see. Just the simple concept that a percent of a subset isn't the same as the percent of the whole. I think it is probably human nature to look at information through a lens of what we think is true, rather than slow down and really read without bias.
My kids have taught me to try to slow down and look at things without pre-judgement. That's my background, and not sure the merc, biostat… thing was a joke or an insult, but I'll take it as just a joke. My daily life is so opposite of that, it is really funny. I just think exaggerations, unsound logic or vitriol against anyone with different information is harming your cause against mandates.
And potentially scaring some people out of vaccines that could benefit them with incorrect infomation like this strengthens the argument for mandates. (Even though I am ok with the odds for my family to get shots, I am not comfortable with a few friends being forced either). So for their sakes, I wish you would rethink your strategy, because it clearly isn’t working very well. Calling a reader "stupid" after asking for "civil" discussion is what made me think something was wrong with the arguments.
Posted by: Also Concerned | December 12, 2019 at 02:54 PM
"I recommend her book, “A Stolen Life”, to all reading this. "
Yes. This book was a real eye opener for me. In fact, I read it twice as there was just so much information to absorb and contemplate.
Posted by: Bayareamom | December 12, 2019 at 02:10 PM
I appreciate Mark speaking to the Public Health Committee in MA. A few thoughts came to mind as I read through his testimony, which I will share below.
Mark ended his testimony with:
“We need to take financial interests out of public health and mandates out of medicine.”
I think it is “corporate and governmental profits” that need to be removed from public health. If the powers that be were taking into account “financial interests”, they would have noticed that our citizens, families, communities, schools, and nation are collapsing under the financial burdens of vaccine-induced injuries and deaths. I agree that mandates need to be removed from medicine, as medical mandates cannot exist in a free and ethical society, nor can medicine be practiced ethically in the presence of medical mandates.
Mark also wrote:
“Massachusetts should provide broader exemption rights, not more mandates.”
There is no such thing as “exemption rights”. Exemptions are proof that rights have already been eliminated. Massachusetts, like all states, needs to immediately eliminate, and forever ban, vaccine mandates.
Lastly, Mark wrote:
“Back then, no one saw what was coming.”
I think Marge Grant, and a number of other parents of vaccine-injured and vaccine-killed children, did. Their voices, their warnings, and their testimonies were ignored, dismissed, and denigrated. I recommend her book, “A Stolen Life”, to all reading this.
Posted by: Laura Hayes | December 12, 2019 at 02:00 PM
For children under 5 in 2013-2014, 19.5% of the emergency room visits that were for an adverse drug event were due to an adverse reaction to a vaccine (455 out of 2741).
Objective: To describe the characteristics of emergency department (ED) visits for adverse drug events in the United States in 2013-2014 looking at drugs implicated in ED visits from active, nationally representative, public health surveillance in 58 Emergency departments located in the United States and participating in the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System–Cooperative Adverse Drug Event Surveillance project.
Posted by: David L | December 12, 2019 at 09:35 AM
I imagine we can agree that we want Mr. Blaxill to present accurate information, and I join Concerned Citizen and Also Concerned in pointing out what seems to be a misreading. In his testimony Mark stated "20% of emergency room visits for children under 5 are due to an adverse reaction to a vaccine," citing to the Shehab paper.
Go slow now: the heading of Table 4 of that paper, from which Mark apparently derived the 20% figure, is "US Emergency Department (ED) Visits for Adverse Drug Event (ADEs) From Commonly Implicated Drug Classes by Patient Age, 2013-2014."
Even going slow, that heading is exceptionally bad. A heading that better reflects the content and purpose of Table 4 might be
“Emergency Department Visits for Adverse Drug Reactions: Drug Classes Implicated by Age Group.”
That is, the subset of ED visits to be analyzed are those ED visits that, in the end, were diagnosed as Adverse Drug Reactions, and the nature of the analysis is to classify which drugs caused what percentage of ADEs by age group. Note that on page two of the paper, under “Objective,” the authors just about state as much: “To describe the characteristics of emergency department (ED) visits for adverse drug events in the United Stated in 2013-2014.”
Mark asserted that one in five kids under five brought to the ED are diagnosed with an adverse drug reaction. However true that might be in real life, I just don't see how that's correct with reference to the Shehab paper. Finally, suggesting that a concerned party trying to unscramble a paper — and so many of them require unscrambling — is a “Merck biostatistician” doesn’t help, now does it.
Posted by: Isode | December 12, 2019 at 01:41 AM
Well, its good to see Merck's biostatisticians writing in to Age of Autism. Welcome.
Table 4 speaks for itself and you may interpret it as you wish.
With so many vaccine injuries across all ages, Merck may well end up like Purdue. And they should, for all damage they've done to so many Americans. Ken Frazier, CEO of Merck, belongs in an orange jumpsuit in a super max.
Have a nice evening,
Posted by: Drymeadow | December 11, 2019 at 08:15 PM
Please correct per "Concerned Citizen." The correct percent for your statement is 2%, not 20%. ALL ED visits for ANY adverse drug reaction is about 11% for children under 5 - per the report you cite. So 20% of 11% is close to 2%.
If you trust this report enough to use it, please use it accurately so as not to confuse anyone who doesn't have the time to read it. This study is of a subset of ED visits, and the 20% figure is of total adverse drug reactions, NOT of all ED visits.
Posted by: Also Concerned | December 11, 2019 at 02:46 PM
Not “stupid” to point out a problem in interpreting the data.
20% of ED visits due to adverse drug reactions is not the same thing as 20% of TOTAL ED visits. You are citing the percent of a subset as if it is the percent of the total.
The title of the table seems clear:
"Table 4. US Emergency Department (ED) Visits for Adverse Drug Events (ADEs) From Commonly Implicated Drug Classes by Patient Age, 2013-2014a"
Also, interesting from this study:
“Among children (aged ≤5 years), antibiotics were most commonly implicated”
Both my kids who have moderate autism had allergic reactions to penicillin for strep infections when under 5. Now there is a vaccine for strep.
Posted by: Also Concerned | December 09, 2019 at 10:29 PM
20 percent of children visiting ER because of vaccine reaction are based from Table 4. US Emergency Department (ED) Visits for Adverse Drug Events (ADEs) From Commonly Implicated Drug Classes by Patient Age, 2013-2014a
And they do have such papers. Ohhhh lets us go back to "They know, and how long have they known it"
Posted by: Benedetta | December 09, 2019 at 10:01 AM
Thank you Mark, you're absolutely correct.
How that paper made it into JAMA nestled between glossy, full page pharmaceutical ads is beyond me, but it did. Let's see, 20% is 1 in 5. I know I've heard that number before. Oh yes, NBC news, one in 5 children now suffers from mental illness caused by bad parenting, too much screen time. I guess my 18 month old baby was plugging away too much at his iPhone and this gave him diarrhea for years ? Took his speech away...for life ? Took one of his eyes for goodness sakes.
Word of mouth is becoming more and more important on this issue. I see it at work, I see it in my neighborhood. The movement is stronger than ever thanks to parents who have had enough. Have a great holiday guys.
Posted by: Drymeadow | December 09, 2019 at 07:53 AM
I'm literally copying and pasting from the main paper (which had a model for adjusting results) not the supplemental tables. 19.5% of ED visits for children <5yo are from vaccine adverse events. Don't be stupid. Read the paper.
Table 4. US Emergency Department (ED) Visits for Adverse Drug Events (ADEs) From Commonly Implicated Drug Classes by Patient Age, 2013-2014a
Patient Age ≤5 y
No. of
Cases
(n = 2741)
National
Estimate, %
(95% CI)c
Vaccines
455
19.5 (16.2-22.8)
Posted by: Mark Blaxill | December 08, 2019 at 09:19 PM
Pharma has become much more powerful than our own government, and that should frighten every citizen in our United States. The fact that this division of pharmaceutical is protected under the 1986 Vaccine Act to protect the manufacturers from liability, should be a grave concern. They have no incentive to create safety studies for so many viruses to be injected into infants at one visit, and their endless addition of vaccines to the schedule is catastrophic to the health of our children and grandchildren. They do not have a trustworthy track record by any means.
Posted by: C. Allen | December 08, 2019 at 03:53 PM
*Correction*: eTable2 gives population rates per 1,000 children, not percentage of total ED visits. Between 0.9-1.2 per thousand children aged <=5 had an ED visit for an adverse vaccine reaction (but not all children had an ED visit).
The correct comparison comes from eTable1, which shows that between 14.6% (2005-2006 data) and 9.7% (2013-2014 data) of ED visits for children <=5 years were for an adverse drug reaction, of which approximately 20% (2013-2014 data) were due to an adverse vaccine reaction (eFigure).
So, using data from the same years (2013-2014), 1.9% of total ED visits were due to an adverse vaccine reaction. This is much lower than the stated claim of 20%.
I appreciate the opportunity to make this correction.
Please check the numbers. The paper and the supplemental material are available for free at
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6490178/
Posted by: Concerned citizen | December 08, 2019 at 01:31 PM
Whoever it is that "Corrected" Mark's statement that around 20% of ED, Emergency room visits are for children under age 5 who had adverse reactions to vaccines, I disagree. It is probably a much greater number. A friend oil mine has a sister who just had a baby. She tried to inform her sister as to the vaccine ingredients but the mom said no-"I have to protect my baby." Last week she took her baby daughter in for all of her 2 months shots. This week the baby is in the hospital with a Dangerous Asthma attack which did not appear previously. Do you Concerned Citizen- think that this will be recognized as an adverse vaccine reaction? The odds say probably not.
Posted by: Shelley Tzorfas | December 08, 2019 at 01:26 PM
Thank you for including the reference for the claim that 20% of ED visits for children <5 are due to an adverse reaction to a vaccine. I'd like to call your attention to the error in this number.
From eTable2 in this published manuscript:
Between .46% and .60% of ED visits among children <5 years were due to an adverse drug reaction (all drugs, including antibiotics, vaccines, NSAIDS, antineoplastic agents, etc).
AMONG ED visits for adverse drug reactions, approximately 20% were due to an adverse vaccine reaction (eFigure). That is, 20% among the .46% and .6% of total ED visits.
Simple math reveals that between .09% and .12% of total ED visits were due to an adverse vaccine reaction. That is, between .9 per thousand and 1.2 per thousand.
These are much different figures than the stated claim of 20%.
Posted by: Concerned citizen | December 08, 2019 at 11:30 AM
Excellent. So grateful.
Posted by: 4Bobby | December 08, 2019 at 09:07 AM
Excellent speech, Mark. What a novel idea, to take profit-making out of public health!
Posted by: Gary Ogden | December 08, 2019 at 08:53 AM
Quoting Mark:
"•Over 50% of children (in a 2007 survey) have a diagnosed chronic health condition[1] and nearly 3% (in a 2017 survey) have an autism diagnosis[2]
•20% of emergency room visits for children under 5 are due to an adverse reaction to a vaccine[3]
•We now have among the worst infant mortality results of any developed nation
These stunning statistics are undeniable .. while the health of our most precious resources .. our children .. has been declining downward since .. "The CDC’s bloated, liability-free vaccine schedule exploded in the absence of any public health emergency and proper safety science" .. our public health bureaucracies (CDC, HHS, FDA, etc) continue to work hand-in-glove ..with the vaccine industry to remove existing philosophical, religious, medical exemptions .. essentially denying parents their universal humanitarian right to INFORMED CONSENT.
Our country can no longer continue to IGNORE the steady decline in our children's health … to continue denying this tragic trend in declining health of children would be a CRIME against humanity … for generations yet unborn.
In NY we recently witnessed our elected leaders … Mayor De Blasio and Gov Cuomo .. sign legislation seeking to ban or severely limit the sale of TOXIC TOYS, TOXIC FLOORING MATERIALS, TOXIC CLOTHING .. focusing much attention on VAPING PRODUCTS that have been identified for having caused a few deaths and numerous hospital visits.
It is sheer madness to know 54% of children today suffer some type of neurological, biological, physical development problem … that the vaccine industry has been fined FOUR BILLION DOLLARS for injuries caused by VACCINES .. yet our elected leaders expect us to believe that seeking better TOYS, FLOORING, CLOTHING AND VAPING PRODUCTS WILL STOP THE DECLINING HEALTH OF CHILDREN?
It is no longer a matter of simply spewing the same "scientific poppycock" .. that VACCINES are responsible for "protecting the herd" .. when the 'herd' has become sicker and sicker .. after more and more vaccines .. decade after decade .. with the trend continuing downward trend in children's health unabated.
"WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE THAT VACCINES HAVE PROTECTED OUR SICK HERD OF CHILDREN? WHILE SUPPOSEDLY PROTECTING THE HERD FROM MEASLES, CHICKENPOX AND MUMPS .. 54% OF CHILDREN INSTEAD HAVE SOME TYPE OF LIFE-LONG, LIFE-THEATENING, LIFE-ALTERING DISORDERS/DISEASES INSTEAD?
Posted by: Bob Moffit | December 08, 2019 at 08:46 AM
Wow; Wonderful speech. It is a speech that easily open the eyes of Open minded people.
I sure hope Mark Blaxill was speaking to open minded people.
Posted by: Benedetta | December 07, 2019 at 11:12 PM
Amen, Mark... RESPECT for human lives!!! thanks for all you do.
Posted by: Paul Picha | December 07, 2019 at 08:55 PM