Vaccines are Unavoidably Unsafe
– by Dr John Piesse, 27 August, 2017
As you might be aware, Melbourne GP, Dr John Piesse, is facing prosecution and deregistration for the ‘crime’ of supporting parental vaccination choice and writing medical exemption forms for families whose children are at risk of serious reactions or death from vaccines.
The writer has become embroiled in the controversy about whether or not it is wise to vaccinate. Below is an article Dr Piesse has submitted to the Melbourne Age.
I have been encountering cases of vaccine injury for over 40 years. In June it was a happy, healthy nearly 5-year-old whose parents were required to put her on a catch-up schedule, in order to get her into kindergarten. She won’t be going to kinder. She’s in a wheel-chair, brain-damaged. Her life ruined. Then came a friend’s father who died after a flu vaccine, and last week a 4 year old boy, made autistic by a catch-up schedule.
In 1988, the US National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program was created. It has paid out over US$3.5 billion to the vaccine-injured. The NVICP was set up to protect vaccine manufacturers from ruinous costs of litigation by vaccine-damaged people. It was deemed preferable to have ‘unavoidably unsafe’ vaccines than no vaccines. Unfortunately the protection provided to vaccine manufacturers also reduced incentives to develop safer vaccines in USA.
Politicians and doctors assure us that vaccinations are very safe although less than 5% of vaccine reactions are reported. Most are passed off as ‘just a coincidence’.
Vaccines contain health-damaging ingredients, not the least aluminium – a known neurotoxin implicated along with mercury, in brain damage as in autism, developmental delay, ADHD, and learning difficulties. Aluminium is also a powerful promoter of auto-immune diseases. Vaccines can claim to be mercury-free if their mercury content is below a still-toxic threshold. Most influenza vaccines contain mercury – also a neurotoxin. In addition, polysorbate 80 in vaccines increases the permeability of the blood brain barrier and potentiates the risks of these neurotoxins. The known presence of carcinogenic viruses in the MMR vaccine, has been covered-up. Vaccines also contain formaldehyde, a known carcinogen.
Proof of vaccine safety requires rigorously conducted clinical studies comparing vaccinated versus truly unvaccinated children for health outcomes. Are there any such studies that confirm that vaccinated children are not worse-off than those unvaccinated? No. There are none. Hence, child vaccines are unproven for safety – an inconvenient truth for a profession that prides itself on being scientific.
One analysis indicated that national infant mortality rates were proportional to the number of vaccine doses (Miller NZ 2011), contradictory to the claim that ‘vaccination saves lives’.
From mid-2015, parents who wished not to vaccinate their children, started to converge on my practice seeking assistance with gaining exemption from the penalties directed at non-vaccinators by the No Jab No Pay and No Jab No Play Legislation.
Analysis up to the end of 2016 of parent’s reasons for not vaccinating, indicated that 64% of 166 parents knew of vaccine-damaged individuals in their own family. The study of ‘Adversomics’ confirms polymorphic and genomic susceptibility factors common to vaccine–damaged individuals and their families. (Poland GA 2015). 40% of unvaccinated children had pre-existing health problems that parents considered would make them more at risk of harm from vaccines. 60% of unvaccinated children were very healthy, but only 6% of the vaccinated children. There were no cases of autism in 212 unvaccinated children, but 8 autism cases in the 50 vaccinated children (16%), and 36% with ASD, compared to 1.4% in the unvaccinated.
As yet there are no large-scale vaccinated versus truly unvaccinated studies of the sort needed prove that vaccines do or do not cause autism.
So where does the widespread belief that vaccines do not cause autism derive? In a nutshell: from an over-whelming quantity of ‘manufactured science’ of low quality, scientific fraud, and ignoring !1 evidence supporting causality. Few doctors and politicians are aware of the pivotal scientific fraud committed in the US Centers for Disease Control. A study of the MMR vaccine in black American babies showed a 2.5 fold higher level of autism in babies given the MMR vaccine at 12 months of age compared to 3 years. The CDC refused to publish these findings but manipulated the data to disguise the undeniable association found. The fraudulent data was then published (DeStefano F 2004 ) and promoted as the final statement on the question. Thereafter the official line was that vaccination did not cause autism. 5000 vaccine-damaged children had their applications in the Vaccine Court for compensation quashed after this deception. But whistle-blower William Thompson released the true unabridged data which was published briefly until pressure from the CDC forced its retraction (Hooker B 2014)
A recent study of home-school students showed a 6.6 fold increase in neurodevelopmental disorders in the vaccinated group over the unvaccinated. Autism spectrum disorders were 4.7 times more prevalent in the vaccinated children (Mawson AR 2017).
So long as doctors and governments continue to be hood-winked into believing that vaccines do not cause autism, no action will be taken to stop the alarming surge in the autism epidemic. A tragedy that need not happen if we demand good science. and safe vaccines.
In 2014, biologist Dr. Brian Hooker received a call from a Senior Scientist at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) who led the agency’s 2004 study on the Measles-Mumps-Rubella (MMR) vaccine and its link to autism. The scientist, Dr. William Thompson, confessed that the CDC had omitted crucial data in their final report that revealed a causal relationship between the MMR vaccine and autism. Over several months, Dr. Hooker records the phone calls made to him by Dr. Thompson who provides the confidential data destroyed by his colleagues at the CDC. Dr. Hooker enlists the help of Dr. Andrew Wakefield, the British gastroenterologist falsely accused of starting the anti-vax movement when he first reported in 1998 that the MMR vaccine may cause autism. Wakefield directs this documentary examining the evidence behind an appalling cover-up committed by the government agency charged with protecting the health of American citizens. Interviews with pharmaceutical insiders, doctors, politicians, and parents of vaccine-injured children reveal an alarming deception that has contributed to the skyrocketing increase of autism and potentially the most catastrophic epidemic of our lifetime.
Dr Dale Brown Published on Nov 25, 2015
Are vaccines necessary? Are they safe? Are vaccines causing Autism? Are vaccines the BEST thing we can do for our children? Are unvaccinated children a risk? Are vaccinated children at risk?
If you desire the truth behind vaccines and desire the best for your children then please watch and share this video.
The Truth About Vaccines Published on Apr 13, 2017
The risks of vaccines are very real, and parents are allowed to question their safety. This documentary discusses the science and history behind the vaccine industry...
Sign-up now to watch more episodes: http://bit.ly/jan-ttav-signup-yt
In Episode 1: The History of Vaccines, Smallpox, Vaccine Safety & the Current CDC Schedule
Welcome to the first episode of the eye-opening documentary series "The Truth About Vaccines".
This is the largest and most comprehensive series ever produced on the topic of vaccines.
Each episode is up 24 hours for you to watch FREE, starting January 25th, 2018. We will be showing 7 episodes in 7 days.
And we really need your help! If you know anyone with babies, young children, or who soon plan to have kids, they NEED to know about The Truth About Vaccines... Please hit the share button above to share this eye-opening information with everyone you know or just send them the link below.
New Studies Reveal Vaccine Harm
June 06, 2017 By Dr. Mercola
Two new studies offer evidence that vaccinated children have more health problems than unvaccinated children
Among unvaccinated premature infants, no link to neurodevelopmental disorders (NDD) was found. However, a significant link between vaccinations and NDD was detected, regardless of whether the child was premature or full-term
The combination of preterm birth with vaccination was associated with a 660 percent increased odds of NDD, suggesting a synergistic effect*
When it comes to vaccine safety, a complaint that I've frequently expressed is the lack of credible studies comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated populations.
At best, we've had vaccination surveys1 based on self-reported data(2) and while that evidence strongly suggested unvaccinated children experience better health and fewer health problems, they were dismissed by most public health officials as unimportant. There are also published studies showing annual influenza vaccination takes its toll on your health(3,4,5,6), and may do more harm than good in the long term.
Now, two pilot studies led by Anthony Mawson(7), an interdisciplinary epidemiologist and social scientist with a doctorate in public health, have helped to shed some light on the topic.
The gold standard in scientific research is replication and, while the conclusions of these studies need to be replicated using other data sources, they are another piece of evidence showing there are negative health outcomes for vaccinated children, and that unvaccinated children are actually healthier. It's a good start, and it's important to know these studies exist.
Vaccination Schedule May Place Preemies at Increased Risk of Neurodevelopmental Disorders
The first paper,8 published in the peer-reviewed open-access Journal of Translational Science (April 24, 2017), is a cross-sectional study of 6- to 12-year-olds exploring the association between preterm birth, vaccination and neurodevelopmental disorders, using data from both vaccinated and unvaccinated populations. Preemies receive the same vaccines and number of doses recommended by the federal childhood vaccination schedule as full-term babies, and on the same time schedule.
Data show anywhere from 8 to 27 percent of extremely preterm infants develop autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Premature birth is a known risk factor for neurodevelopmental problems of varying severity, yet prior to this study, the impact of the vaccination schedule on this risk had never been assessed. Not surprisingly, the results suggest the federally recommended childhood vaccination schedule may be inappropriate for premature infants.
The abstract reads, in part:
"The possible role of vaccination in neurodevelopmental disorders (NDD) among premature infants is unknown, in part because pre-licensure clinical trials of pediatric vaccines have excluded ex-preterm infants. This paper explores the association between preterm birth, vaccination and NDD, based on a secondary analysis of data from an anonymous survey of mothers, comparing the birth history and health outcomes of vaccinated and unvaccinated homeschool children 6 to 12 years of age. A convenience sample of 666 children was obtained, of which 261 (39 percent) were unvaccinated, 7.5 percent had an NDD … and 7.7 percent were born preterm. No association was found between preterm birth and NDD in the absence of vaccination … However, vaccination coupled with preterm birth was associated with increasing odds of NDD, ranging from 5.4 [percent] compared to vaccinated but non-preterm children, to 14.5 [percent] compared to children who were neither preterm nor vaccinated. The results of this pilot study suggest clues to the epidemiology and causation of NDD but question the safety of current vaccination practices for preterm infants. Further research is needed to validate and investigate these associations in order to optimize the impact of vaccines on children's health."
Vaccination Linked to Higher Risk of NDD Among Full-Term Babies Too
The fact that no link was found between premature birth and NDDs among the unvaccinated raises the disturbing possibility that the vaccination schedule for premature babies could be responsible for the neurological disorders some premature babies exhibit, which have been previously assumed to be simply a result of premature birth.
This provocative possibility is further strengthened by the finding that vaccination was, in fact, linked with a higher risk of NDD among full-term children. As noted in the paper, aside from preemies being excluded from pre-licensure vaccine trials, another reason this issue has never been formally investigated is "the assumed overall safety of vaccinations." The results reveal why assuming safety uses seriously flawed logic.
Another powerful example of why safety should never be assumed are West African studies that revealed a high titer measles vaccine interacted with the diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis (DTP) vaccine and resulted in a 33 percent increase in infant mortality.9 Those shocking findings led to the withdrawal of that measles vaccine. But what would have happened had those studies never been done? Clearly, we need more like them.
The fact is, all vaccines need to be carefully evaluated not only individually for long-term safety, but also for synergistic toxicity when the vaccine is given in combination with other vaccines and given repeatedly over a period of time. In 2013, a physician committee at the Institute of Medicine (IOM), National Academy of Sciences, pointed out that the current federally recommended childhood vaccine schedule for infants and children from birth to age 6 had not been adequately studied for safety.10
The physicians and IOM staff only were able to identify fewer than 40 studies published in the previous 10 years that addressed the 0- to 6-year-old child vaccine schedule.
The IOM committee concluded there was not enough scientific evidence to determine whether or not the numbers of doses and timing of federally recommended vaccines children receive in the first six years of life are associated with health problems in premature infants or the development of chronic brain and immune system disorders that affect a child's intellectual development, learning, attention, communication and behavior, such as ADD/ADHD, learning disabilities and autism.
This is why Mawson's pilot studies have great value and why many more studies comparing the health of vaccinated and unvaccinated children must be conducted. As noted by the IOM's11 2013 "Childhood Immunization Schedule and Safety" report, studies are needed to examine the:
Long-term cumulative effects of vaccines
Timing of vaccination in relation to the age and health of the child
Effects of the total load or number of vaccines given at one time
Effect of vaccine ingredients in relation to health outcomes
Biological mechanisms of vaccine-associated injury
It's also important for people to understand that the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) database, which the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) uses to publish studies concluding that vaccine risks are negligible or nonexistent, is a closed database.12
The patient medical records data in the VSD is obtained from HMOs that are paid by the CDC to participate. VSD medical records data is not readily available to researchers, if at all, making the CDC's conclusions virtually impossible to replicate and verify. This simply isn't right because it prevents independent confirmation of the CDC's conclusions that vaccine risks are minimal and the government's early childhood vaccine schedule is safe, thereby contributing to the poor evidence base for or against vaccine safety.
Summary of Findings
The authors of the recently published study on premature birth, vaccination and neurodevelopmental disorders summarize their findings as follows:
Preterm birth without vaccination was not associated with NDD
Term birth with vaccination was associated with a 2.7-fold (270 percent) increase in the odds of NDD
Preterm birth with vaccination was associated with a 5.4-fold increase in the odds of NDD compared to the odds of NDD given term birth and vaccination
Preterm birth with vaccination was associated with a 12.3-fold increased odds of NDD compared to preterm birth without vaccination (not technically significant because no child in the sample with an NDD was both preterm and unvaccinated)
Preterm birth with vaccination was associated with a 14.5-fold increased odds of NDD compared to being neither preterm nor vaccinated
In adjusted regression analyses, the association between vaccination and NDD remained even after taking other contributing factors into account. In the final adjusted model, the combination of preterm birth with vaccination was associated with a 660 percent increased odds of NDD, "suggesting a synergistic effect." How do the authors explain these findings? A "tentative hypothesis" for why preemies are at increased risk for NDD was associated with receipt of one or more vaccines.
The authors concluded:
"Receipt of one or more vaccines could precipitate NDD in some preterm infants by exacerbating a preexisting inflammatory state associated with prematurity, leading to hepatic encephalopathy and hypoxic-ischemic brain damage. Impaired liver function is a predisposing factor for preterm birth and the latter is associated with increased risks of hypoxic-ischemic brain injury …
Consistent with this hypothesis, liver dysfunction is reported as an adverse effect of vaccination and as a feature of children with autism. Furthermore, hyperbilirubinemia is associated with hypoxic-ischemic brain damage and is a feature of the preterm infant as well as children with later-onset cognitive disorders and ASD."
Pilot Study Compares Health of Vaccinated and Unvaccinated Children
The second paper(13), published on the same issue of the journal, was a pilot study "designed as a cross-sectional survey of homeschooling mothers on their vaccinated and unvaccinated biological children ages 6 to 12," in which a wider range of health outcomes was evaluated.
The results showed vaccinated children were:
"[S]ignificantly more likely to have been diagnosed with pneumonia, otitis media, allergies and NDD (that is, ASD, ADHD and/or a learning disability). The vaccinated were also more likely to use allergy medication, to have had myringotomies with tube placement, visited a doctor for a health problem in the previous year, and been hospitalized at some time in the past."
More specifically, the results showed vaccinated children (whether partially or fully vaccinated) were significantly more likely than the unvaccinated to have been diagnosed with:
Otitis media (19.8 percent versus 5.8 percent)
Pneumonia (6.4 percent versus 1.2 percent
Allergic rhinitis (10.4 percent versus 0.4 percent) as well as other allergies (22.2 percent versus 6.9 percent)
Eczema/atopic dermatitis (9.5 percent versus 3.6 percent)
Any chronic illness (44 percent versus 25 percent)
IOM's Vaccine Safety Review Is Still of Massive Importance
This is a perfect time to mention the IOM's vaccine safety review, "Adverse Effects of Vaccines: Evidence and Causality,"14 published in August 2011. Along with other reports the IOM has published on vaccine safety issues beginning in 1991, it is one of the most important scientific reviews of evidence in the medical literature that vaccines can cause injury and death.
The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) through the IOM (recently renamed Health and Medicine Division) historically has analyzed health policies and issued reports at the request of the U.S. government. Considered worldwide to be a prestigious scientific body, the NAS is funded not just by federal agencies, but also by pharmaceutical companies and independent philanthropic organizations and individuals.
Although vaccine safety advocates have criticized the IOM's reports as being too conservative and minimizing the full extent of vaccine risks, no other recognized scientific authority has so clearly acknowledged that vaccines do cause harm, especially for susceptible individuals, and that there are large vaccine science knowledge gaps about safety that need to be addressed.
The first IOM reports on vaccine safety came out in 1991 (pertussis and rubella vaccines)15 and 1994 (DPT, polio, tetanus, diphtheria, measles, mumps, HIB and hepatitis B vaccines).16,17
However, the IOM's 2011 review of recent medical literature was significant because it was quite comprehensive. Over a period of three years, a physician committee reviewed over 1,000 vaccine studies related to safety issues. Interestingly, and importantly, they excluded studies funded by the pharmaceutical industry.
The IOM review focused on eight vaccines:
Hepatitis A-hepatitis B
Measles, mumps and rubella vaccine
Diphtheria, tetanus and acellular pertussis, also known as DTaP or Tdap
Varicella zoster (chickenpox)
Shocking Conclusion: IOM Unable to Make Causation Conclusions for Most Vaccine-Related Adverse Health Outcomes
Perhaps the most important thing the IOM did in this review was that they looked at two categories of science:
1. Epidemiological research (large studies comparing the health outcomes of different groups of people)
2. Bench science (basic science research into the biological mechanisms at work in the body at the cellular and molecular level)
This is important because many of the studies the CDC relies on as evidence that vaccines don't cause any problems are epidemiological studies and, if poor methodology is used, the conclusions of epidemiological studies can be fatally flawed. In the 2011 review, the IOM committee reviewed both kinds of science.
The most shocking conclusion of this report is that, for more than 100 adverse health outcomes reported after the eight vaccines were given, the IOM committee was unable to determine whether or not the vaccines caused a commonly reported brain or immune system disorder.
In short: The scientific evidence was insufficient to make a conclusion in most cases. So the committee was unable to confirm or deny causation for most reported poor health outcomes following receipt of certain vaccines, such as multiple sclerosis, lupus and autism.
IOM Did Not Exonerate Vaccines as Being Safe for Everyone
Why was the IOM unable to determine whether there was a direct causative link between vaccines and the many serious health outcomes evaluated in these studies? Barbara Loe Fisher, founder of the National Vaccine Information Center, www.NVIC.org, which is, unquestionably, the best resource for accessing referenced information on U.S. vaccine policy and law and the safety and effectiveness of vaccines, suggested four possible explanations:
1. The studies were not available in the published literature
2. There were too few studies showing the same link
3. The available studies were methodologically unsound
4. The available studies were conflicting (i.e., there was evidence both for and against)
In the video above, I interview Fisher about this important IOM report. At the time, Fisher stated:
"What I call this category is the 'We Don't Know' category. When you think about it, these vaccines are mandated for children, and yet in most instances the scientific evidence [of safety] is so poor, they don't know! When the report came out, there were a lot of organizations like the American Academy of Pediatrics that came forth and said, 'They didn't find causation … so vaccines are safe.' That's NOT what that report said at all. I think people need to understand the significance of it … [T]he category of 'We Don't Know' is a very important category."
IOM Proposed Individual Susceptibility May Be a Cofactor
Importantly, the IOM report also discussed individual susceptibility: the fact that some people are more vulnerable to suffering vaccine reactions and injury for biological, genetic and environmental reasons.
According to the report, both epidemiologic and biological mechanism research suggests that many individuals who experience an adverse reaction to vaccines have a preexisting susceptibility. However, the report also states that in most cases physicians DO NOT KNOW what those individual susceptibilities are and cannot predict ahead of time who will be harmed by vaccination.
That said, the physician committee conducting the 2011 IOM medical literature review listed some individual susceptibilities they believe may be important, including:
It's a 600-page report, so it's not light reading by any means. Still, every physician who administers vaccines really should read it. It's part of their responsibility to be informed about what's in the published medical literature. This report makes it clear that when a patient's health deteriorates after vaccination, you cannot simply brush it off as a coincidence.
Doctors have a responsibility to take each instance of a health problem that follows vaccination seriously, especially emergency room visits, hospitalizations, injuries and deaths, and file a report with the federal Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).
When an individual experiences a deterioration in health after vaccination, doctors also need to understand the danger of giving more vaccinations until or unless the vaccine can be conclusively exonerated as a causative or contributing factor to that health deterioration. And guess what? For over 100 adverse events, science says they do not know whether the vaccine might be a causative factor.
What this tells us is that physicians — or anyone — recommending and administering vaccines to people, particularly to vulnerable infants and children, need to apply the precautionary principle of "first do no harm." This is critically important when the foundation of science supporting the safety of any given vaccine, alone or in combination, for any given individual is so weak.
Protect Your Right to Informed Consent and Defend Vaccine Exemptions
With all the uncertainty surrounding the safety and efficacy of vaccines, it's critical to protect your right to make independent health choices and exercise voluntary informed consent to vaccination. It is urgent that everyone in America stand up and fight to protect and expand vaccine informed consent protections in state public health and employment laws. The best way to do this is to get personally involved with your state legislators and educating the leaders in your community.
THINK GLOBALLY, ACT LOCALLY.
National vaccine policy recommendations are made at the federal level but vaccine laws are made at the state level. It is at the state level where your action to protect your vaccine choice rights can have the greatest impact.
It is critical for EVERYONE to get involved now in standing up for the legal right to make voluntary vaccine choices in America because those choices are being threatened by lobbyists representing drug companies, medical trade associations, and public health officials, who are trying to persuade legislators to strip all vaccine exemptions from public health laws.
Signing up for NVIC's free Advocacy Portal at www.NVICAdvocacy.org gives you immediate, easy access to your own state legislators on your smart phone or computer so you can make your voice heard. You will be kept up-to-date on the latest state bills threatening your vaccine choice rights and get practical, useful information to help you become an effective vaccine choice advocate in your own community.
Also, when national vaccine issues come up, you will have the up-to-date information and call to action items you need at your fingertips. So please, as your first step, sign up for the NVIC Advocacy Portal.
Share Your Story With the Media and People You Know
If you or a family member has suffered a serious vaccine reaction, injury, or death, please talk about it. If we don't share information and experiences with one another, everybody feels alone and afraid to speak up. Write a letter to the editor if you have a different perspective on a vaccine story that appears in your local newspaper. Make a call in to a radio talk show that is only presenting one side of the vaccine story.
I must be frank with you; you have to be brave because you might be strongly criticized for daring to talk about the "other side" of the vaccine story. Be prepared for it and have the courage to not back down. Only by sharing our perspective and what we know to be true about vaccination, will the public conversation about vaccination open up so people are not afraid to talk about it.
We cannot allow the drug companies and medical trade associations funded by drug companies or public health officials promoting forced use of a growing list of vaccines to dominate the conversation about vaccination.
The vaccine injured cannot be swept under the carpet and treated like nothing more than "statistically acceptable collateral damage" of national one-size-fits-all mandatory vaccination policies that put way too many people at risk for injury and death. We shouldn't be treating people like guinea pigs instead of human beings.
Internet Resources Where You Can Learn More
I encourage you to visit the website of the non-profit charity, the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), at www.NVIC.org:
NVIC Memorial for Vaccine Victims: View descriptions and photos of children and adults, who have suffered vaccine reactions, injuries, and deaths. If you or your child experiences an adverse vaccine event, please consider posting and sharing your story here.
If You Vaccinate, Ask 8 Questions: Learn how to recognize vaccine reaction symptoms and prevent vaccine injuries.
Vaccine Freedom Wall: View or post descriptions of harassment and sanctions by doctors, employers, and school and health officials for making independent vaccine choices.
Vaccine Failure Wall: View or post descriptions about vaccines that have failed to work and protect the vaccinated from disease.
Connect With Your Doctor or Find a New One That Will Listen and Care
If your pediatrician or doctor refuses to provide medical care to you or your child unless you agree to get vaccines you don't want, I strongly encourage you to have the courage to find another doctor. Harassment, intimidation, and refusal of medical care is becoming the modus operandi of the medical establishment in an effort to stop the change in attitude of many parents about vaccinations after they become truly educated about health and vaccination. However, there is hope.
At least 15 percent of young doctors recently polled admit that they're starting to adopt a more individualized approach to vaccinations in direct response to the vaccine safety concerns of parents.
It is good news that there is a growing number of smart young doctors, who prefer to work as partners with parents in making personalized vaccine decisions for children, including delaying vaccinations or giving children fewer vaccines on the same day or continuing to provide medical care for those families, who decline use of one or more vaccines.
So take the time to locate a doctor, who treats you with compassion and respect, and is willing to work with you to do what is right for your child.
March 5, 2018
Former “Vaccine Bully” Board-certified Pediatrician Now Claims Unvaccinated Children Are Healthiest
Dr. Bob Zajac is a board-certified pediatrician with additional expertise in asthma/allergy care, developmental/behavioral pediatric care, and natural/holistic care. He received his degree in Child Development, and pursued an additional four years of training in a PhD program (Early Childhood Special Education), followed by his medical degree (MD – University of Minnesota – 2000) and residency training (pediatrics – 2000-2003). Prior to starting New Kingdom Pediatrics, Dr. Bob completed his masters of business degree (MBA, Crown College, 2011-2013).
Dr. Zajac and his wife Julie have been married for over 25 years and have 8 children.
In terms of education and experience, no one can criticize Dr. Zajac as being “uniformed” when it comes to children’s health.
Dr. Zajac starts out in this interview by explaining medical doctors do NOT receive a lot of training in vaccines, so he had to spend years researching vaccines independently. He began his research after seeing some of his patients get injured from vaccines.
During the first two years of his practice, Dr. Zajac explains he saw a “separation” among his patient population.
*There were patients who were seeing the local chiropractor who were healthier than my other patients, and they were doing some other things for their health other than just taking medication for whatever condition they might have.
They also had a lower vaccine uptake, and they were healthy. And that was really hard for me to recognize.
My partially unvaccinated patients, and none of us liked them, quite honestly, back then they were going against their medical doctor’s advice. And with the ego that I had, it was really hard to swallow.
It took me a couple of years to start learning about vaccines. And the moment I started reading research about vaccines, it changed my life forever.