There Never Was a Vaccine Debate: Just 25 Years of Misinformation
A data-driven dismantling of myths, paranoia, and the cult of distrust.
Introduction
In an era where anyone with a Wi-Fi signal can declare themselves a medical expert, clarity isn’t just important, it’s urgent.
Vaccines have saved more lives than any other medical innovation in human history. Yet somehow, in the very age when information is most available, misinformation has gone viral. From playgrounds to parliaments, dinner tables to TikTok livestreams, vaccines, once a cornerstone of public health, have become a lightning rod for conspiracies, fear, and political posturing.
This article isn’t a pamphlet for Big Pharma. It’s not propaganda. It’s what happens when we follow the data, confront the fear, and trace the full arc of vaccine safety — from autism myths to COVID hysteria, from ingredient panic to the misunderstood role of side effects. Every section is grounded in the best available evidence, drawn from peer-reviewed studies and global health agencies.
If you’ve ever found yourself at a loss in a debate, overwhelmed by anecdotal outbursts, or unsure how to respond to “just asking questions,” this piece is for you. It’s not just a rebuttal to misinformation, it’s an antidote to it.
Let’s begin.
Section 1: Vaccines and Autism: What the Science Actually Says
If this were a courtroom, the vaccine-autism claim would’ve been thrown out for lack of evidence. Instead, it lives on in the court of public opinion, where science is too often outvoted by fear.
There is something tragically ironic about a society that sends probes to Mars, yet still cannot vaccinate its myths. The vaccine-autism lie has long since outlived its original fraud, like a corpse dancing on puppet strings pulled by charlatans and clickbait grifters. But unlike most lies, this one doesn’t just fester, it infects. It drips into comment sections, spirals through Facebook threads, and perches smugly in the mouths of those who think a Google search is the modern-day equivalent of a PhD.
But if the truth still matters, let’s say it plainly: vaccines do not cause autism. They never have. Not once, in any country, under any credible methodology. And if you still believe otherwise, it’s not for lack of data, it’s for lack of willingness to look.
This idea — that the MMR vaccine causes autism, was birthed in fraud. Andrew Wakefield’s 1998 paper in The Lancet, based on a sample size small enough to qualify as anecdote, claimed a link. He failed to disclose financial conflicts of interest, manipulated patient data, and was eventually stripped of his medical license. The paper was retracted. But the damage had already metastasized.
And yet, science didn’t retreat. It responded. Not with Twitter threads or Facebook rants, but with studies, serious, sweeping, rigorously controlled studies. Over a dozen large-scale investigations in Denmark, the UK, Japan, Canada, and the U.S., involving hundreds of thousands (and in some cases, millions) of children, searched for any shred of evidence connecting vaccines, whether the MMR or thimerosal-containing shots, to autism.
They found nothing.
Not in 467,000 Danish children. Not in 537,000 others. Not even in over 95,000 American children, many of whom had autistic siblings, a population theoretically at heightened risk. When thimerosal was removed from vaccines, autism didn’t decline. When Japan pulled the MMR shot altogether, autism still rose. And when researchers aggregated more than 1.2 million cases in a meta-analysis, the outcome was not a whisper of doubt. It was a blaring horn: there is no link.
The findings didn’t waver by geography, culture, or methodology. They didn’t depend on pharmaceutical funding, because the studies came from universities, health agencies, and governments around the world. If there were even a glimmer of causation, it would have surfaced somewhere. It didn’t. Not once.
What’s left, then, is not a scientific debate. It’s a rhetorical performance, powered by fear and anecdote. And for every parent pulled into the orbit of this myth, there are consequences, delayed vaccinations, preventable diseases, and children put at risk because someone mistook suspicion for scholarship.
The question now isn’t whether vaccines cause autism. That question has been answered with a clarity most hypotheses never enjoy. The real question is: why do we keep tolerating a lie that’s been autopsied so many times, it should be fossilized?
Section 2: COVID-19 Vaccines: Panic, Protection, and the Politics of Mistrust
History will not remember the loudest voices. It will remember the clearest facts.
In early 2021, hope came in a vial. After a year of global paralysis, the COVID-19 vaccines emerged not only as medical marvels but as moral flashpoints. To the scientists who toiled in anonymity, these vaccines were nothing short of revolutionary, a product of decades of research on mRNA technology. To millions who lined up in clinics, they were a lifeline. But to a vocal faction, they were the bogeyman incarnate: rushed, dangerous, and deadly, or so the story went.
The truth, as always, is more grounded. And more boring. And, crucially, more provable.
Let’s dispense with the illusion that there was ever serious scientific doubt about the vaccines’ effectiveness against severe disease and death. The data didn’t trickle in, it flooded. In a systematic review and meta-analysis of 50 studies across real-world settings, mRNA vaccines (Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna) were shown to reduce the risk of COVID-19 hospitalization by 84–86%, even through the chaos of variant waves and shifting public policy [Wong & Mabbott, 2024].
In the Netherlands, researchers tracked nearly the entire population from January 2021 through January 2022. The result? Vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 death remained above 90% shortly after the primary series, and even after some waning, bounced back above 85% with a booster. Even more striking? There was no increased risk of death from other causes in the weeks following vaccination, a direct rebuttal to the ghoulish narratives that flooded Telegram threads and talk radio [de Gier et al., 2023].
And yet, no scientific discussion of COVID-19 vaccines would be complete without addressing the myocarditis headlines. Yes, rare cases of myocarditis were identified, especially in adolescent and young adult males. The risk? Approximately 2–10 cases per 100,000 second doses, according to Israeli data. But these cases were almost always mild, resolved quickly, and in multiple studies, no causal link to sudden cardiac death was established [Mevorach et al., 2021; Witberg et al., 2021; MMWR, 2024].
If anything, the real cardiovascular villain wasn’t the vaccine — it was the virus. A massive VA study of 153,000 veterans found that surviving COVID-19 led to elevated risks of heart failure, arrhythmias, stroke, myocarditis, and blood clots, even in those who were never hospitalized. The risk of heart damage from infection vastly outstrips the rare risk from vaccination [Xie et al., Nature Medicine, 2022].
Contrary to viral talking points, the government did not issue a blanket, universal vaccine mandate for all Americans. Instead, mandates were applied selectively, to military personnel, federal employees, healthcare workers at Medicare-funded facilities, and federal contractors, all roles where vaccination requirements were already common. In some cases, like the OSHA rule for large employers, alternatives like weekly testing were included, and medical or religious exemptions were available across most mandates. This wasn’t forced inoculation, it was structured policy, consistent with how public health has always balanced individual choice and communal safety.
So why, even after all this, did vaccine panic persist? Because it was never just about the science. It was about control, distrust, and a culture war masquerading as medical caution. The same people who scoff at climate change and call journalists the "enemy of the people" found their new frontier in immunology, armed with half-read abstracts and YouTube PhDs.
In the end, we don’t need faith. We don’t need slogans. We have something better: real-world evidence, the kind that can’t be shouted down. The COVID-19 vaccines did not just save lives, they continue to do so.
Section 3: VAERS: The Safety Net Turned Scare Tactic
A database is only as good as the questions it’s designed to answer, and as dangerous as the answers people pretend it gives.
If the COVID vaccine debate had its own Loch Ness Monster, it would be VAERS, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System. A surveillance tool built to catch whispers of potential safety concerns has been twisted into a megaphone of manufactured fear.
Here’s what VAERS actually is: an open-access early warning system created by the CDC and FDA. Anyone, a doctor, a nurse, a grieving parent, a conspiracy theorist, or a man claiming the vaccine turned him into the Hulk, can submit a report. And the CDC is abundantly clear about this:
"VAERS reports may contain information that is incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental, or unverifiable. Reports to VAERS can also be biased. As a result, there are limitations on how the data can be used scientifically."
Even so, vaccine providers are encouraged, and in many cases required, to report any clinically significant health issue after vaccination, even if they are not sure it's related. That’s not evidence of harm. That’s evidence of vigilance.
But what anti-vaxxers have done with VAERS data is the equivalent of scanning Yelp reviews for medical advice and declaring a nationwide health emergency. They comb through raw, unverified reports and string together numbers without context, ignoring the disclaimers in bold on the very site they cite.
This is what VAERS is meant to do: detect possible safety signals early, flag them, and then hand them over to rigorous scientific review. It is the start of an investigation — not the verdict. When rare patterns do emerge, other systems like the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) and Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment (CISA) step in with deeper analysis, verified medical records, and follow-up studies.
In short: VAERS is a smoke alarm. Anti-vaxxers are treating it like a burning building.
The danger isn't the database. The danger is the misuse of it, by people eager to frighten the public with anecdotes masquerading as statistics. What was designed as a net to catch outliers has been wielded like a cudgel against common sense.
Section 4: Discomfort, Distortion, and the Weaponization of Side Effects
If a fever or sore arm scares you more than a ventilator, you haven’t understood the stakes.
The vaccines were never promised as a frictionless experience. No scientist ever said you wouldn’t feel something. In fact, we were told the opposite: there may be fatigue, a headache, some chills, even a low-grade fever. These weren’t flaws. They were proof the body was responding.
And yet, to those gripped by suspicion, even these mild, transient responses were rebranded as smoking guns. A sore arm? A conspiracy. A day of fatigue? Proof of hidden damage. This was no longer public health, it was theater, and everyone had a role to play: the skeptic, the martyr, the contrarian armed with screen grabs and righteous indignation.
The misunderstanding, or more often, deliberate distortion, of vaccine side effects hinges on a central fallacy: that any reaction is a red flag. In reality, it's a signpost of immunity. Vaccines activate the immune system. That’s the job. Discomfort is not damage. It’s training.
What gets lost in the fog of hysteria is the spectrum of human biology. Not everyone responds the same. Some glide through with nothing but a Band-Aid. Others feel like they’ve been hit by a mild flu for a day or two. The point isn’t to deny this range of reactions, it’s to keep them in perspective.
A headache isn’t myocarditis. Fatigue isn’t long COVID. And anecdote isn’t data.
Real side effects are studied, quantified, tracked. The mild ones fade. The rare ones are taken seriously, investigated through mechanisms far more sophisticated than Twitter polls and Telegram threads. And still, over and over again, the data shows the same thing: the benefits dwarf the risks.
But the panic persists because it's easy. It's emotionally satisfying to blame a shot for your rough day. It’s far harder to understand immunology. And in a culture that now values vibes over verification, the honest discomfort of a functioning immune system has been twisted into evidence of harm.
Here’s the truth: if you want zero risk, you don’t need fewer vaccines, you need a time machine and a different species. Everything in life carries risk. The question isn’t whether you’ll face one, it’s whether it will be measured, temporary, and protective… or catastrophic, chaotic, and uncontrolled.
And when it comes to vaccines, the difference isn’t subtle. It’s survival.
But perhaps one of the most enduring, and frankly absurd, misconceptions is the idea that the flu shot gives you the flu, or that the COVID vaccine gives you COVID. Let’s be clear: you cannot get the flu from a flu shot, and you cannot get COVID-19 from an mRNA vaccine. The science is unambiguous on this.
Flu shots use either inactivated viruses or a single protein from the virus, there is no live, functioning virus capable of causing infection. As for mRNA vaccines, they contain no actual virus at all, just the instructions for your cells to produce a harmless spike protein to train the immune system. That’s it. No virus, no disease.
What people often experience is their immune system doing its job. That achy, run-down feeling? That’s your body’s immune army waking up, stretching its arms, and getting to work. If you feel a little off the next day, congratulations: your immune system isn’t asleep at the wheel.
But in the hands of the paranoid and the propagandized, these normal immune responses are twisted into proof of malice. It’s not ignorance, it’s performance art.
Section 5: The Ingredients Illusion: When Chemistry Meets Conspiracy
Everything is a chemical. The question is whether you understand the difference between poison and presence.
Flip over a vaccine insert and you’ll see a list, not unlike the back of a granola bar, but far more feared. It reads like the setup to a panic: formaldehyde, aluminum salts, polysorbate 80, mRNA. It’s not hard to see why someone with no background in biology might sound the alarm. It sounds scary. But that’s the trick, it only sounds that way.
Let’s begin with the molecule most maligned by YouTube toxicologists: formaldehyde. It’s in vaccines in trace amounts, not to harm you, but to inactivate viruses and neutralize toxins (CDC, 2023). Your own body produces more formaldehyde through metabolic processes than any vaccine could deliver. You’ve got more of it in a pear than a pediatrician’s syringe.
Then there’s aluminum salts, used as adjuvants, ingredients that help stimulate a stronger immune response. They’ve been used in vaccines safely for over 70 years (CDC, 2023). You get more aluminum from baby formula, from antacids, from drinking water.
Thimerosal, often trotted out in mercury fear-mongering, hasn’t been in most childhood vaccines in the U.S. for decades. And even when it was, it used ethylmercury, not methylmercury, and the difference matters. Ethylmercury is cleared rapidly by the body. It doesn’t accumulate. Multiple studies, including Madsen et al. (NEJM, 2003), have shown no link between thimerosal and neurological harm.
What about mRNA? This one sparked an entirely new genre of internet hysteria: “It changes your DNA.” No, it doesn’t. According to the British Society for Immunology and Nature Reviews Drug Discovery (2018), mRNA doesn’t enter the nucleus, can’t integrate with DNA, and is destroyed by the body shortly after it delivers its message. It’s a one-way note, not a rewrite of the genome.
Lipids encapsulate that mRNA, like a biological envelope, and are structurally similar to fats already in your body. Salts and sugars like sodium chloride or sucrose help stabilize the vaccine’s pH and osmotic balance, again, things your blood sees every day.
Polysorbate 80? It’s in your salad dressing (Vaccine Safety Institute, 2023).
Here’s what all this boils down to: dose and context. The difference between a toxin and a treatment is quantity. That’s not just a scientific axiom, it’s the bedrock of toxicology. Water can kill. So can oxygen. So can fear, if you swallow enough of it.
But anti-vaccine rhetoric never deals in dose or data, only vibes and venom. They rely on a public that doesn’t remember high school chemistry and distrusts anything they can’t pronounce. And in that void, pseudoscience thrives.
Vaccines are not sterile because they lack ingredients. They’re effective because the ingredients are precise, measured, and tested across millions of people. Every molecule has a reason. Every one of them has passed scrutiny that would make a pharmaceutical executive sweat.
This is not a potion. It’s progress.
Section 6: The “Too Many Too Soon” Myth: Why Babies Aren’t Made of Porcelain
The immune system isn’t a Fabergé egg, it’s a battlefield. And we’re equipping it with armor, not clutter.
Among the many myths that metastasized alongside vaccine misinformation, few have had the staying power of this one: that babies today receive too many vaccines, too quickly, for their fragile immune systems to handle. It’s an idea that seems intuitively plausible — and scientifically bankrupt.
Let’s start with what pediatric immunologists actually know. From the moment a baby is born, they are exposed to thousands, even millions, of antigens: bacteria in the air, viruses in breastmilk, fungi on the skin. The immune system’s job is to identify and respond to these antigens, not shut down in their presence. If it couldn’t, none of us would survive infancy.
Dr. Paul Offit’s now-famous estimate puts the theoretical capacity of an infant’s immune system at being able to respond to up to 10,000 vaccines at once. And that’s a conservative estimate. Today’s vaccine schedule uses fewer total antigens than it did in 1980, despite more individual shots — thanks to advances in vaccine technology that have made them more targeted and efficient (Offit et al., 2002).
But what about safety? What about risk? If the schedule were overwhelming, we’d expect to see a spike in infections following vaccination, a sign of a taxed immune system. Instead, studies show the opposite. A landmark UK study analyzing over 2,000 hospital admissions found no increased risk of bacterial or viral infections in the 90 days after MMR vaccination, and in some cases, a reduced risk, suggesting a non-specific immune boost (Stowe et al., 2009).
This isn’t just about the MMR vaccine. Multiple studies across DTP, Hib, polio, and varicella vaccines have confirmed that children given combined vaccines are no more likely to get sick than those given vaccines separately, and in some cases, they’re less likely to (Offit et al., 2002).
The “too many too soon” myth doesn’t stem from evidence. It stems from fear, a kind of numerological anxiety that equates more with worse, quantity with chaos. But medicine doesn’t deal in numerology. It deals in outcomes. And the outcome of the current vaccine schedule is this: massive reductions in childhood mortality, the near-elimination of once-common killers, and zero credible evidence of immune system harm.
The immune system is not a sandcastle crumbling under too many waves. It’s an adaptive, resilient, high-capacity defense system built for precisely this kind of challenge. We’re not overloading it. We’re empowering it.
Section 7: The Dunning-Kruger Effect: Confidence in the Absence of Competence
The less they know, the louder they speak.
In every discussion on vaccines, there arrives a point, inevitable and wearying, where someone with a shaky grasp of high school biology begins lecturing immunologists about spike proteins. They’ve watched three TikToks, read half of a Substack post, and suddenly they're ready to debate PhDs on mRNA stability. Welcome to the Dunning-Kruger Effect in the age of algorithmic confidence.
Coined in 1999 by psychologists David Dunning and Justin Kruger, the effect describes a cognitive bias in which people with limited knowledge or ability overestimate their own competence. The same ignorance that prevents them from being right also prevents them from realizing they’re wrong.
This isn’t just an internet phenomenon, it’s a crisis of discourse. A generation trained by search engines now believes research means typing a question into Google and clicking the first link that affirms their bias. They confuse information access with expertise. They believe that knowing about a subject is the same as understanding it.
But medical science, especially vaccine development, is not a shallow pool. It's a labyrinth of systems biology, pharmacokinetics, clinical trial design, epidemiology, post-marketing surveillance, and statistical modeling. To reduce it to “I read an article once” is not just hubris, it’s dangerous.
The tragedy of the Dunning-Kruger Effect isn’t merely in those who are confidently wrong. It’s in the harm they do when their confidence spreads faster than correction. In a public health crisis, misinformation kills. And the Dunning-Kruger Effect isn't just about overconfidence, it's about what happens when society starts mistaking assertiveness for authority.
There is no shame in not knowing. There is only danger in pretending you do.
Section 8: The Cost of a Lie — Life in an Anti-Vax World
The bill for misinformation always comes due, and it’s paid in disease.
If you want to know what life looks like when vaccine denial wins, you don’t have to imagine it. Just look around.
Measles, once declared eliminated in the United States, has come roaring back in multiple communities across the country. In 2024, pockets of unvaccinated populations sparked outbreaks in schools, religious groups, and even among adults who’d never thought twice about their immunization history. These aren’t statistical blips. They’re the direct result of falling vaccination rates, fueled by anti-vaccine rhetoric dressed up as parental concern.
Polio, once a ghost of the 20th century, was detected in New York sewage in 2022. That same year, an unvaccinated man in Rockland County became the first U.S. case in nearly a decade. It wasn’t an accident. It was a warning shot.
Globally, the situation is even more dire. The World Health Organization, which in 2019 listed vaccine hesitancy as one of the top ten threats to global health, has now warned of "explosive" outbreaks of measles, diphtheria, and rubella in regions where vaccination campaigns stalled during COVID.
And speaking of COVID, perhaps the most chilling case study of what happens when science is politicized, the data speaks volumes. A 2022 study from the Tobin Center for Economic Policy found that excess deaths in Republican-leaning counties significantly outpaced those in Democratic-leaning counties after vaccines became available. Why? Because vaccination rates plummeted where political leaders and media figures told people not to trust the science.
In a very real, measurable way, vaccine refusal became a partisan death sentence.
This is what life in an anti-vax world looks like: outbreaks of diseases we once had on the ropes. Rising infant mortality. Entire communities made vulnerable by a handful of YouTube doctors and disinformation peddlers with podcast microphones and merch.
The anti-vaccine movement doesn’t just threaten individual lives. It threatens the very fabric of public health, the social contract that says we protect each other not through force, but through responsibility.
The unvaccinated child isn’t just a personal choice. It’s a crack in the dam.
And if we let enough cracks form, don’t be surprised when the flood comes.
Section 9: Why Some Still Hesitate: The Psychology of Vaccine Doubt
Misinformation may fuel the fire, but it’s not what lights the match. To understand vaccine hesitancy, you have to go beyond facts and into the fault lines of human psychology, where fear, instinct, and identity often outrun evidence (Okuhara et al., 2020).
Vaccine hesitancy isn’t just ignorance. It’s not just defiance. It’s what happens when emotion hijacks reason and intuition outpaces analysis. According to dual-process theory — one of the most established models in cognitive science, the brain operates on two tracks: System 1, which is fast, emotional, and intuitive, and System 2, which is slower, logical, and analytical (Okuhara et al., 2020).
System 1 is what reacts when someone says “mercury in vaccines” or shows a photo of a crying child. It’s the system that evolved to keep us alive by reacting instantly to threats, not parsing probabilities. It’s what anti-vaccine messaging exploits, through stories, scary images, and conspiracy narratives that feel real (Ortiz-Sánchez et al., 2020). System 2, by contrast, is what weighs evidence, considers context, and reads peer-reviewed studies. But by the time System 2 kicks in, System 1 has already locked the door (Okuhara et al., 2020).
And here’s the kicker: System 1 is more persuasive than System 2. Fear sticks. Statistics don’t (Okuhara et al., 2020).
Studies show that anti-vaccine content overwhelmingly targets this emotional system, through personal stories, images of injured children, or by tapping into survival instincts like reproductive fear (“It will make you infertile”) (Faasse et al., 2016; Ortiz-Sánchez et al., 2020). Meanwhile, pro-vaccine communication often leans on numbers, charts, and logic, the very things most people process with less ease and less emotion (Okuhara et al., 2020).
In other words: the anti-vax movement tells stories. Public health tells spreadsheets.
And that imbalance matters. Research shows that even brief exposure to emotionally charged anti-vaccine content increases perceived risk of vaccines and decreases perceived risk of disease, even when people know better (Faasse et al., 2016). Social networks amplify this effect, creating echo chambers where personal anecdotes and tribal loyalty outweigh expertise (Ortiz-Sánchez et al., 2020).
This also explains why vaccine hesitancy doesn’t just live in low-information communities. In fact, it’s often concentrated in high-income, highly educated enclaves, not because these people are smarter, but because they’re more confident in their ability to “do their own research,” and more likely to trust peers over public health authorities (Faasse et al., 2016).
And once vaccine doubt takes hold, it’s hard to dislodge. Not because of lack of data, but because of what cognitive scientists call “trajectory.” Like the reflexive disgust you feel when seeing fudge shaped like dog feces, even though you know it’s safe to eat, the emotional response doesn’t just vanish. Rational thought can’t always override visceral revulsion (Okuhara et al., 2020).
So what do we do?
We stop pretending the problem is ignorance alone. We stop thinking another infographic will do the trick. And we start meeting people where the fear lives, with empathy, with stories, and with strategies that appeal not just to the mind, but to the instincts.
The goal isn’t to mock the hesitant. It’s to understand the machinery of belief, and then rewire it.
Final Thoughts: The Difference Between Skepticism and Sabotage
The mark of intelligence is not cynicism, it’s discernment.
This article is not a sermon, a screed, or an op-ed disguised as open-mindedness. It’s what a balanced, data-driven examination of vaccines looks like. No platitudes. No pharma worship. Just the thing that anti-vaxxers claim to crave: evidence. The difference is, when they finally see it, they accuse you of being bought.
Let’s be honest. To an anti-vaxxer, this article won’t land as reasoned, it will land as suspect. I must have a motive. I must be paid. Because how could anyone read decades of replicated, global research and reach a conclusion not pre-approved by their Facebook group?
But here’s what real critical thinking looks like: admitting when the data doesn't serve your fear. It’s not slinging sludge at the health department while shouting about eugenics from a podium like RFK Jr. It’s not demanding we “do our research” while rejecting every reputable study that contradicts the narrative. It’s being willing to follow the evidence, not just your emotions.
Anti-vaxxers love to say, "The medical industry wants to keep us sick." But vaccines, by definition, do the opposite. They eradicate disease. They prevent suffering. They empty hospital beds and silence ventilators. They don't perpetuate illness, they stop it at the gate. As the viral joke goes: vaccines cause adults, and that’s the point. If Big Pharma’s goal were eternal profit, vaccines would be a terrible business model. You don’t create lifelong customers by preventing the very thing you claim to treat.
And that should be the end of the argument. But it won’t be. Because the anti-vax movement was never about logic. It’s not critical thinking, it’s curated paranoia, wrapped in the language of resistance and sold as enlightenment.
To borrow the tone of Hitchens: these people don’t want to confront authority. They want to cosplay Galileo while clutching a horoscope.
Skepticism is essential. Sabotage is a luxury we can't afford. One saves lives. The other lights matches in a powder room and calls it freedom.
References
Offit, P. A., Quarles, J., Gerber, M. A., Hackett, C. J., Marcuse, E. K., Kollman, T. R., & Gellin, B. G. (2002). Addressing parents’ concerns: Do multiple vaccines overwhelm or weaken the infant’s immune system? Pediatrics, 109(1), 124–129.
Stowe, J., Andrews, N., Taylor, B., & Miller, E. (2009). No evidence of an association between MMR vaccine and an increased risk of hospitalization for any infections in the 90 days following vaccination. Vaccine, 27(9), 1294–1298.
CDC. (2023). Common Ingredients in U.S. Licensed Vaccines. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/additives.htm
Madsen, K. M., Lauritsen, M. B., Pedersen, C. B., Thorsen, P., Plesner, A. M., Andersen, P. H., & Mortensen, P. B. (2003). Thimerosal and the occurrence of autism: Negative ecological evidence from Danish population-based data. New England Journal of Medicine, 349(10), 891–898.
British Society for Immunology. (2021). COVID-19 mRNA vaccines do not alter DNA. Retrieved from https://www.immunology.org
Nature Reviews Drug Discovery. (2018). The development of mRNA vaccines: A promising technology.
Vaccine Safety Institute. (2023). Understanding vaccine components and their safety profiles.
Wong, C. K. H., & Mabbott, N. (2024). Systematic review and meta-analysis of COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness.
de Gier, B., et al. (2023). Effect of COVID-19 vaccination on mortality by COVID-19 and on mortality by other causes, the Netherlands, January 2021-January 2022
Mevorach, D., et al. (2021). Myocarditis after BNT162b2 mRNA Vaccine against COVID-19 in Israel. New England Journal of Medicine.
Witberg, G., et al. (2021). Myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccination in a large health care organization. New England Journal of Medicine.
CDC. (2024). Assessment of Risk for Sudden Cardiac Death Among Adolescents and Young Adults After COVID-19 Vaccination. MMWR, 73(14), 289–295.
Xie, Y., Xu, E., Bowe, B., & Al-Aly, Z. (2022). Long-term cardiovascular outcomes of COVID-19. Nature Medicine, 28, 583–590.
Tobin Center for Economic Policy. (2022). Excess death rates by political affiliation post-COVID vaccine rollout. Working paper.
World Health Organization. (2019). Ten threats to global health in 2019. Retrieved from https://www.who.int/news-room/spotlight/ten-threats-to-global-health-in-2019
CDC/FDA VAERS Disclaimer. (2024). Retrieved from https://vaers.hhs.gov/data.html
Faasse, K., Chatman, C. J., & Martin, L. R. (2016). A comparison of language use in pro- and anti-vaccination comments in response to a high-profile Facebook post. Vaccine, 34(47), 5808–5814. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2016.09.029
Jarrett, C., Wilson, R., O'Leary, M., Eckersberger, E., Larson, H. J., & the SAGE Working Group on Vaccine Hesitancy. (2015). Strategies for addressing vaccine hesitancy – A systematic review. Vaccine, 33(34), 4180–4190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.04.040
Okuhara, T., Okada, H., Goto, E., & Kiuchi, T. (2020). Persuasive messaging to reduce vaccine hesitancy and perceived stress in parents of newborns in Japan: A randomized controlled trial. Patient Education and Counseling, 103(7), 1448–1455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2020.01.002
Ortiz-Sánchez, E., Velando-Soriano, A., Pradas-Hernández, L., Vargas-Román, K., Gómez-Urquiza, J. L., Cañadas-De la Fuente, G. A., & Albendín-García, L. (2020). Analysis of the anti-vaccine movement in social networks: A systematic review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(15), 5394. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17155394
Need to protect those kickbacks
And a quietly brilliant rational analysis