9 Questions That Stump Every Pro-Vaccine Advocate

January 2, 2011

By Dave Mihalovic, a Naturopathic Doctor specializing in vaccine research, cancer prevention and a natural approach to treatment.

Since the flu pandemic was declared, there have been several so-called “vaccine experts” coming out of the wood work attempting to justify the effectiveness of vaccines. All of them parrot the same ridiculous historical and pseudoscientific perspectives of vaccinations which are easily squelched with the following 9 questions.

Claim: The study of vaccines, their historical record of achievements, effectiveness, safety and mechanism in humans are well understood and proven in scientific and medical circles.

Fact: The claim is completely false.

1. What to ask: Could you please provide one double-blind, placebo-controlled study that can prove the safety and effectiveness of vaccines?

2. What to ask: Could you please provide scientific evidence on ANY study which can confirm the long-term safety and effectiveness of vaccines?

3. What to ask: Could you please provide scientific evidence which can prove that disease reduction in any part of the world, at any point in history was attributable to inoculation of populations?

4. What to ask: Could you please explain how the safety and mechanism of vaccines in the human body are scientifically proven if their pharmacokinetics (the study of bodily absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion of ingredients) are never examined
or analyzed in any vaccine study?

One of the most critical elements which defines the toxicity potential of any vaccine are its pharmacokinetic properties. Drug companies and health agencies refuse to consider the study, analysis or evaluation of the pharmacokinetic properties of any vaccine.

There is not one double-blind, placebo-controlled study in the history of vaccine development that has ever proven their safety, effectiveness or achievements (unless those achievements have underlined their damage to human health).

There are also no controlled studies completed in any country which have objectively proven that vaccines have had any direct or consequential effect on the reduction of any type of disease in any
part of the world.

Every single study that has ever attempted to validate the safety and effectiveness of vaccines has conclusively established carcinogenic, mutagenic, neurotoxic or fertility impairments, but they won’t address those.


Claim: Preservatives and chemical additives used in the manufacture of vaccines are safe and no studies have been linked or proven them unsafe for use in humans.

Fact: The claim is completely false.

5. What to ask: Could you please provide scientific justification as to how injecting a human being with a confirmed neurotoxin is beneficial to human health and prevents disease?

6. What to ask: Can you provide a risk/benefit profile on how the benefits of injecting a known neurotoxin exceeds its risks to human health for the intended goal of preventing disease?

This issue is no longer even open to debate. It is a scientifically established fact in literally hundreds of studies that the preservatives and chemical additives in vaccines damage cells. Neurotoxicity, immune suppression, immune-mediated chronic inflammation and carcinogenic proliferation are just a few of several effects that have been observed on the human body. See a list of chemicals in vaccines

Fortunately, the drug companies still tell us the damage vaccines have on the human body. People just don’t read them. All you have to do is look at the insert for any vaccine, and it will detail the exact ingredients, alerts and potentially lethal effects.

See my latest analysis of the Arepanrix H1N1 vaccine for an example.

Any medical professional who believes that it is justified to inject any type of neurotoxin into any person to prevent any disease is completely misguided, misinformed, deluded and ignorant of any logic regarding human health.


Claim: Once an individual is injected with the foreign antigen in the vaccine, that individual becomes immune to future infections.

Fact: The claim is completely false.

7. What to ask: Could you please provide scientific justification on how bypassing the respiratory tract (or mucous membrane) is advantageous and how directly injecting viruses into the bloodstream enhances immune functioning and prevents future infections?

8. What to ask: Could you please provide scientific justification on how a vaccine would prevent viruses from mutating?

9. What to ask: Could you please provide scientific justification as to how a vaccination can target a virus in an infected individual who does not have the exact viral configuration or strain the vaccine was developed for?

All promoters of vaccination fail to realize that the respiratory tract of humans (actually all mammals) contains antibodies which initiates natural immune responses within the respiratory tract mucosa. Bypassing this mucosal aspect of the immune system by directly injecting viruses into the bloodstream leads to a corruption in the immune system itself. As a result, the pathogenic viruses or bacteria cannot be eliminated by the immune system and remain in the body, where they will further grow and/or mutate as the individual is exposed to ever more antigens and toxins in the environment which continue to assault the immune system.

Despite the injection of any type of vaccine, viruses continue circulating through the body, mutating and transforming into other organisms. The ability of a vaccine manufacturer to target the exact viral strain without knowing its mutagenic properties is equivalent to shooting a gun at a fixed target that has already been moved from its location. You would be shooting at what was, not what is!

Flu viruses, may mutate, change or adapt several times over a period of one flu season, making the seasonal influenza vaccine 100% redundant and ineffective every single flu season. Ironically, the natural immune defenses of the human body can target these changes but the vaccines cannot.

I have never encountered one pro-vaccine advocate, whether medically or scientifically qualified, who could answer even 1 let alone all 9 of these questions. One or all of the following will happen when debating any of the above questions:

– They will concede defeat and admit they are stumped

– They will attempt to discredit unrelated issues that do not pertain to the question.

– They will formulate their response and rebuttal based on historical arguments and scientific studies which have been disproved over and over again.

Not one pro-vaccine advocate will ever directly address these questions in an open mainstream venue.

Flu Vaccine Exposed: Think Twice!

* A full list of h1n1 vaccine ingredients, alerts and warnings.

fun math games
January 4, 2011 @ 3:10 pm

pass it on

Laura Hulsey
January 22, 2011 @ 9:02 am

You made some decent points there.

February 1, 2012 @ 9:34 pm

You are amazingly ill-informed. All vaccines go through a multi-phase system before organizations like the FDA approve them for widespread use. The first phase? Immunogenicity and safety. Not to mention the fact that new vaccine candidates are first evaluated in an animal model first to judge if the vaccine is safe and effective. There’s no point immunizing people even with a safe vaccine if it doesn’t show any protective correlates in the animal model. The first link I clicked on at the bottom was just BS. The doctor at the NIH they claim was saying he had no idea how vaccines worked in the immune system was talking about a very specific new vaccine candidate against HIV, and they weren’t sure why that specific vaccine regimen worked better than the others.

Let’s pretend there was some truth to this and vaccines were really harmful to a few in a million. Look at smallpox. It had a 30% mortality rate! Even if a few are harmed by the “cure”, isn’t that better than 30% of people who contract it dying (keep in mind smallpox was easily spread)? Now I’m not saying that we shouldn’t improve on vaccines or that we should give people vaccines we know to be harmful. And although I mock people like you, I truly understand where you’re coming from. It’s totally natural not to like Big Pharma. You shouldn’t. They’re assholes. But it doesn’t mean their stuff doesn’t work. And there’s a lot of good people behind the corporate fat cats who help to improve the world. Not to mention university and national institutes where you don’t see as much of that capitalist mongering.

Even with diseases that can be perceived as “less harmful”, it’s still important to vaccinate. There’s a concept called herd immunity; basically the more people who get vaccinated, the less people contract the disease, and the less people who can spread it. Most people don’t die from influenza and it just sucks for a couple of weeks. But the elderly, immunocompromised, and young children are vulnerable. So if I’m vaccinated, that means that no one who is vulnerable can contract it from me and so on.

If you want to read into another side of the story because you don’t want to feel like you’re a sheep believing what others tell you, I fully support you. But what happens to a lot of people is that they just end up believing the other side of the story just because those proponents are telling them what to believe. Read facts, not opinions, and decide for yourself. Just remember, when you don’t, and allow idiots like Jenny McCarthy and Andrew Wakefield make your opinions for you, people die. That is, more people die.

February 2, 2012 @ 9:00 am

Spend more time looking at both sides of the story.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: