If you visit the World Health Organization’s website, or that of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the information presented there on vaccines is so clearly one-dimensional, repeating the age-old pro-vaccine mantra: "safe"—"effective"—"safe"—"effective" ad nauseam, that before long, you either become lulled into complacency, or stray off into less officially sanctioned sources of information, such as the many anti-vaccine sites on the internet, where discussion of the abject failure of vaccines repeats the same mantra, but recorded backwards like a Beatles record: "unsafe"—"ineffective"—"unsafe"—"ineffective."
So, where should one go for the absolute truth on the matter?
According to the dominant medical system, as represented by organizations like the CDC, FDA and WHO, peer-reviewed and published research is the holy grail, without which, claims against vaccines are merely anecdotal, superstitious and/or irrational polemic.
But, what happens when published scientific research freely available on the National Library of Medicine’s public domain bibliographic database known as Medline, contradicts the pro-vaccine party line?
A recent review published in April in the journal Expert Review of Vaccines titled, "Review of the risks and benefits of yellow fever vaccination including some new analyses," revealed a surprising fact about yellow fever vaccines:
From 1990 to the present, the number of cases (n = 31) and deaths (n = 12) from YEL-AVD [attenuated yellow fever vaccine] in travelers has exceeded the reports of YF [wild-type yellow fever] (n = 6) acquired by natural infection, raising the question whether the risk of vaccination exceeds the benefit in travelers.1
So, according to this review, if you add up the net harm done by yellow fever vaccines over the past 22 years of their tracked use in travelers versus their net good, your chance of getting sick from the vaccine is 5 times higher, and getting killed at least 12 times higher, than taking your chances unvaccinated.
While surprising, this is not the only case where a so-called "vaccine-preventable diseases" has been found to be less destructive than the vaccines being used to "prevent" them. Increasingly, the truth about vaccine-induced injuries and death are coming to light through the very organizations and research institutions that have championed their use, and fashioned their image into modern medicine’s most successful technological innovation against infectious disease.
Case in point...
The Polio Global Eradication Initiative (PGEI), founded in 1988 by the World Health Organization, Rotary International, UNICEF, and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, holds up India as a prime example of its success at eradicating polio, stating on its website (Jan. 11 2012) that "India has made unprecedented progress against polio in the last two years and on 13 January, 2012, India will reach a major milestone - a 12-month period without any case of polio being recorded."
This report, however, is highly misleading, as an estimated 100-180 Indian children are diagnosed with vaccine-associated polio paralysis (VAPP) each year. In fact, the clinical presentation of the disease, including paralysis, caused by VAPP is indistinguishable from that caused by wild polioviruses, making the PGEI's pronouncements all the more suspect.2
According to the Polio Global Eradication Initiative's own statistics3 there were 42 cases of wild-type polio (WPV) reported in India in 2010, indicating that vaccine-induced cases of polio paralysis (100-180 annually) outnumber wild-type cases by a factor of 3-4. Even if we put aside the important question of whether or not the PGEI is accurately differentiating between wild and vaccine-associated polio cases in their statistics, we still must ask ourselves: should not the real-world effects of immunization, both good and bad, be included in PGEI's measurement of success?