The Forgotten History of Neurological Vaccine Injuries

Crippling brain injuries used to be a well

recognized complication of vaccination

What changed?

These concerns peaked in the 1980s, leading to widespread attention on the harms of vaccination and the enactment of a Federal law to prevent these neurological injuries. To protect the industry, its key provisions were all deliberately violated, and the injuries it recognized (e.g., severe brain damage) were renamed so they could be swept under the rug.

•In tandem, widespread censorship was enacted, with both the media and medical journals refusing to publish further reports of injury, thereby creating a societal illusion that these injuries were rare to non-existent.

•Thanks to the MAHA moment, we have a once in a lifetime opportunity to change this dysfunctional paradigm. This article will hence review those forgotten injuries and exactly what caused them, as without that knowledge, these injuries will continue to repeat, and those injured will continue to suffer in silence while being told their injuries are “extremely rare” or “not linked to vaccination” rather than receiving the help they need.

From birth, we are taught that vaccines were one of the most remarkable discoveries in history, and were so safe and effective that many now unimaginable plagues vanished with few to no side effects occurring in the process. In truth, give or take every part of that mythology is false and because it has never been dispelled, remarkably similar vaccine disasters occur every few decades.

Much of this results from the fact that it is very difficult to make safe vaccines due to both how they work and how they are produced. As such, the best “solution” which could be found to this problem was to insist in lockstep that vaccines were safe and erase any memory that vaccine disasters had in fact occurred, thereby making it possible to gaslight anyone who was severely injured by a vaccine and claim their injury was just anecdotal or a product of anti-vaccine hysteria.

For example, recently I discussed how vaccines cause autism, and focused on a central argument used to debunk the link between the two—that the only reason people believe vaccines cause autism is because a disgraced British doctor published a fraudulent 1998 study claiming they did and then made everyone start hallucinating that vaccine injuries were occurring.

This mythology however, ignores that brain injuries were a longstanding problem of vaccination. For example, this 1982 NBC news program revealed that many parents were having children develop “post-pertussis encephalopathy” after taking the DPT vaccine, that most doctors refused to report this, and that:

Medical knowledge about severe reactions to the whooping cough vaccine goes back to the early 1930s. Report after report has been published in medical journals since then. In 1948, two American doctors reported on case histories of many children who had been brain damaged or died from DPT vaccines in Boston. The following year, another doctor surveyed pediatricians across the country and found still more. Those studies have been forgotten.

Likewise, in 1985, one of the most popular talk shows in America (the Donahue show) hosted a segment where doctors from both sides (and neurologically injured members of the audience) debated the risks and benefits of vaccination and the ethics of mandates. To the best of my knowledge, this was the last time an open debate of vaccination aired on mainstream television, something I suspect was due to a recognition that allowing a public one would only increase vaccine skepticism due to how strong the evidence against vaccines was (e.g., Peter Hotez recently turned down 2.62 million to debate RFK Jr.).

Diagnostic Obfuscation

In both of these 1980s TV programs and many of the earlier studies cited throughout this article, the vaccine brain damaged children were described as becoming “mentally retarded” or “severely retarded.” Likewise, a famous 1964 government film (fully intended to be compassionate) was titled “Introducing the Mentally Retarded.”

In the mid to late 1990s, “retarded” began to be phased out due to it being deemed too stigmatizing, momentum gradually built to use less offensive terminology, and eventually, in 2010, Obama signed a law that replaced all instances in Federal statutes of “mentally retarded” “mental retardation” with “intellectual disability” (which is the only time a US law was passed that erased a word in such a targeted fashion). As such, this term is rarely used now, and you can get in trouble for uttering it out loud (although many doctors I know will informally use the phrase “MR” to explain the clinical situation of mentally disabled patients to colleagues).

In turn, one of the classic tricks in propaganda is to constantly manipulate and redefine words so that it becomes possible for their client to justify contradictory and unjustifiable positions. In the case of autism, it is commonly argued that the increase in it is not due to an environmental toxin (e.g., vaccines) but rather more and more “normal” things being reclassified as autism. One of the primary studies that supported that argument, a 2009 study from California, indeed shows the reclassification occurred, but what it actually showed is that 26.4% of children who had previously been diagnosed as “mentally retarded” became “autistic” (as did another commonly cited study).

Since autism is deliberately undefined, it encapsulates both profound (severe) autism (25-30% of cases) and autistic traits (e.g., having manageable neurological deficits or “being on the spectrum”). While there are certain traits shared between these two groups, they are very different (e.g., being nonverbal or minimally verbal, having intellectual disability, and requiring substantial lifelong support for daily living vs. being socially awkward with personality quirks or having high functioning autism like Elon Musk).

A key point I’ve emphasized throughout this publication is that when most toxins harm people, the injuries distribute on a bell curve where more severe injuries are much rarer than less severe (and hard to spot) ones, so if you see a cluster of severe injuries, it tells you far more mild ones are hiding under the surface, and likewise that if you see many moderate injuries, more severe ones are present too. As such, of those with “autism” roughly 26.7% of children have “profound autism,” and likewise, while both have increased in tandem with increasing vaccination, per the CDC non-severe autism has increased at a faster rate.

This wordplay then leads to both being blended together to deflect any criticisms of severe autism (e.g., by attacking anyone who states severe autism is a “problem” by claiming that is stigmatizing to all the people with high-functioning autism) and to argue that any claims vaccines cause autism is actually due to the people with autism quirks being given an autism diagnosis (thereby removing the clear increase in severe autism from the debate). Likewise, having the softer label of autism (and pro-autism words like “neurodiverse” or “neurodivergent”) to encapsulate and normalize these injuries makes it much easier to keep the uncomfortable topic out of sight and mind for those who do not have to directly deal with the reality of these injuries (e.g., the parent of a child with severe autism). It hence prevents enough people from speaking out about the issue for something to be done.

I mention all of this for two reasons:

•We believe obfuscating these definitions was deliberately done to conceal the epidemic of vaccine injuries.

•In much of the earlier literature, brain damage we now associate with “severe autism” was described but instead labeled with terms such as “mental retardation” or “encephalitis” or “encephalopathy.”

Note: since I have a large audience, I feel I have a responsibility to use measured language that avoids unnecessarily harming others or inadvertently supporting malicious linguistic propaganda. At the same time, I detest this, in part because I deeply value personal liberty and hate having my language policed and in part because I feel using euphemisms to avoid overtly addressing uncomfortable topic has been responsible for an immense amount of carnage and suffering throughout human history (as critical topics that need to be widely understood to prevent a catastrophe aren’t because no one wants to directly describe them in an uncomfortable way that everyone can clearly understand). For a moment, imagine how different the entire vaccine discussion would be if people instead had simply said things like “vaccines can make you severely retarded” or “Bill’s son became mentally retarded after the shot Sue’s daughter had issues with” or “in just eight years, the number of severely retarded children doubled” rather than how it’s been obfuscated within the ambiguous “autism” label.

Exempting Brain Damage

The 1986 Vaccine Injury Act was made in response to public pressure against vaccine injuries (e.g., the 1982 NBC program) and had numerous provisions intended to help parents of vaccine-injured children. One was that since DPT brain injury lawsuits were challenging (but possible) to win in court, a “no-fault” system funded by a tax on vaccines was created to replace them (which protected vaccine manufacturers from liability).

For this system, a table of injuries was created through extensive negotiation when the law was passed. Then, if a child suffered an injury on the table shortly after vaccination, compensation was awarded, and friends who worked at the vaccine court have told me the program is very fair for individuals who have covered injuries. Finally, since it was recognized that new science and vaccines would emerge, the H.H.S. Secretary was given the authority to add new injuries to the table as science advanced.

Unfortunately, in one way or another, most of the helpful provisions of the law were undermined. For example, since the Federal Government ultimately pays for these injuries, it incentivizes:

•Never having the HHS Secretary add anything else to the schedule.

•Never having any “non-covered” injury approved by the vaccine court.

•Removing vaccines from the table with costly injuries from the immunization schedule, and not having those same injuries covered for their replacements.

At the time the original injury table was made, every vaccine on the schedule (excluding the inactivated polio vaccine) had covered injuries, most of which were neurological in nature:

Since that time twelve new vaccines were added to the schedule while all but MMR were replaced with alternative vaccines. However, if you look at the current table, despite nearly 40 years of “science” other than Guillain-Barré Syndrome from influenza, brachial neuritis from acellular DPT, and fainting within an hour of vaccination (from a few vaccines), no neurological injuries have been added to the table.

As such:

•The vast body of literature (which was well known in the 1980s) showing vaccines cause neurological damage became “forgotten.”

•It became almost impossible to get compensation for a neurological injury. In fact, the only time a regressive autism case ever won compensation was in 2010 due to the father being a prestigious neurologist. There, the court concluded a cluster of vaccines (including MMR) “significantly aggravated an underlying mitochondrial disorder, which predisposed her to deficits in cellular energy metabolism, and manifested as a regressive encephalopathy with features of autism spectrum disorder.”

There was a strong incentive to remove the remaining covered brain injury (MMR’s encephalopathy) from colloquial use, replace it with non-compensable “autism” and then perpetually demonize anyone who claimed MMR caused autism (which is what happened to Andrew Wakefield).

Note: Peter Marks, the head FDA official who relentlessly covered up all the reports of COVID vaccine injuries they were receiving and overrode the FDA’s top vaccine experts to rush a formal approval for it and the boosters (so the unconscionable mandates could be enacted) recently went on national television and made many false statement about MMR including that it “does not cause encephalitis.”

Additionally, a systematic effort was made to prevent any further research into these neurological injuries from occurring or being published. For example, dogma was instilled that vaccines are so safe and effective that it’s “unethical” to conduct a placebo-controlled vaccine trial (as this would deny children a “lifesaving” vaccine), while simultaneously proclaiming all research showing the harms of vaccine injuries is “junk science” because that data does not have placebo controls.

As such, in each case where researchers nonetheless conducted the science (e.g., by reviewing large numbers of patient charts) their data was blocked from publication, and in many cases the researchers were retaliated against (e.g., an Oregon pediatrician lost his medical license). As you might guess, those data sets (which I summarized here) all show a massive increase in common infectious, autoimmune, and neurological diseases of childhood. These for example, were the increases in neurological diseases found across those studies (where for context a 1.1-1.2 [10-20%] increase would normally be enough to get a product a red flag, particularly one given to large numbers of people).

Finally, there are numerous large databases containing both vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals which could “ethically” get that data without withholding vaccines, yet despite decades of legal petitions, these were consistently withheld from independent researchers because it was “not ethical” to provide (easily anonymized) personal health information. RFK in turn campaigned on actually studying this database but remarkably, right before his team got access to it, H.H.S. employees illegally deleted it.

“Rare” Vaccine Side Effects

Since all of these tactics are often insufficient to cover up vaccine injuries, another common approach is to dismiss them by insisting they are “rare” and only affect “one in a million.”

A classic example is Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS), a neurological disorder where the immune system attacks the peripheral nervous system, leading to muscle weakness, numbness, and, in severe cases, paralysis, with roughly 2-10% of cases being fatal. Symptoms often start in the legs and can progress rapidly, sometimes requiring hospitalization. Most people recover with treatment, but recovery can take weeks to months.

In medical school, students are taught that most cases of GBS are from certain infections, but it can also be a “one in a million” side effect of the flu vaccine (a risk that is further minimized by noting that influenza infections have a higher risk of GBS, so it is in your best interest to vaccinate if you want to prevent GBS—not unlike how it was claimed COVID-19 was more likely than the vaccine to give you myocarditis).

I hence took notice of the fact I kept on hearing of “one in a million” GBS cases (e.g., most recently Tucker Carlson disclosing to Dr. Mary Bowden his young son got GBS from a flu shot). Similarly, at a small hospital I worked at, I met two nurses who’d had a patient or co-worker develop it after a flu shot and later I learned of a community with roughly 100,000 people where one GBS patient had identified at least 20 different people (most of whom were healthcare workers) who developed GBS after a flu shot. Since experiences like that would require roughly 1 in 1,000 flu recipients to get GBS, I suspected the “one in a million” figure is incorrect.

Note: similarly, at the start of the COVID vaccine rollout, like many, I saw an extraordinarily high level of vaccine injuries, and hence concluded the people telling is they were “very rare” were lying, and then also lying when that changed to “injuries occasionally happen, but COVID causes far more problems so you need to vaccinate.” This was then corroborated by subsequent surveys showing 34% of vaccine recipients reported minor side effects while 7% reported major ones severely impacting their quality of life (again demonstrating the toxicity bell curve) and a large study showing the vaccine increases your likelihood of getting COVID.

The Swine Flu Fiasco

The vaccine most strongly associated with GBS was the 1976 Swine Flu vaccine, a completely unnecessary experimental vaccine which was rushed to market despite the FDA’s own scientist (who later participated in the 1985 Donahue debate) warning it was not safe (which, in turn, the CDC responded to by not testing the vaccines given to the public). It caused a significant number of injuries, and numerous political earthquakes followed (e.g., like Biden and the COVID vaccines, the swine flu vaccine fiasco played a key role in Ford losing the 1976 election).

Since the press had not yet been bought out by the pharmaceutical industry, there were many scathing pieces on it (e.g., the New York Times wrote one piece on “Swine Flu Fiasco” and another piece on the myriad of injuries along with all the pharmaceutical companies “threatening to stop production completely until Congress protected them from lawsuits by people who suffered side effects from the vaccination”). Of these, the most iconic and well-remembered ones was a 1978 program 60 Minutes put together:

While a variety of injuries such as numerous deaths were associated with the vaccine all standard sources say the only problem was a “slight increase in GBS affecting roughly 1 in 100,000 recipients” (e.g., there was one instance where three elderly people who had received shots within the same hour at the same clinic all had fatal heart attacks, but their deaths were deemed “unrelated”).

If you look at this with a critical eye, the fixation on the 1 in 100,000 GBS figure doesn’t make sense, as if injuries were “that rare,” it would not have turned into a national fiasco. This I believe, is best demonstrated by a physician (whom I recently verified this chronology with) that:

Entered practice in 1976

•Had between 50-100 total patients at the time the 1976 swine flu vaccine was released

•Warned their patients to hold off on getting it as it was rushed so there might be unknown side effects.

•Had roughly half still take it because of how aggressively the government pushed the vaccine.

•Had two patients develop GBS.

Note: 45 years later, that doctor had an almost identical experience with the COVID vaccine, with many long-term patients (who had a great deal of trust in the doctor) nonetheless succumbing to the government’s push for the COVID vaccine and now has a shocking number of very sick patients with characteristic COVID-19 injuries (e.g., turbo cancers). Likewise, one patient I met during the COVID-19 vaccine roll-out shared with me that they had refused to get the COVID vaccine because they suffered a permanent lung injury from the 1976 vaccine and were “not falling for the government’s lies again.”

Much of this is encapsulated by a 1961 German paper that highlighted that variolation (what preceded smallpox vaccination) had a 2% mortality rate, that the smallpox vaccines also had a high complication rate and that the medical profession and health authorities “overlooked” “minimized” or “denied” complications to maintain public trust in vaccines so as it was paramount smallpox would be eradicated. As such, the injuries only began to be acknowledged once smallpox was no longer a threat (e.g., a 1913 paper referred to those injuries as “anomalies” whereas in 1927, the term “vaccine injury” began being used), and stated honestly admitting the rare dangers was necessary to ensure public trust in vaccination.

The Hazards of Immunization

In 1966, an eminent bacteriologist wrote “The Hazards of Immunization” which disclosed a large number of forgotten vaccine disasters he’d collected (both through his team surveying the medical literature and insiders sharing their private files with him) in the hope it could lead to safer vaccines as the same disasters kept on repeating and would likely continue to do so unless his profession acknowledged those risks (which sadly they still have not).