You’ve read the science, because you are a conscientious parent. You consider yourself a smart person, and you like to do your research. And the science is settled—according to them, and you.

While it’s very tempting to accept that “truth” on face value, I have a few questions I’d like to bring to the table.

1. What science have you read exactly? Is it the science they directed you to? Are these the “peer reviewed articles” and the medical literature that they link on their vaccines-are-safe-and-effective page? (Would you expect them to link studies that DIDN’T come to the same conclusions they did?)

2. Who pays for the science that you’ve read? Who funds the studies that we most often hear about? Is there a possibility that some of these studies are funded by those with a vested interest in the outcome? Is there a chance that studies may be manipulated to achieve a particular finding? Just a teeny tiny chance?

When you say you’ve “read the science”, wtf does that actually mean? Because I’ve read the science too, only the science I’ve read says something different than yours. The peer reviewed medical journals, literature, and articles I’ve read do not reiterate what we’ve been told. In fact, they often say the opposite.

Your science says vaccines are safe and effective; my science says they are not safe for all, and don’t work for everyone. Your science says aluminum adjuvants are harmless; my science shows they are neurotoxic and can cause behavioral and physiological damage. Your science says the unvaccinated are a risk to everyone; my science shows unvaccinated children have far better health outcomes and less chronic disease. Your science says vaccines don’t cause autism; my science confirms neurological developmental disorders can be triggered in children due to environmental toxins, such as vaccines.

So you see how it can be confusing when you call us “anti-science”? Because we’ve seen science, and the science actually confirms what we’ve been saying all along. And yet isn’t it interesting how our science is immediately discarded or trivialized, because it doesn’t match up with yours. The raw data, the multitude of statistics, and the empirical trends have come to the same conclusion: the story we’ve all been told ISN’T the whole story.

So when it comes to reading science, the question you should really be asking yourself is what science have you been *missing*?

Search neurotoxicity of injected aluminum, search asymptomatic transmission of pertussis (whooping cough), search quadrupled risk of respiratory infection in children post influenza vaccine, search newborn immune activation events and their long-term negative impact on brain function. And that’s just to get you going.

But please, whatever you do,


In a world where data and information are changing by the second, don’t believe the science can ever be settled! Question intentions, look deeper into who stands to gain by claiming there is nothing left to debate? Huge pharmaceutical companies giving you their science to sell more units, or parents of vaccine-injured children fighting for scientific transparency in an effort to keep another family from suffering?

And when you eventually come across the SCIENCE that says something contrary to what you’ve been told all these years…remember this moment and the people who had the courage to speak up about it.