Did you know that the death rate from measles declined by 98% BEFORE the measles vaccine was introduced?
“This is all on the CDC website… That decline had nothing to do with vaccines.”
So, if vaccines didn’t do it, what caused that decline from 1900 to 1963?
The answer is better nutrition, better sanitation, clean water, etc., according to Attorney Aaron Siri.
Yet “science” wants you to believe that vaccines saved the day.
But that’s not even the biggest vaccine deception. It’s what happens before they approve these shots for human use. 🧵
“This is all on the CDC website… That decline had nothing to do with vaccines.”
So, if vaccines didn’t do it, what caused that decline from 1900 to 1963?
The answer is better nutrition, better sanitation, clean water, etc., according to Attorney Aaron Siri.
Yet “science” wants you to believe that vaccines saved the day.
But that’s not even the biggest vaccine deception. It’s what happens before they approve these shots for human use. 🧵
Faith in vaccines is just that. Faith.
Complete trust. Allegiance to duty. Belief in something for which there is no proof.
Medicine has carefully crafted a myth that it and only it rescued humanity from the dark ages of deadly disease. The kind of disease that was lurking around every corner, ready to wipe us off the map for all of eternity.
And because medicine so valiantly rescued us from erasure, it deserves ultimate supremacy. It should never be questioned. It can do no wrong.
Complete trust. Allegiance to duty. Belief in something for which there is no proof.
Medicine has carefully crafted a myth that it and only it rescued humanity from the dark ages of deadly disease. The kind of disease that was lurking around every corner, ready to wipe us off the map for all of eternity.
And because medicine so valiantly rescued us from erasure, it deserves ultimate supremacy. It should never be questioned. It can do no wrong.
A central part of medical mythology is the belief that vaccines ended infectious disease. And because it is indeed mythology and its adherents are acting on faith alone, it requires no proof and can simply dismiss any and all evidence against that bold claim.
But the evidence is not lacking. Far from it.
Despite medicine’s best efforts to hide and obscure it, those seeking the truth can plainly see it.
In this short presentation, Secretary Kennedy lays it out for all to see. There is no evidence that vaccines were responsible for the decline in infectious disease that has so aggressively been credited to them.
It is pure mythology.
But the evidence is not lacking. Far from it.
Despite medicine’s best efforts to hide and obscure it, those seeking the truth can plainly see it.
In this short presentation, Secretary Kennedy lays it out for all to see. There is no evidence that vaccines were responsible for the decline in infectious disease that has so aggressively been credited to them.
It is pure mythology.
For years, people have noticed something strange about the vaccine discussion.
In science, and thus medicine, almost everything is open to questioning. Drugs get pulled. Guidelines change. Mistakes are admitted (sometimes).
But vaccines sit in a completely different category.
When questions about their safety pop up, the response is never curiosity—or even debate. It’s instant defensiveness. Sometimes even hostility. Walls go up and any possibility of discussion is shut down.
That reaction alone should make anyone pause. Why? Because science doesn’t work that way.
In science, and thus medicine, almost everything is open to questioning. Drugs get pulled. Guidelines change. Mistakes are admitted (sometimes).
But vaccines sit in a completely different category.
When questions about their safety pop up, the response is never curiosity—or even debate. It’s instant defensiveness. Sometimes even hostility. Walls go up and any possibility of discussion is shut down.
That reaction alone should make anyone pause. Why? Because science doesn’t work that way.
It wasn’t always like this. In fact, prior to Obamacare effectively mandating flu shots for healthcare workers, many doctors didn’t get the flu vaccine.
They knew the benefits were negligible and that there were real risks. And they thought a mandate didn’t make any sense.
The 2009 CNN segment below features New York healthcare workers protesting a state law requiring annual flu shots.
It is both fascinating and disturbing how quickly a mandate shifted critical thinking to an irrational embrace of vaccination, its negligible benefits, and its very real risks.
They knew the benefits were negligible and that there were real risks. And they thought a mandate didn’t make any sense.
The 2009 CNN segment below features New York healthcare workers protesting a state law requiring annual flu shots.
It is both fascinating and disturbing how quickly a mandate shifted critical thinking to an irrational embrace of vaccination, its negligible benefits, and its very real risks.
The information in this thread comes from the work of medical researcher @MidwesternDoc.
For all the sources and details, read the full report below.
midwesterndoctor.com/p/why-have-vac…
For all the sources and details, read the full report below.
midwesterndoctor.com/p/why-have-vac…
Doctors are trained to notice patterns and prevent harm. Or so we’ve been told.
If a medication appears to be causing injury, it’s stopped. That’s normal.
But when doctors observe harm following vaccines, the rules change.
Instead of an investigation, patients and families are told the issue can’t possibly be the vaccine. It could be literally anything but the vaccine. Because the science is settled.
And by raising your concerns you’re creating confusion. You’re suddenly a problem.
Same profession. Same patients. Very, very different standards.
But why?
If a medication appears to be causing injury, it’s stopped. That’s normal.
But when doctors observe harm following vaccines, the rules change.
Instead of an investigation, patients and families are told the issue can’t possibly be the vaccine. It could be literally anything but the vaccine. Because the science is settled.
And by raising your concerns you’re creating confusion. You’re suddenly a problem.
Same profession. Same patients. Very, very different standards.
But why?
This double standard shows up clearly in hospitals.
Sick patients are routinely vaccinated immediately upon admission.
It sounds counterintuitive, doesn’t it? Why mess with the immune system of someone who is already ill? Why add another variable into what is being dealt with?
Doctors who object to this aren’t persuaded by hospital leadership with evidence. They’re told it’s policy.
Nurses see the damage play out firsthand. They quietly acknowledge it among themselves, but administrators deny it exists.
The system doesn’t resolve concerns. It moves past them with 1-2 word responses.
It’s policy. The end.
Sick patients are routinely vaccinated immediately upon admission.
It sounds counterintuitive, doesn’t it? Why mess with the immune system of someone who is already ill? Why add another variable into what is being dealt with?
Doctors who object to this aren’t persuaded by hospital leadership with evidence. They’re told it’s policy.
Nurses see the damage play out firsthand. They quietly acknowledge it among themselves, but administrators deny it exists.
The system doesn’t resolve concerns. It moves past them with 1-2 word responses.
It’s policy. The end.
From this, a reasonable question emerges that more and more people are beginning to ask.
Why does medicine defend vaccines with such intensity and aggressiveness, even when serious safety concerns are raised?
No, vaccines aren’t uniquely flawless. They’re uniquely protected.
And that protection has less to do with evidence and data and more to do with power, psychology, and something that looks an awful lot like faith.
Why does medicine defend vaccines with such intensity and aggressiveness, even when serious safety concerns are raised?
No, vaccines aren’t uniquely flawless. They’re uniquely protected.
And that protection has less to do with evidence and data and more to do with power, psychology, and something that looks an awful lot like faith.
Modern medicine’s authority rests on nothing but a powerful story.
As the story goes, medicine saved humanity from infectious disease and replaced superstition with science.
And vaccines sit at the very center of that victory.
Question vaccines, and you’re not just questioning a Big Pharma product. You’re challenging a narrative that underpins medicine’s prestige and moral authority.
When identity and status are on the line, institutions rarely reassess their assumptions. They dig their heels in deeper.
As the story goes, medicine saved humanity from infectious disease and replaced superstition with science.
And vaccines sit at the very center of that victory.
Question vaccines, and you’re not just questioning a Big Pharma product. You’re challenging a narrative that underpins medicine’s prestige and moral authority.
When identity and status are on the line, institutions rarely reassess their assumptions. They dig their heels in deeper.
But it’s not just the medical industry. There’s also a human element that cannot be ignored.
Doctors spend decades training, sacrificing, and building their identity around the idea that they’re helping people. Their entire sense of purpose is intertwined in the belief system.
Considering that a standard practice they’ve supported and likely engaged in may have caused harm (or even death) is psychologically devastating.
Faced with that possibility, most people don’t reassess. They protect the belief that allowed them to move forward in the first place.
It’s all about self-preservation. And it ultimately preserves the institution as well.
Doctors spend decades training, sacrificing, and building their identity around the idea that they’re helping people. Their entire sense of purpose is intertwined in the belief system.
Considering that a standard practice they’ve supported and likely engaged in may have caused harm (or even death) is psychologically devastating.
Faced with that possibility, most people don’t reassess. They protect the belief that allowed them to move forward in the first place.
It’s all about self-preservation. And it ultimately preserves the institution as well.
And there’s something even deeper happening.
Much of the western world has seen an ongoing and sharp decline in traditional religion, leaving a gaping hole.
Science has quietly been filling that void. But not as a method, as an unquestionable authority.
We’ve all seen and heard it to an extreme over the last five years. The oft-repeated mantra: “Trust the science.” Yard signs that proudly proclaim a home’s residents “believe in science.”
Anyone who asks a question or thinks for themselves is quickly and loudly labeled a “science-denier.”
Those aren’t scientific statements. They’re expressions of faith.
And they describe strict obedience to that faith. But through obedience is not how truth is discovered.
Much of the western world has seen an ongoing and sharp decline in traditional religion, leaving a gaping hole.
Science has quietly been filling that void. But not as a method, as an unquestionable authority.
We’ve all seen and heard it to an extreme over the last five years. The oft-repeated mantra: “Trust the science.” Yard signs that proudly proclaim a home’s residents “believe in science.”
Anyone who asks a question or thinks for themselves is quickly and loudly labeled a “science-denier.”
Those aren’t scientific statements. They’re expressions of faith.
And they describe strict obedience to that faith. But through obedience is not how truth is discovered.
It is in this environment where medicine resemble a belief system—a religious institution.
Doctors function as moral authorities—priests. Hospitals become places where doctrine is enforced—the temple.
Questioning official guidance is framed as irresponsible or dangerous. You don’t question the doctrine. What are you, an unbeliever?
Vaccines, more than anything else, became hugely symbolic. A ritual. Your dose of the holy water.
And they unlock access to aspects of modern life that are reserved only for believers.
They’re treated as proof of virtue, compliance, and belonging, rather than medical interventions that should always be scrutinized.
Doctors function as moral authorities—priests. Hospitals become places where doctrine is enforced—the temple.
Questioning official guidance is framed as irresponsible or dangerous. You don’t question the doctrine. What are you, an unbeliever?
Vaccines, more than anything else, became hugely symbolic. A ritual. Your dose of the holy water.
And they unlock access to aspects of modern life that are reserved only for believers.
They’re treated as proof of virtue, compliance, and belonging, rather than medical interventions that should always be scrutinized.
This is exactly why vaccine discussion and debate is so frustrating.
You can present studies, data, and even firsthand experiences, but it doesn’t matter. It will never matter.
You’re not challenging a hypothesis. You’re challenging a belief system.
Belief systems don’t respond to evidence with evidence. They utilize pressure, shame, and exclusion.
That’s why dissent is punished rather than addressed. Doctors are removed from their positions. Parents are shamed and excluded.
You can present studies, data, and even firsthand experiences, but it doesn’t matter. It will never matter.
You’re not challenging a hypothesis. You’re challenging a belief system.
Belief systems don’t respond to evidence with evidence. They utilize pressure, shame, and exclusion.
That’s why dissent is punished rather than addressed. Doctors are removed from their positions. Parents are shamed and excluded.
Here’s where it gets uncomfortable.
Despite constant claims that vaccines are “the most studied medical products in history,” there are literally no comprehensive placebo-controlled studies comparing fully vaccinated children to unvaccinated children.
Not one. Zero. Zilch.
That absence isn’t because the question is unimportant.
It’s because answering it would be incredibly inconvenient. It would shatter the scaffolding of the entire belief system.
Despite constant claims that vaccines are “the most studied medical products in history,” there are literally no comprehensive placebo-controlled studies comparing fully vaccinated children to unvaccinated children.
Not one. Zero. Zilch.
That absence isn’t because the question is unimportant.
It’s because answering it would be incredibly inconvenient. It would shatter the scaffolding of the entire belief system.
When people ask the logical question—why don’t those studies exist—they’re told it would be unethical to withhold vaccines from the placebo group.
But wait just a minute.
Injecting every child with products lacking any long-term safety data is far more unethical. But we do that. Every single day.
The real reason these studies aren’t done is simple. The results would reveal the truth.
But wait just a minute.
Injecting every child with products lacking any long-term safety data is far more unethical. But we do that. Every single day.
The real reason these studies aren’t done is simple. The results would reveal the truth.
@MidwesternDoc This is only part of the picture. The full report from @MidwesternDoc explains exactly how vaccine “safety studies” are structured to conceal harm.
Once you see it, you can’t unsee it.
midwesterndoctor.com/p/why-have-vac…
Once you see it, you can’t unsee it.
midwesterndoctor.com/p/why-have-vac…
Did you know that instead of using true placebos (saline), many vaccine trials compare one vaccine to another, or to an aluminum-based adjuvant known to cause adverse reactions?
So when both groups experience injuries, the difference appears small, and the vaccine is declared safe.
This design doesn’t eliminate harm. It normalizes it.
It’s a potentially deadly sleight of hand.
So when both groups experience injuries, the difference appears small, and the vaccine is declared safe.
This design doesn’t eliminate harm. It normalizes it.
It’s a potentially deadly sleight of hand.
The use of short monitoring windows makes the problem even worse.
Adverse events following vaccination are often tracked for mere days or weeks.
Take, for example, the safety studies for the hepatitis B vaccines we give every newborn baby. They monitored for side effects for 4-5 days following vaccination.
FOUR TO FIVE DAYS.
Let that sink in.
How is anyone ok with that?
Chronic conditions that emerge months or years later are ignored.
Serious injuries are reclassified as unrelated.
The system then points to the absence of evidence as proof of safety, even though it never even looked for it.
Adverse events following vaccination are often tracked for mere days or weeks.
Take, for example, the safety studies for the hepatitis B vaccines we give every newborn baby. They monitored for side effects for 4-5 days following vaccination.
FOUR TO FIVE DAYS.
Let that sink in.
How is anyone ok with that?
Chronic conditions that emerge months or years later are ignored.
Serious injuries are reclassified as unrelated.
The system then points to the absence of evidence as proof of safety, even though it never even looked for it.
Legal immunity plays a major role here.
Most medical products face lawsuits if they injure people. As they should.
But vaccines don’t. And that single difference removes the strongest incentive for improving safety.
Oversight is simply performative.
Regulators reassure the public while avoiding discoveries that would force accountability or reform.
Most medical products face lawsuits if they injure people. As they should.
But vaccines don’t. And that single difference removes the strongest incentive for improving safety.
Oversight is simply performative.
Regulators reassure the public while avoiding discoveries that would force accountability or reform.
Post-marketing surveillance is supposed to catch problems after approval.
In theory, it’s the safety net.
In practice, it rarely functions that way.
Because regulators already assume vaccines are safe, injury signals are dismissed, reports are buried, and troubling datasets quietly disappear.
When evidence conflicts with the narrative, the narrative always wins.
The narrative doesn’t care if you or your infant were injured. The narrative just wants to survive. The safety net is full of holes.
In theory, it’s the safety net.
In practice, it rarely functions that way.
Because regulators already assume vaccines are safe, injury signals are dismissed, reports are buried, and troubling datasets quietly disappear.
When evidence conflicts with the narrative, the narrative always wins.
The narrative doesn’t care if you or your infant were injured. The narrative just wants to survive. The safety net is full of holes.
@MidwesternDoc If vaccines are as safe as they say, why is the raw safety data so difficult to access?
The full report from @MidwesternDoc walks through that and all of the other contradictions in the vaccine story.
midwesterndoctor.com/p/why-have-vac…
The full report from @MidwesternDoc walks through that and all of the other contradictions in the vaccine story.
midwesterndoctor.com/p/why-have-vac…
Then came COVID. And everything changed.
For the first time, vaccine injury wasn’t abstract. It was tragically personal.
People experienced it themselves or watched it happen to someone they loved.
As injuries became harder to ignore, the censorship increased and the mandates escalated. The belief system went into overdrive.
And it shattered trust in a way messaging can’t ever repair.
For the first time, vaccine injury wasn’t abstract. It was tragically personal.
People experienced it themselves or watched it happen to someone they loved.
As injuries became harder to ignore, the censorship increased and the mandates escalated. The belief system went into overdrive.
And it shattered trust in a way messaging can’t ever repair.
The irony is that vaccines relied on unquestioned trust—faith—to maintain their status.
But COVID exposed how fragile that trust actually was.
Once people noticed that debate was forbidden, data was hidden, and dissent was punished, they stopped asking whether vaccines were safe and started asking why the discussion itself was treated as dangerous.
But COVID exposed how fragile that trust actually was.
Once people noticed that debate was forbidden, data was hidden, and dissent was punished, they stopped asking whether vaccines were safe and started asking why the discussion itself was treated as dangerous.
This isn’t about rejecting medicine. And it’s not about being “anti” anything.
It’s about restoring real science.
It’s about transparency instead of authority. Evidence instead of belief. Consent instead of coercion.
The evidence is out there and you can see it for yourself. You don’t need anyone to tell you what to believe.
It’s about restoring real science.
It’s about transparency instead of authority. Evidence instead of belief. Consent instead of coercion.
The evidence is out there and you can see it for yourself. You don’t need anyone to tell you what to believe.
@MidwesternDoc Thanks for reading! This information was based on a report originally published by @MidwesternDoc.
Key details were streamlined and editorialized for clarity and impact. Read the original report here.
midwesterndoctor.com/p/why-have-vac…
Key details were streamlined and editorialized for clarity and impact. Read the original report here.
midwesterndoctor.com/p/why-have-vac…
@MidwesternDoc For a deeper dive into what modern medicine has overlooked—or intentionally buried—check out these other eye-opening reports by @MidwesternDoc:
The FDA’s 50-Year War on the Safest Painkiller Ever Discovered
midwesterndoctor.com/p/the-remarkab…
The FDA’s 50-Year War on the Safest Painkiller Ever Discovered
midwesterndoctor.com/p/the-remarkab…
@MidwesternDoc What Really Happens to Your Body When You Suppress a Fever With Tylenol?
midwesterndoctor.com/p/why-does-nat…
midwesterndoctor.com/p/why-does-nat…
@MidwesternDoc While you’re at it, give @MidwesternDoc a follow.
No one brings more research, clinical insight, or historical context when it comes to exposing the health myths we’ve all been fed.
This is easily one of the most valuable accounts you’ll ever follow.
--> @MidwesternDoc
No one brings more research, clinical insight, or historical context when it comes to exposing the health myths we’ve all been fed.
This is easily one of the most valuable accounts you’ll ever follow.
--> @MidwesternDoc
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
