06/01/2025
The MAHA Commission report includes a stunning indictment of the vaccine industry.
Here is the Vaccine section of the report:
Growth of the Childhood Vaccine Schedule
The Executive Order establishing the MAHA Commission directed the study of any potential contributing causes to the childhood chronic disease crisis, including medical treatments, and to “assess the threat that potential over-utilization of medication… pose[s] to children with respect to chronic inflammation or other established mechanisms of disease, using rigorous and transparent data, including international comparisons.”
Vaccines benefit children by protecting them from infectious diseases. But, as with any medicine, vaccines can have side effects that must be balanced against their benefits. Parents should be fully informed of the benefits and risks of vaccines. Many of them have concerns about the appropriate use of vaccines and their possible role in the growing childhood chronic disease crisis.
• Since 1986, for the average child, by one year of age, the number of recommended vaccines on the CDC childhood schedule has increased from 3 injections to 29 injections (including in utero exposures from vaccines administered to the mother). Of course, parents may choose to delay to a later age or forego one or more of these vaccines.
The number of vaccinations on the American vaccine schedule exceeds the number of vaccinations on many European schedules, including Denmark, which has nearly half as many as the U.S. Yet, no trials have compared the advisability and safety of the U.S. vaccine schedule as compared to other nations.
• Unlike other pharmaceutical products, vaccines are unique in that all 50 states enforce some form of vaccine mandate for public school enrollment although almost all states allow exemptions for religious and/or personal reasons. In contrast, over half of European countries—including the UK—do not require childhood vaccination.
Despite the growth of the childhood vaccine schedule, there has been limited scientific inquiry into the links between vaccines and chronic disease, the impacts of vaccine injury, and conflicts of interest in the development of the vaccine schedule.
These areas warrant future inquiry:
Clinical trials: Our understanding of vaccine safety and any links to chronic disease would benefit from more rigorous clinical trial designs, including the use of true placebos, larger sample sizes, and longer follow-up periods.
Many vaccines on the CDC’s childhood schedule involved small participant groups, had no inert placebo-controlled trials, and had limited safety monitoring, some lasting six months or less—raising concerns about the ability to detect rare or long-term adverse effects.
Complications and the Vaccine Safety Surveillance System: Vaccines can have a wide range of adverse effects. Manufacturers are only required by Federal law to list these adverse events in their package insert if they have a basis to believe there is a causal relationship between the drug and the occurrence of the adverse event.
There are, however, many possible adverse events for which there is inadequate evidence to accept or reject a causal relationship.
Vaccine reactions are supposed to be evaluated in the United States through a range of federal agencies. The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) relies on passive reporting by physicians and others, but provides incomplete “early warning” observational data. Many health care professionals do not report to VAERS because they are not mandated to do so or they may not connect the adverse event to a vaccination. The Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) system, established in 1990, works with healthcare organizations to monitor and study adverse events using electronic health records, covering 15 million people.
However, deidentified data in the VSD, paid for by taxpayers, is not generally available to scientists outside of the VSD network to conduct analyses or replicate findings using VSD data. Furthermore, the CDC has noted that VSD studies are likely prone to confounders and bias; it is also geared towards studying short-term outcomes and is not well-suited to studying associations between vaccination and longer-term chronic disease conditions.
Conflicts of interest: The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 was enacted in response to liability concerns surrounding injuries linked to the three routine childhood vaccines in use at the time.
The law shields vaccine manufacturers from liability for vaccine-related injuries, creating a unique regulatory and legal framework.
This framework creates financial disincentives for pharmaceutical companies to identify safety issues either pre- or post-licensure. Congress made HHS responsible for vaccine safety in the Mandate for Safer Childhood Vaccines.
However, HHS also has the conflicting duty to promote vaccines and to defend them against claims of injury in the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.
In fact, HHS has faced lawsuits for failing to fulfill basic duties under the Mandate for Safer Childhood Vaccines such as its requirement to submit biannual reports to Congress on how it has made vaccines safer.
Scientific and Medical Freedom: Open scientific discussion and inquiry has become more difficult with the expansion of childhood vaccine mandates and public health—combined with efforts to combat vaccine hesitancy.
Physicians who question or deviate from the CDC’s vaccine schedule may face professional repercussions, including scrutiny from licensing boards and potential disciplinary action. The American Medical Association (AMA), for example, adopted a new policy aimed at “addressing public health disinformation” that called to “ensure licensing boards have the authority to take disciplinary action against health professionals for spreading health-related disinformation.”
This dynamic discourages practitioners from conducting or discussing nuanced risk-benefit analyses that deviate from official guidelines—even when those analyses may be clinically appropriate. It also discourages physicians and scientists from studying adverse reactions. This silences critical discussion, discourages reporting to safety systems and hampers vaccine research, and undermines the open dialogue essential to protecting and improving children’s health.
Read it here:https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/WH-The-MAHA-Report-Assessment.pdf
