Vaccines Saved 154 Million Lives? No.
The studies and data reflect this number may be negative.
At the Senate hearing on September 9, I addressed the claim that “Vaccines have saved an estimated 154 million lives globally over 50 years.” This claim was also made in Secretary Kennedy’s hearing a few days prior. Video of my response is below, followed by a more detailed answer to this claim with citations.
[One correction: At 4:31 in the video above, I meant to say “People who get measles die at far lower rates from heart disease and various cancers.”]
The claim that 154 million lives were saved is corrupt vaccine science at its apex.
This claim comes from an advertising report by the World Health Organization (“WHO”) touting its own vaccination program. In a real paper, there would be a confidence interval for the claimed “154 million lives saved.” The reason there is no confidence interval is that this figure is fabricated guesswork, as explained—or I should say buried—on page 42 of the supplement to this paper, in a section titled “Uncertainty of estimates.” There, it explains that it cannot put “bounds around the veracity of the estimates” and that any “bounds are arbitrary” and “should not be interpreted as a claim to where the edges of valid estimated possible [sic] lie.” Meaning, the confidence that any estimate in this paper is correct is zero and it could be just as true that vaccines resulted in a net death of 154 million lives in the last 50 years. That alone renders this study entirely unreliable, and claims made using this study corrupt.
But it gets worse. This claim also fails to account for studies with actual data about vaccines and mortality. For example, almost the entire 154 million lives the report claims were saved comes from two vaccines, the DTP vaccine and the measles vaccine.
As for the DTP vaccine, the body of science based on actual real-world data is clear: this vaccine kills more children than it saves. In fact, the seminal study found that children receiving DTP died at 10 times the rate as those who received no vaccines in the first six months of life. Ten times. That study is based on real data and has a confidence interval. The study found that DTP may have reduced deaths from the diseases it targeted (diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis) but children were dying from other diseases and issues that otherwise would not have been associated with vaccines, absent the study. Accounting for this real-world data would wipe away the entirety of the 154 million lives saved, if you calculated those lives lost from DTP use over the past 50 years.
As for the measles vaccine, this product can prevent transmission of measles, and so surely it can save some lives by preventing measles deaths, right? But that is not the entire story. First, this WHO advertising report estimates that 40% of the decline in measles mortality is due to measles vaccine. But this estimate defies reality. In the United States, measles mortality declined by over 98% before a measles vaccine was introduced in 1963 and declined by over 99% in the U.K. before a measles vaccine was introduced in 1968. As living conditions improve, the hard data reflects that measles mortality declines by close to 99%, not 60% as this WHO advertisement report used. Using the real data regarding reduction of measles mortality absent a vaccine when living conditions improve, and accounting for the DTP data discussed above, the benefit of vaccines over the last 50 years becomes inverted.
But it gets even worse. A 100,000-person study conducted by the nation of Japan over a period of over 20 years found that those who had measles and mumps died at a far lower rate from cardiovascular disease than those who never had measles and mumps. In fact, 20 years after the start of the study, around 14% of those who never had measles and mumps were dead of heart disease whereas only 7% of those who had measles and mumps were dead of heart disease. Heart disease is the number one killer of Americans. Not only does measles have a statistically significant reduction in deaths from heart disease, study after study shows having measles provides a statistically significant reduction in death from various cancers.[1]
Notably, these cardiovascular and cancer studies were based on real data, not estimates, provided confidence intervals, and were statistically significant. If you now add this data to the above about DTP and measles, you are far negative in terms of the benefits of vaccines. Consider that unlike other pathogens that have come and gone, these pathogens apparently conferred a survival advantage and hence may explain why they became less virulent over time and remained in circulation.
Bottom line, the WHO’s advertising report, masquerading as science, epitomizes the corruption of science regarding vaccines. Overstating the benefits of vaccines is just as dangerous as overstating their risks. Doing so deprives the policy makers, medical professionals, and the public of the ability to make rational, informed, decisions regarding these products.
[1] For example, the International Agency for Research on Cancer found that those who never had measles had a 66% increased rate of Non-Hodgkin lymphoma and a 233% increased rate of Hodgkin lymphoma. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16406019/ (See Table 2: in the Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma (NHL) column, divide the odds ratio 1 (never had measles) with .6 (had measles) which results in a 66% increased risk, and in the Hodgkin’s Lymphoma (HL) column, divide the odds ratio 1 (never had measles) with .3 (had measles) which results in a 233% increased risk). These two cancers killed an estimated 21,170 Americans in 2022 (see https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/hodg.html and https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/nhl.html). There are event studies that found remission of Hodgkin’s disease after having measles (see https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/4574047/). Likewise, researchers at the Department of Health Care and Epidemiology at the University of British Columbia and the Department of Biology at the University of Victoria found that those who never had measles had a 50% increased rate of ovarian cancer, which killed an estimated 12,810 Americans in 2022 (see https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16490323/ and https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/ovary.html). Other studies have reached similar conclusions that measles—as well as mumps, rubella, chickenpox, etc.—reduce the rate of various forms of other cancers, including a study from researchers at the University of Berne, Switzerland that specifically reviewed these fever-causing illnesses and found that the “study consistently revealed a lower cancer risk for patients with a history of FICD [febrile infectious childhood diseases]” (see https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9824838/). Studies have also found that children who have had measles have far less allergies and atopic diseases, such as asthma, and adults who had measles have a reduced risk of Parkinson’s Disease (see https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19255001/; https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16854347/ and https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/4061437/).
Vaccines, Amen is available on Amazon!
In addition, measles can be effectively treated with 2 high doses of vitamin A.
Vitamin A is so important that it may be given at the same time that a measles vaccine is given to reduce side effects / chance of active vaccine-derived measles in recipients.
Refer to the book Every Second Child, where Australian aboriginal children were dying at catastrophic rates when given vaccines. These children were found to be vitamin C deficient. Vitamin C became critical in saving lives. Nutrition rather than vaccines are critical. https://archive.org/details/everysecondchild00arch
Exactly as you say, when living standards (and nutrition) improve deaths go down. Further, modern medicine with the ability to provide IV hydration when it is needed (and parental knowledge about the importance of hydration and effective supportive care during illness) are key in reducing deaths from infection.
A lot of these doctors have medicated themselves, and one another, into ignorant stupors, vis-a-vis decades of heavy med use.
This is exacerbated by the fact that they spent their academic and professional careers as obedient twits.
Doctors of Petrochemical Medicine are the sickest among us in so many ways.
Goddamnit these morons are stupid.