Help Support My Fearless and Truly Independent Journalism Exposing the Lies We’re Told about Vaccines!

“…a rare journalist … who actually digs deep for the truth on a matter.” Dr. Kelly Brogan, MD

I am crowdfunding independent journalism on vaccines, including a major multi-part exposé on how the government and mainstream media systematically deceive the public about the safety and effectiveness of the influenza vaccine. 

You can help me get this vital information out to the public by making a financial contribution to the effort.

Update, December 13, 2019: I have a number of projects underway. The next major article I intend to publish will be a detailed examiniation of the Hviid et al. 2019 Danish study that’s been hailed by the media as proving that the MMR vaccine doesn’t cause autism even in genetically predisposed children. I’ll explain the problems with the study and why that conclusion simply does not follow from its findings.

That article is mostly written and I’m working on being able to free up the time to complete, carefully edit, and publish it.

After that, my next major project will be to complete my flu shot series. In the meantime, I sometimes also write less major articles that aren’t so intensively laborious. For example, I do timely responses to deceitful mainstream media articles.

In addition to the time it takes to do research, write, edit, and publish the kind of high quality content I do, I am also always just researching in general, which requires a huge amount of additional time.

I cannot do this work without your support. I simply do not have the means. My goal is to gradually increase my monthly donation goal so that this important work can become a more stable source of income for me (I have a family to provide for, after all), and so that I can focus even more of my time to this important mission.

Flu Shot Exposé Project Overview

“Jeremy R. Hammond’s must-read series on the corporate and government corruption behind the flu vaccine”

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

“well worth reading” Dr. Joseph Mercola

I am writing a major multi-part exposé demonstrating how the government and media routinely and systematically deceive the public about the safety and effectiveness of the influenza vaccine.

Thanks to financial contributions from my community of readers, I have been able to research, write, and publish the first three installments:

1. Should You Get the Flu Shot Every Year? Don’t Ask the New York Times.

2. How the CDC Uses Fear and Deception to Sell More Flu Vaccines

3. How You’re Being Lied to about the Risks of Getting a Flu Vaccine Annually

4. The CDC’s Criminal Recommendation for a Flu Shot During Pregnancy

In part one, I show how the New York Times, in order to persuade readers to obediently line up for a flu shot every year in accordance with the CDC’s recommendation, deceives readers by grossly mischaracterizing its own sources from the scientific literature on the influenza vaccine.

In part two, I dive even deeper into the medical literature to illustrate further how, by so deceiving the public, the media are just following the CDC’s example, as well as how public vaccine policy represents a threat to both our health and liberty.

In part three, I focus more specifically on the question of vaccine safety, showing why the claims that the flu shot is “safe” cannot be trusted and how studies have shown that getting vaccinated annually may actually increase your risk of illness.

In part four, I focus on the use of mercury in vaccines and the CDC’s recommendation that pregnant women get flu shots, showing how if the pharmaceutical companies made the same claims the CDC does about the safety of this practice, they could be held criminally liable for committing fraud. I expose how the CDC lies about the science, misrepresenting its own cited studies. I also show how science has established biologically plausible mechanisms by which this practice might be contributing to the increasing prevalence of autism.

I am now fundraising to be able to dedicate the time to writing part five, in which I will focus again the the question of effectiveness by even more fully exposing the CDC’s lie that getting a flu shot is “the best way” to prevent the flu. In part five, you’ll learn:

  • How there are long-term unintended consequences and opportunity costs to vaccination that aren’t taken into account under existing public vaccine policy.
  • How natural immunity is superior to vaccine-conferred immunity.
  • How there are benefits to naturally acquired immunity that must be taken into consideration.
  • Examples of unintended consequences and opportunity costs will include:
    • How mass vaccination for pertussis has caused a genetic shift in the bacteria so that today vaccinated individuals have a higher odds of being infected with the dominant circulating strains.
    • How natural infection during childhood with measles conferred numerous health benefits.
    • How mass vaccination for measles has shifted the risk burden away from children, in whom it is generally a benign disease in developed countries like the US, and onto those in whom it poses a greater risk: infants and adults.
    • How mass vaccination for chicken pox has likewise shifted the risk burden and, far from being an efficient means of disease prevention, has caused a perpetual cycle of disease and treament that places a net economic burden onto society.
    • How early childhood infection with Haemophilus Influenzae B virus (Hib) has been found to protect against childhood cancer.
    • How mass Hib vaccination has also caused a shift in the genetic makeup of circulating strains and may have likewise shifted the risk burden onto older patients in whom it poses a much greater risk.
    • How getting a flu shot denies individuals the opportunity to develop the superior immunity conferred by natural infection and how the consequences of this are harmful. (Review of key takeaways from part three.)
  • How the CDC’s claim that getting a flu shot is “the best way” to prevent the flu is unsupported by scientific evidence.
  • How there are ways to naturally prevent infection and to boost your immune system to readily handle the virus in the event of exposure, and how these things might be far more effective at reducing the risk of illness and lowering health care costs.
  • How influenza is in large part a disease of vitamin D deficiency, and yet how the CDC refuses to advise the public to maintain vitamin D sufficiency during winter months — the “flu season” — in favor of pushing flu shots for the pharmaceutical industry.
  • How the government and pharmaceutical industry focus on vaccines biases the direction of scientific research and wastes precious resources that could be put to use more effectively toward the goal of bettering public health.

As with parts one through four, my pledge to you is that part five will be packed with empowering knowledge, fully referenced so you can check my sources for yourself and have those resources available to you, and masterfully written so you’ll able to quickly and easily consume the vast amount of information I’ll be providing to you.

Nobody is paying me to do this work, which costs me considerably. I have living expenses and a family to provide for, so to be able to continue this mission, I require financial support from readers. This is a 100% reader-funded project! 

Your donation will help me get this vital information out to the public. 

Why Crowdfund? And How Does It Work?

This project is being made possible by financial contributions from my readers.

You might be wondering why I’m not using one of the available crowdfunding platforms out there, such as Kickstarter or Patreon, for this fundraiser. One reason is that these companies take a 5% cut of the total amount raised, whereas by hosting it here on my own site and using PayPal, I can reduce that to 2.9% + $0.30 per transaction. Another reason is that independent voices have had their accounts suspended on such platforms, and by self-hosting this fundraising effort, I can speak out without the risk of this happening.

Sound good? If this works, it will serve as a model for me moving forward to be able to deliver you impactful journalism that empowers you with actionable knowledge. This is not just about creating a series of articles. It is about revolutionizing how journalism is done. It is about working together to help make a positive impact, to help ensure a brighter future for our children and future generations of humanity.

Why It Matters

This project focuses on the influenza vaccine, but the implications are profoundly greater. This exposé is relevant because, as it illuminates, our health, lives, and liberty are at grave risk. Public vaccine policy poses a threat to our children and future generations of humanity.

My exposé will connect the dots and synthesize a vast amount of information in a way that enables you to see the big picture and fully grasp the significance of just how dangerously the public is being systematically lied to.

This exposé is needed because there is no serious discussion about vaccine happening in the mainstream media. What the government and media say science says about vaccines and what science actually tells us are two completely different things.

I have already incontrovertibly demonstrated that in the already published installments, but there is still so much more to cover!

This project matters because in order for this threat to our health to be alleviated, political change must occur, and for political change to occur, the nature of the mainstream discourse about vaccines must change.

Together, we can and will make a positive impact. We have to. Our children are depending on us.

How This Project Is Different

While the mainstream media has not only utterly failed to educate the public about vaccines, there is a ton of information available online from alternative sources (including, of course, the medical literature itself, searchable at PubMed.gov). So how is my exposé different from everything else out there about the flu vaccine?

Well, for one, most people just don’t have time to research the medical literature for themselves. It takes a huge amount of time, and the science can be very difficult to interpret and analyze. What is required is for journalists with the necessary research and analytic skills to convey the most critical information in a meaningful way to the general public.

There are a lot of people doing amazing work in this area. But another part of the problem is that there is so much information out there. There is a great deal of misinformation on both sides. While some alternative media sources do cover the vaccine issue reasonably well, one tends to get disparate glimpses of various facets. Content that really comprehensively overviews a topic such as “the influenza vaccine” in a way that enables the reader to relatively quickly and easily get fully up to speed on what the science says and approaches the issue from all angles is rare or nonexistent. And that’s no surprise because, frankly, this is an extremely difficult and time-consuming task that requires specialized skills.

I recognize that I have the required skills in research, analysis, and, above all, writing, and I feel compelled by my conscience to utilize these skills to get this information out there. I have shifted the focus of my work away from US foreign policy and toward the vaccine issue because this is where I feel my voice is most needed at this point in time.

But this is not a selfless effort. On the contrary, I view it as being in my own best interests to do everything in my power to make a positive impact. Indeed, my primary consideration is what kind of world I want my son to grow up in. If you are a parent, you know there can’t be any greater motivation than that.

My exposé connects the dots, synthesizing a massive amount of information about the flu vaccine in a way that helps readers see the bigger picture. Basically, you could either spend hundreds of hours doing your own research to really understand the broad range of issues related to the influenza vaccine, or you can just read my exposé. (And then, if you want to dig even deeper, you can start by checking my sources and going from there.)

While there is some great work being done out there on this issue, the nature of the topic itself can make it difficult to effectively communicate ideas through writing. This is something I excel at. I’ve been described by Barron’s as “a writer of rare skill”, and I am confident that you’ll agree part one of my exposé is extraordinarily well written.

I don’t have a lot of resources, but even with my modest means, I have already been able to make an impact with my writing. My work has been cited by Dr. Joseph Mercola of the leading natural health website Mercola.com, and I have been collaborating with Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s organization Children’s Health Defense (formerly World Mercury Project) to get my message out about vaccines. My work has also been published at GreenMedInfo.com and the National Vaccine Information Center’s publication The Vaccine Reaction.

I have had considerable impact despite my lack of resources, and hold that up as a testament to the quality of my work.

So that’s how this project is different, and why I feel it is worth supporting. In the end, it is really up to the information consumer to determine how knowledge is imparted to them through the media. Where you direct your dollars helps determine the future. I ask you to join me in this effort. My research, analysis, and writing. Your financial contribution. Together, we can have an impact and help change the nature of the public discourse on this critically important subject:

Key Takeaways from Published Installments

Key Takeaways from Part 1
Here are the key points to learn from part one, “Should You Get the Flu Shot Every Year? Don’t Ask the New York Times.

  • What the government and media say science says about vaccines and what science actually tells us are two completely different and contradictory things. A report from the New York Times advocating the CDC’s recommendation that everyone aged six months and up get an annual flu shot presents a useful case study.
  • The New York Times claims that science tells us that the vaccine confers a “big payoff in public health”, but its own source from the scientific literature actually concluded that the assumptions underlying the CDC’s universal flu shot recommendation are unsupported by scientific evidence.
  • The Times claims that harms from the vaccine are “almost nonexistent”, but its own source from the scientific literature actually highlighted the alarming lack of high quality safety studies and concluded that randomized controlled trials to assess the vaccine’s safety in young children are “urgently required”.
  • By so grossly deceiving its readers about the science, the media are just following the CDC’s example. In fact, the Times’ own source went so far in its criticism of the CDC’s recommendation that it accused the CDC of deliberately misrepresenting the science in order to sustain its policy.
  • The two key assumptions underlying the CDC’s policy are that the vaccine reduces transmission of the virus and reduces hospitalizations and deaths from influenza. But as the Times’ own source noted, neither of these assumptions are supported by the weight of scientific evidence.
  • The quality of the available scientific evidence, according to the Times’ own source, is also “low”, including because so many of the studies have been industry funded, with “evidence of widespread manipulation of conclusions”.
  • Apart from the questionable nature of the evidence for effectiveness in older children, the CDC recommends the vaccine for children as young as six months even though the vaccine has not been shown to be either effective or safe in children under age two.
  • The CDC issue its recommendation that pregnant women get a flu shot during any trimester despite no randomized controlled trials to study the safety of doing so ever having been done.
Key Takeaways from Part 2
Here are the key points to learn from part two, “How the CDC Uses Fear and Deception to Sell More Flu Vaccines“:

  • The media, by deceiving the public about what the science says about vaccines, are just following the example set by the CDC.
  • The CDC views people doing their own research online to take control of their own health and make their own informed choices as an obstacle to be overcome in order to achieve its goal of increasing vaccination rates — to which end it employs a deliberate strategy of fear marketing.
  • The CDC claims that hundreds of thousands of people are hospitalized and tens of thousands die from the flu every year, and the media parrot this claim as though known fact, when the reality is that these numbers do not come directly from death certificates or surveillance data, but from mathematical models that are highly controversial because they are based on dubious assumptions that risk greatly overestimating the virus’s true impact on public health.
  • The CDC claims that vaccination greatly reduces deaths among the elderly, but the studies it has relied on to support this claim have been thoroughly discredited by the scientific community as suffering fatally from a “healthy user” selection bias: it isn’t that elderly people who were vaccinated were less likely to die during that coming flu season, but that people so sick and frail that they were more likely to soon die were less likely to get vaccinated.
  • Government researchers have acknowledged the effectiveness of natural immunity at reducing flu deaths among the elderly.
  • Studies have concluded that the billions of dollars spent on influenza vaccination campaigns every year is not a cost effective use of resources. One study concluded that it costs more to vaccinate in most years than it would be to not vaccinate.
  • While the CDC’s flu vaccine recommendation rests on the assumption that vaccination reduces viral transmission, a study published last year actually found that vaccinated individuals shed more than six times as much aerosolized virus in their breath than people who weren’t vaccinated.
  • The media frequently characterize anyone who dares to question public vaccine policy as believing in some kind of “conspiracy theory”, but no such theory is required to explain how the CDC could get it so wrong; the misuse of power by those with good intentions, the institutionalized bias within the medical establishment, and the endemic corruption within government agencies like the CDC and FDA are sufficient to explain it.
  • Public vaccine policy not only threatens our health, but also our liberty as it constitutes an all-out assault on our right to informed consent — one of the most fundamental ethics in the practice of medicine.
Key Takeaways from Part 3
Here are the key points to learn from part three, “How You’re Being Lied to about the Risks of Getting a Flu Vaccine Annually“:

  • As another illustration of how the mainstream media systematically misinform the public about what science says about vaccines, the Washington Post manufactures parental consent for public vaccine policy by blatantly lying that no vaccine has been added to the CDC’s routine childhood schedule until it has been studied for safety when given with every other vaccine on the schedule. Despite having been shown that this claim is false, they refuse to issue a correction.
  • The government and media also lie about the risks from aluminum in vaccines, telling the public that it is harmless. Yet the study the CDC and FDA rely on to support this claim amounts to nothing less than scientific fraud because it: (1) used an already falsified “minimal risk level” that was several times too high; (2) assumed that the body burden of exposure from injection is the same as ingestion, even though the FDA knows perfectly well no more than about 1% is absorbed through the gut lining, whereas 100% is absorbed through injection; (3) only considered the amount of aluminum found in the blood as contributing to the body burden, even while acknowledging that it can be carried by immune cells into the brain, where it accumulates. (Note: the flu shot doesn’t contain aluminum, but this deception is relevant for the forthcoming discussion in part four of mercury, which is contained in some flu shots.)
  • Brain inflammation is a known cause of autism, and the whole purpose of including aluminum in vaccines is to provoke a more inflammatory response.
  • Influenza vaccines have been associated with serious adverse events including narcolepsy, febrile seizures, and Guillain­-Barré syndrome (GBS). The Cochrane Collaboration has remarked that studies finding a statistically significant association between the influenza vaccine and GBS “demonstrate the danger of commencing a large vaccination campaign without adequate harms assessment.”
  • Commencing a large vaccination campaign without adequate harms assessment is what public health officials and the industry do every year. This is because every year the vaccine is manufactured differently, and manufacturers have only about six months from the time health officials make a determination which strains of influenza virus should be included to produce and get the vaccine to market in time for “flu season”.
  • Just because the FDA approves a vaccine for the market doesn’t mean that it has actually been shown to be effective at preventing the target disease. This is because the FDA uses an antibody response as a surrogate marker for vaccine effectiveness. This is scientifically invalid because an antibody response is neither always sufficient nor even necessary for the development of immunity, but it allows the pharmaceutical industry to get their vaccines to market without having to prove that they actually work.
  • The CDC reassures us that after a flu vaccine in Europe was shown to cause narcolepsy, it looked at data from the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) and Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) and determined that there was no heightened risk of narcolepsy from flu shots in the US. However, this is not very reassuring because the CDC tightly controls access to the VSD and severe underreporting is a known problem with VAERS.
  • VAERS was a product of a 1986 law, the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA), the purpose of which was to grant legal immunity to vaccine manufacturers since pharmaceutical companies were going out of business due to vaccine injury lawsuits, which threatened the supply chain and hence also public vaccine policy. The Supreme Court upheld this immunity in 2011, determining that the “unavoidability” of vaccine injuries establishes a complete defense against injury claims, assuming the vaccine was properly prepared and accompanied with adequate warnings (i.e., the vaccine package inserts).
  • Also established under the NCVIA is the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), which effectively shifts the financial burden for vaccine injuries away from the pharmaceutical companies and onto the taxpaying consumers.
  • Numerous studies have found the diphtheria, tetanus, and whole cell pertussis (DTP) vaccine to be associated with an increased risk of death in childhood. This illustrates the importance of taking the opportunity costs of vaccination into consideration, which public health officials simply do not do.
  • The influenza vaccine presents another particularly useful illustration, as studies have shown that repeated annual vaccination can actually increase your risk of illness. This is because naturally acquired immunity is superior to that conferred by the vaccine and protects not only against the infecting strain of influenza, but other strains as well, and even against other viruses. While vaccines are designed to stimulate a strong antibody response, natural immunity confers the additional benefit of a robust cell-mediated immunity, thus offering greater protection in the long run.
Key Takeaways from Part 4
Here are the key points to take away from part four, “The CDC’s Criminal Recommendation for a Flu Shot During Pregnancy”:

  • ­There is an institutionalized cognitive dissonance within the medical establishment when it comes to science on the safety and effectiveness of vaccines. One illustration of this is how when observational studies find associations between vaccines and harms, we are reminded that such studies cannot prove causation, yet when such studies find no associations, we are told that they are determinative.
  • This is so for a 2013 study by CDC researchers that found a significantly increased risk of miscarriage for women who two years in a row received flu shots containing a pandemic H1N1 antigen component.
  • The CDC’s webpage “Pregnant Women & Influenza (Flu)” says that there’s “a lot of evidence” that its safe for pregnant women to get a flu shot. It does not mention the findings of its own study showing an increased risk of miscarriage. Nor does it mention that some versions of the flu shot contain mercury.
  • While the CDC assures pregnant women that its safe to get a flu shot, all inactivated influenza vaccines on the market in the US today are classified by the FDA as pharmaceutical products for which “there are no adequate and well-controlled studies in pregnant women” (or for which “there are no adequate and well-controlled studies in humans”).
  • Pregnant women are excluded from clinical safety trials because the medical establishment considers it unethical to include them. Yet the same medical establishment has no problem with mass vaccinating this population in the absence of clinical trials demonstrating that it’s safe to do so. In effect, the entire population is treated as the subjects of a mass uncontrolled experiment without their informed consent.
  • If the pharmaceutical corporations were to make the same claim that the CDC does about flu shots, that their safety during pregnancy has been scientifically demonstrated, they could be sued for fraud. This is why the manufacturers include the warning in their flu shot package inserts that the safety and effectiveness of their product has not been established in pregnant women (or nursing mothers).
  • The CDC’s fraudulent claims and failure to advise pregnant women to get mercury-free flu shots are illustrative of how the CDC has elevated the goal of achieving high vaccination rates above the goal of achieving better public health.
  • To support its claim of vaccine safety, the CDC cites seven observational studies. Not one of these studies, however, demonstrates that its safe for pregnant women to get a flu shot. On the contrary, what their findings demonstrate are that the surveillance system used to detect vaccine adverse events is wholly inadequate and that randomized, placebo-controlled trials are urgently required to be able to make any conclusive judgments about the risks.
  • Additionally, not one of those seven studies considered the question of whether mercury-containing flu shots are safe for pregnant women and their vulnerable developing fetuses.
  • The CDC claims that the mercury-based preservative used in multi-dose vials of influenza vaccine, thimerosal, is safe, including for pregnant women, and that there is no evidence that it causes any harm. Yet FDA researchers have acknowledged in the peer-reviewed medical literature that “no controlled studies have been conducted to examine low-dose thimerosal in humans” and that it’s possible that the cumulative mercury exposures from vaccines could cause “subtle neurodevelopmental abnormalities”.
  • While multi-dose vials of influenza vaccine contain thimerosal, it was removed from other vaccines recommended for routine use in children in the early 2000s. The CDC claims this was done merely “as a precautionary measure” despite “no evidence of harm”. The truth is that this decision was made because the CDC’s routine childhood vaccine schedule was exposing children to cumulative levels of mercury that exceeded the government’s own safety guidelines.
  • The CDC claims that the form of mercury in flu shots, ethylmercury, unlike the form found in fish due to environmental contamination, methylmercury, is not toxic and is quickly and easily eliminated from the body. Yet to support these claims, it cites studies that actually confirm that ethylmercury is a known neurotoxin that accumulates in the brain and may cause neurodevelopmental harm.
  • The CDC claims that “Vaccines Do Not Cause Autism”, yet to support this assertion it relies entirely on retrospective observational studies that can neither prove nor disprove a causal association between vaccines and autism.
  • The CDC also cites a 2004 review of those studies by the Institute of Medicine (IOM), yet that report acknowledged that the hypothesis that vaccines can cause autism among genetically susceptible subpopulations cannot be excluded by observational studies. Furthermore, none of the studies cited by the CDC were actually designed to test that hypothesis.
  • All of those studies also looked only at either the MMR vaccine or at thimerosal. As another IOM report in 2013 observed, studies designed to determine the safety of administering vaccines according to the CDC’s routine childhood vaccine schedule have not been done.
  • The CDC also cites studies conducted since that 2004 IOM review. On its website, it cites nine studies. Of these, only four bear any relevance to its flu shot recommendation for pregnant women. Not one of these studies was designed to test the hypothesis that this practice increases the risk of autism in the offspring. One of them explicitly admits that no observational study can disprove the hypothesis that thimerosal exposure increases the risk of autism and that testing this hypothesis would require a large-scale prospective randomized trial.
  • While the CDC website declares that vaccines don’t cause autism, the director of the CDC in 2008, Julie Gerberding, admitted that vaccines can cause fevers, which in children with a mitochondrial disorder can cause damage manifesting as symptoms of autism.
  • Gerberding was referring specifically to the case of Hannah Poling, a young girl who regressed into autism after receiving nine vaccine doses at once and whose family received compensation under the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) for vaccine-caused encephalopathy (brain damage).
  • The CDC’s own director of its Immunization Safety Office, Frank DeStefano, has acknowledged that it’s possible that vaccines can cause autism in genetically susceptible children, but the problem is that we just don’t know who those children are.
  • One of the reviewers for the 2004 IOM report was Dr. Andrew Zimmerman, who also served as an expert witness for the government in VICP cases until he informed government lawyers of his professional medical opinion that vaccines can cause autism in genetically susceptible individuals. The same government lawyers subsequently lied about his opinion to deny compensation, falsely asserting in court that Zimmerman’s view was that vaccines can’t cause autism.
  • One of the known risk factors for autism is maternal inflammation. The CDC’s flu shot recommendation for pregnant women essentially advises them to trade the relatively small potential risk that they’ll get the flu and develop a fever with the virtually guaranteed inflammatory response to vaccination.
  • The only study to date that was actually designed to look at whether influenza vaccination during pregnancy might increase the risk of autism found that it did. To eliminate the statistical significance of that finding, however, the study authors applied an inappropriate statistical method that presupposed the non-existence of genetic or environmental susceptibility—such as the assumption that women with autoimmune disease are not at higher risk of vaccination causing neurodevelopmental harm to their fetus.
  • One of the markers of inflammation caused by influenza vaccination is a cytokine called interleukin-6 (IL-6), which studies have not only found to be associated with autism, but necessary and sufficient for producing autism in the offspring.
  • Another biologically plausible mechanism by which maternal influenza vaccination could cause autism in the offspring is that neurotoxic ethylmercury passes through the placental and blood-brain barriers, causing an activation of microglia in the brain that is characteristic of a neuroinflammatory process that is seen in the brains of autistic patients.
  • The mainstream corporate media, rather than doing journalism and properly informing people to be able to make an informed choice about vaccination, instead engage in public policy advocacy and collude in deceiving the public about vaccine safety. For example, to ensure that the public got the desired message that pregnant women should get a flu shot, the CDC hand-picked journalists it knew would help whitewash the finding of a statistically significant greater-than-sevenfold increased risk of miscarriage among women who’d received a flu shot during pregnancy.

Crowdfunding Progress

%

Monthly Goal: $1500.00
Raised: $188.00
Donors: 18
Fundraiser Started: December 1, 2019
Page Updated: December 13, 2019
“Jeremy Hammond is a true investigative journalist, not afraid to dig for the truth on vaccine safety or to expose the corruption, lies, and manipulative tactics of the official vaccine promoters, such as the CDC and the FDA, with laser-like clarity.

“By contrasting the actual research on vaccine science—or lack thereof—with the pap being sold to us by the media, CDC, and public health officials, it becomes glaringly obvious that the powers-that-be do not have the public’s best interest in mind.

“I find his work not only very educational for myself as a naturopathic physician as well as for my patients, but am also impressed by his dedication to his craft; it takes hundreds of hours to research and write such articles and nobody is paying him to do this.

“Jeremy is providing a true service to humanity with his investigative work and deserves our deepest gratitude, respect and support. He certainly has mine.” Dr. Anke Zimmermann, ND, FCAH

Naturopathic Physician, www.drzimmermann.org

Prior Months’ Fundraisers

November 2019

Goal: $1,500 | Raised: $4,046

  • 170% 170%

October 2019

Goal: $1,200 | Raised: $1,444

  • 170% 170%

September 2019

Goal: $1,200 | Raised: $2,044

  • 170% 170%

August 2019

Goal: $1,200 | Raised: $1,072

  • 89% 89%

Projects Requiring Funding 🤔

Here are articles I plan to write and estimated amounts required for me to be able to afford to so so.

Response to Hviid, et al.

A recent large population study in Denmark has been hailed as once again proving that vaccines don’t cause autism. I’m writing a detailed article explaining why it doesn’t.

  • $4,000 / $4,000 100% 100%

Influenza Vaccine Exposé Part 5

The fifth and final installment will fully expose the CDC’s lie that science has proven the flu shot to be “the best way” to prevent the flu.

  • $1,948 / $2,000 97% 97%

Response to NYT Propaganda on Varicella Vaccine

A recent New York Times article cites a study finding that children vaccinated for chicken pox also have a lower incidence of shingles to advocate public vaccine policy. I want to write a response showing why the study doesn’t support mass varicella vaccination because both the NYT and study authors are missing the big picture.

  • $0 / $1,000 0% 0%

Completed Projects 😀

  • $1,200 / $1,200 100% 100%
  • $800 / $800 100% 100%
  • $800 / $800 100% 100%
  • $2,500 / $2,500 100% 100%
  • $400/$400 100% 100%
  • $700/$700 100% 100%
“I dare say that journalists have gotten either very lazy, very scared, or both. It is a rare journalist – like Jeremy Hammond, or Sheryl Attkisson – who actually digs deep for the truth on a matter.” Dr. Kelly Brogan, MD

Holistic Women's Health Psychiatrist and New York Times Bestselling Author, kellybroganmd.com

“Jeremy Hammond has recently produced two stellar pieces of investigative journalism on how the science of flu vaccines is mis-reported by the CDC and the mainstream media. He is currently working on a third. I have found his pieces to be carefully sourced, thoughtful, highly readable and compelling….

“If we want investigative journalism on this topic, we’re going to have to fund it ourselves, or we won’t get much of it! I’d rather pay him than for a subscription to the Washington Post or New York Times, both of which continue to demonstrate woeful bias on this topic.” Jen Downey

“Glad to see that a rare few independent thinking journalists exist.” J. P.

“I don’t know how to thank you enough.” A. R.

“Jeremy, you’re doing great work! Good on you for taking on the media behemoths and trying to get out all the facts about vaccines.” K. R.

“Thanks for all you do!” B. S.

“You’re amazing! Keep up the great work.” J. N.

“I am a Mom of an autistic son 13.5yrs old… Thanks!!!” C. S.

“Thanks for what you’re doing! Keep it up!” J. G.

“Thank you so much for taking the time out of your life to pursue the answers to relevant largely unposed questions about our vaccine program, and the science that bears on it.” J. D.

“Great work!!” C. P.

“A greatly needed public service! … Thanks so much Jeremy for your dedication to searching for the truth on the flu shot.” M. E.

“Jeremy, A friend forwards me your articles — which I much appreciate. Thank you for the good work you do.” Y. P.

“Keep up the great work of investigative journalism!”

F. P.

Pin It on Pinterest