81104A local newspaper recently reminded parents about the three responsibilities they needed to fulfill before their children went back to school. These included:

  1. New clothing for the upcoming year

  2. New school supplies

  3. Vaccination schedules completed

If the intent of this newspaper article was to recommend vaccinations to protect children’s HEALTH, why did their recommendations stop there? Why didn’t they mention other important HEALTHY options including:

  1. A refrigerator filled with vegetables and fruits to snack on

  2. The purchasing of new sporting supplies for OUTDOOR play

  3. Quality family time to support a child’s self esteem

  4. The importance of quality home cooked BALANCED meals

  5. The importance of social interaction through after school programs and/or religious youth programs

Whether you support or oppose vaccinations, everyone can agree good health is not achieved or maintained as a result of this medical treatment alone. Why then do the options for children’s “health needs” seem to end with a syringe? Vaccinations do not prevent or treat obesity, type 2 diabetes, gall bladder disease, elevated cholesterol, or elevated blood pressure in children. Why is so much focus and controversy centered around one medical procedure when basic ESSENTIAL health requirements (exercise, nutrition, sleep, hydration and stress reduction) are barely discussed (let alone mandated?)




As a COMMON SENSE doctor it is important for me to understand as complete a picture as possible before making any recommendations to patients. When questions lead to more unresolved questions, it becomes difficult to jump on board and follow recommendations just because “they have withstood the test of time.”

When it comes to the concept of vaccinations, I have questions I have been unable to find answers to. I welcome all readers to offer any tangible credible independent evidence they possess to share with all of us. Here are my questions:

The following code legally removed PHARMACEUTICAL LIABILITY as of October 1, 1988 for ANY INJURY OR DEATH sustained from adverse side effects from any existing OR FUTURE vaccine.

  1. 42 U.S. Code § 300aa–22 – Standards of responsibility | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute: Unavoidable adverse side effects; warnings

    No vaccine manufacturer shall be liable in a civil action for damages arising from a vaccine-related injury or death associated with the administration of a vaccine after October 1, 1988, if the injury or death resulted from side effects that were unavoidable even though the vaccine was properly prepared and was accompanied by proper directions and warnings.

  2. Direct warnings

    No vaccine manufacturer shall be liable in a civil action for damages arising from a vaccine-related injury or death associated with the administration of a vaccine after October 1, 1988, solely due to the manufacturer’s failure to provide direct warnings to the injured party (or the injured party’s legal representative) of the potential dangers resulting from the administration of the vaccine manufactured by the manufacturer.

    How were vaccine pharmaceutical manufacturers able to get Congress to legislate a law indemnifying them from any lawsuit seeking compensation for injuries or death when every other manufacturer remains culpable for injuries or death?

VaxCDC altered

In 1983 the vaccine schedule for children 0-6 years old consisted of 10 vaccines. As of 2015 the recommended vaccine schedule had increased to 36-38 for children 0-6 years of age. My questions are as follows:

  • Has third party independent research shown a significant reduction in childhood mortality as a result of these 26-28 additional vaccines used between 1983 to 2015?

  • Has ANY research demonstrated the safety/risk factors for COMBINING 3,4 or even 5 vaccinations performed in one office visit on children under 6 years of age over a 5 -10 year study?

  •  Has ANY research demonstrated the LONG TERM (lifetime) safety/risk factors for vaccinations?

  • Why is congress working toward passing legislation mandating adults receive vaccinations from 18 years of age until death? Is there research showing 130 doses (the new increased number of lifetime vaccines that would be required by law) efficacious for preventing mortality from these diseases? Where can we find these mortality tables (if they exist?)

These are all reasonable questions that deserve answers regardless of whether or not one supports or opposes vaccinations. It is our responsibility to ourselves and our children to ensure our government and health care system discloses honest information without conflicting interests influencing their decisions.



I’ll close this article with an interesting Supreme Court decision for you to consider:

On February 23, 2011, one day after the Supreme Court blocked lawsuits against drug companies for failing to make vaccines safer, they cleared the way for lawsuits against car manufacturers for failing to make seat belts safer.” (Supreme Court of the United States. Williamson et al v. Maza Motor of America, Inc et al. No. 08-1314. Argued November 3, 2010 – Decided February 23, 2011)

Maybe it’s time we consider shifting our focus to ESSENTIAL LIFESTYLE NEEDS and the quality of health benefits it offers rather than focusing so much effort on one medical procedure being forced upon parents today. If this idea doesn’t produce a positive outcome, couldn’t we always return to the current program? What does the health care field FEAR including this type of option? After all, if they are right, future compliance wouldn’t requiring mandating. Fear of death would cause families to line up waiting their turn to receive their inoculations.



  1. Really thought provoking, Jonathan! It is hard to understand it, unless you start tracing that money trail, perhaps.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I support ANY decision a parent makes for their family as long as they are provided credible information CLEARLY explaining the risks and benefits to make informed intelligent decisions. With over 3 BILLION dollars paid by the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, it is unreasonable for doctors to claim vaccines are without risk. Again, I am NOT attempting to advocate pro or anti vaccine; instead, I’m advocating for greater transparency and truthful objective reporting of safety and risk factors associated with the current vaccines as well as the SCHEDULE of vaccines recommended.

      Liked by 2 people

  2. maureenrose7 · · Reply

    I’m at a loss…just so unsettling

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Answers to these questions are important. They may determine potential risks to children many parents are currently unaware about. In addition, answers may also lead to technological improvements making the industry create better, safer vaccines.


  4. I like your points about things that we should consider for our kids health! So many basic things to consider

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I think many parents would agree we owe our children the best health care choices possible. Our children don’t place their trust in their doctors; they place their trust with their parents. Investing time to learn what is truly in our children’s best interest is an investment in time worth making.

      Liked by 1 person

  5. Vaccines scare me. Mom had a tetnus shot and as they administered they said it includes pertussin. What are you going to do? She needs one, gets other stuff?

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I’m not a fan the way the system implements them. There are too many unanswered questions with regard to the number of vaccines, the age and (schedule) frequency given and the long term ramifications.

      Liked by 1 person

  6. Great post Jonathan…..kat

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Thank you, Kat.


  7. Great question. Why are these suggestions never made? Alarming Meme with statistics regarding child health issues. It really is frightening.

    Thank you for sharing your thoughts on vaccinations. At the start of the primary process last year it was a hot topic. Now, it is long forgotten. You would think health care issues would warrant greater discussion amongst our politicians.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Just today another health insurance company (Aetna) decided to withdraw from participating in Obama care. Politicians want to stay as far away from this topic as possible. They want to leave it in the hands of the regulatory agencies (CDC, NIH, etc…,) health insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies and medical institutions. There are too many special interest groups that could hurt elected officials lose their seats.
      They prefer to close their eyes and claim the “experts” know best how to maintain the health of our nation. This is why the leading causes of general poor health as well as death from cancer, heart disease, diabetes and obesity continue to rise.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. I saw the Aetna news. They joined other large providers who are failing under this healthcare program.

        Meanwhile, the politicians are failing us. There has to be a better way.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. And we (as a population) are failing ourselves by not accepting the responsibility of following a healthy lifestyle needed to improve a healthier (likely) outcome.


  8. Really loving the content you have here, Jonathan. Vaccines are very touchy subject, but something many parents should be more aware of. Thanks for this post and all of the others. Hope you don’t mind, but I feel I will be reblogging many of your informative posts in the near and distant future.

    Keep the great info coming!

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Feel free to share any post you feel adds value for your readers.

      Vaccines are an interesting subject. My writings will NEVER direct anyone to make or withhold a choice. I provide credible sources as references to help people make better informed decisions for THEMSELVES. It is not my role as a doctor to impose any personal views. My purpose is to share information on this topic that seems to elude the media and other mass distributors of information to the general markets. All sides have some level of bias. How can the consumer make an intelligent decision if they are only privy to one side of the “story?” Whether the consumer is pro or anti vaccine, I support their personal decision. Leaving information undisclosed and using a position of authority to state partial (potential) truths is not a reasonable position to place the consumer in when asking them to make a decision for themselves or their family members. As a doctor, I was required by law to receive informed consent from my patients PRIOR to providing ANY treatment. Informed consent means revealing ALL SIDES and ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS. Are doctors really complying with this law by sharing credible information (benefits and risks) regarding vaccinations with their patients?


Your comment can positively impact the lives of others.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: