Category Archives: ASK Dr. Paul G. King (vaccine questions)

STUDY: HPV-Pharmaceutical Companies’ Role in State Vaccination Policymaking

Pharmaceutical Companies’ Role in State Vaccination Policymaking: The Case of Human Papillomavirus Vaccination


Objectives. We sought to investigate roles that Merck & Co Inc played in state human papillomavirus (HPV) immunization policymaking, to elicit key stakeholders’ perceptions of the appropriateness of these activities, and to explore implications for relationships between health policymakers and industry.

Methods. We used a series of state case studies combining data from key informant interviews with analysis of media reports and archival materials. We interviewed 73 key informants in 6 states that were actively engaged in HPV vaccine policy deliberations.

Results. Merck promoted school-entry mandate legislation by serving as an information resource, lobbying legislators, drafting legislation, mobilizing female legislators and physician organizations, conducting consumer marketing campaigns, and filling gaps in access to the vaccine. Legislators relied heavily on Merck for scientific information. Most stakeholders found lobbying by vaccine manufacturers acceptable in principle, but perceived that Merck had acted too aggressively and nontransparently in this case.

Conclusions. Although policymakers acknowledge the utility of manufacturers’ involvement in vaccination policymaking, industry lobbying that is overly aggressive, not fully transparent, or not divorced from financial contributions to lawmakers risks undermining the prospects for legislation to foster uptake of new vaccines.


Spacing Out Vaccines


Once again Dr.Paul G.King has exposed the establishments propaganda.  In this case the vaccine apologists,  who rail against parents and scientists who claim that vaccines are causing the chronic epidemic of illnesses in children, are not satisfied with parents who “compromise” and  “space out vaccines”.  The author of the article that Dr. King is responding utters “sound bites” that are meant to strike fear into the hearts of all parents.  He gives us the soundbite that evokes the “visual”, that spacing out vaccines is like failing to put a safety seat belt on your child.

VLA Comment: If you ever wondered if spacing out vaccines is a good compromise…guess again!.

Read Dr. Paul G.  Kings analysis

All you need to know about INFLUENZA-What it is and the Flu Vaccine Myth &Risk

2014_Flu_Warning_APPENDIX B FLU_PGK’sReality-basedResponsesTo_SettingTheRecordStraight_DebunkingALLTheFluVaccineMyths_b

Excerpts:   On average, no more than about 20% of the “flu” cases in the USA each year seem to be caused by influenza viruses. The disease “flu” can be defined as any acute respiratory infec­tion (ARI) that is characterized by a patient’s exhibiting two (2) or more of the following symptoms, “body temperature ≥37.8°C [≥ 99.5°F], cough, sore throat, headache, runny nose, phlegm, and myalgia [muscle pain/ache]”.

Influenza was and is a minor subset of the cases of “flu” that typically occur and are labeled “flu” in the “flu season” that starts in the Fall.  The “flu”  can be caused by “influenza types A and B (including 2009-H1N1), RSV types A and B, parainfluenza types 1–4, metapneumovirus, rhinovirus, coxsackievirus/echovirus, adenovirus types B and E, bocavirus, and coronavirus types NL63, HKU1, 229E, and OC43” as well as possibly other viruses


Vaccines: There are NO “flu” vaccines, where, to be a “flu” vaccine, the vaccine would have to be made to provide protection from ALL of the viruses that have been found to cause the symptoms of “flu” in humans!

MOREOVER: The inactivated-influenza vaccine has been found, in at least two studies, to increase the risk that those who are vaccinated with it will sub­sequently contract a noninfluenza viral respiratory infection.

Studies: Flu shot increase risk for other respiratory infections (Response to BMJ-Healthcare workers)


Response to: Behrman A,Offley W. Should Influenza Vaccination Be Mandatory For Healthcare Workers? BMJ 2013 Nov 12: 347: f6705


1. Kelly H, Jacoby P, Dixon GA, Carcione D, et al. Vaccine Effectiveness against laboratory-confirmed influenza in healthy young children: a case-control study. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2011; 30:107–111, and

2. Cowling BJ, Fang VJ, Nishiura H, et al. Increased Risk of Noninfluenza Respiratory Virus Infections Associated with Receipt of Inactivated Influenza Vaccine. Clin Infect Dis. 2012 June15; 54(12): 1778-1783

The evidence is clear that getting an influenza vaccination greatly increases your risk of getting the “flu” by not truly protecting against your contracting influenza and, worse, increasing the vaccinated person’s risk of a non-influenza viral respiratory infection by more than a factor of 4 when compared in a double-blind, true-placebo-controlled (gold-standard) study with extended follow-up conducted in a group of the “healthiest” of humans, children 6 to 15 years of age.

…vaccination programs be abandoned because influenza vaccination provides a significant NEGATIVE benefit to those who are vaccinated as well as provides no real protection from getting influenza.”


Flu shot: Recipients are at greater risk of getting other respiratory infections than the unvaccinated

chemist3a2Read more:  Go to page 5 onward. ““We identified a statistically significant increased risk of noninfluenza respiratory virus infection amongTIV recipients (Table 3), including significant increases in the risk of rhinovirus and coxsackie/echovirus infection. Being protected against influenza, TIV (vaccine) recipients may lack temporary non-specific immunity that protected against other respiratory viruses.

VLA comment:

Dr. Paul G. King also hotlinks the two studies in his footnotes.    This is particularly strategically critical to the healthcare workers dilemma.  If a healthcare worker is forced to get the flu shot, he/she is more (emphasis added) vulnerable to the pneumonia virus, for example and other virus that may then infect the patients.


STUDY: Healthcare Workers who get flu shots give patients greater risk of other respiratory infections.

chemist3a2AN OPEN LETTER by Dr. Paul G. King

Based on apparently the only double-blind placebo-controlled influenza vaccination and outcomes study conducted  (in healthy children 6 to 15 years of age), which has been published in a peer-reviewed journal, it is clear that getting a flu shot greatly increases the risk (by 4-plus-fold) that a person who receives it will contract and potentially spread one or more non-influenza respiratory viruses, some of which can be serious and morbid infections in humans (see study) 
In addition, the study established that the overall effect of vaccination for those who were vaccinated did not differ from the effect of giving a sterile-saline placebo when it came to protection from subsequently contracting influenza.
Any recommendation to vaccinate healthcare workers with an influenza vaccine not only put the healthcare worker at a higher increased risk of contracting non-influenza viral respiratory infections but also every patient with which he or she has contact.
 a. Support abandoning a mask-wearing practice that
     will be ineffective in protecting the patients and,
     given the cited paper’s findings, is clearly
     discriminatory — which, because wearing a mask
     causes the wearer discomfort, is worse than some
     “Star of David”-like identifier — without any
     scientific or medical validity, or
 b. If there is scientific proof that wearing the masks
     provided to healthcare workers absolutely stops the
     transmission of all respiratory viruses, demand that
     all healthcare workers who get a flu shot or the live
     influenza vaccine (which is known to spread the
     influenza viruses it contains for weeks) must also
     similarly wear a mask after being inoculated since,
     based on this study,
      1. Those healthcare who have received a flu dose
          are at a 4-plus-fold increased risk infecting
          others with a non-influenza respiratory viral
          infection than that infection risk from those
          healthcare workers who get no flu shot and
      2. Both groups, influenza-vaccine-inoculated  and
          the non-inoculated, apparently have a similar
          risk of subsequently contracting and spreading
          an influenza virus.
Source: Oxford Journals/Clinical Infectious Diseases Put the title (below)  in the search engine

Increased Risk of Noninfluenza Respiratory Virus Infections Associated With Receipt of Inactivated Influenza Vaccine



Formal Response to:

Endangering the Herd

“The case for suing parents who don’t vaccinate their kids—or criminally charging them”

Measles Deaths and “Measles-Vaccination-Related Deaths”

The Risk of Dying from Measles in the USA


Relative Risk of Dying from “MMR/MMR-V Vaccination” in the USA or a Measles, Mumps or Rubella Infection


Parental Responsibility and Parental Liability?


Overreaction to the Remarks Made by Certain Bioethicists?


Do Parents’ Lawful Decisions Pose a Danger to the Public?


The MMR Vaccine and Measles Infection and Measles Prevention Realities


Measles Outbreak Realities


MMR Vaccination, Vaccination Exemption and “Autism” Realities


Diseases Caused by Live Viruses: Vaccination or Exemption


Vaccination, Exemption and Liability


Vaccination: Driven by Belief, Care or Fear?


The Government’s Interest and MMR Vaccination


Reviewer’s Concluding Remarks



Dr. Paul G. King Legal Argument: Vaccines in commerce are currently illegal

lawDr. Paul G. King, vaccine consultant for the National Coalition of Organized Women outlines herein why all vaccines, accordingly, should be re-classified as adulterated until the safety requirements are met.

Under 21 U.S.C. § 351(a)(2)(B)
Any failure to meet any safety requirement deems a drug to be adulterated. Rational: Therefore, according to Dr. Paul G. King’s paper  one could argue that all of today’s FDA-approved vaccines are adulterated drugs, which are currently illegal and have been, heretofore, illegally placed in commerce. Further rational: Adulterated drugs (vaccines) cannot legally be listed on the National Vaccine Injury Compensation table. Therefore, it can be argued that the vaccine injured are not compelled to apply to the NVIC for compensation and are free to litigate in US Courts without first making application to the NVIC program.  Read argument…