A Book Review – The Poisoned Needle – By Eleanor McBean, PhD, ND (1957)

---

Overview

Originally written and published in 1957, The Poisoned Needle by Eleanor McBean is one of the earliest comprehensive critiques of vaccination policy and medical orthodoxy. The author, a naturopath and health researcher, draws upon medical records, government data, and historical sources to argue that vaccines have not only failed to prevent disease but have caused widespread harm to human health.

McBean positions the book as both an exposé and a warning — revealing what she viewed as deliberate suppression of truth by vested medical and political interests. Her message is that vaccination represents a grave error in scientific understanding and a violation of natural health principles.

---

1. The False Foundation of Vaccination

McBean begins by dismantling the foundational premise that immunity can be achieved through injecting diseased material. She maintains that health and resistance arise from within the body and cannot be produced through contamination of the blood with toxins or animal matter.

According to McBean, Edward Jenner’s early vaccination experiments lacked genuine scientific method and were rooted in assumption and superstition. She argues that governments and medical authorities adopted vaccination without evidence of its safety or efficacy, turning it into a state-sanctioned medical dogma rather than a scientific practice.

---

2. Historical Evidence and Disease Decline

Using historical records, McBean shows that the major declines in infectious diseases occurred before vaccination campaigns began. She attributes these improvements to sanitation, hygiene, nutrition, and living conditions — not to vaccines.

Charts and data within the book demonstrate how diseases such as smallpox, cholera, and typhoid fell naturally as standards of living rose. In several documented cases, she notes that compulsory vaccination was followed by an increase in deaths and outbreaks, contradicting the claims of health officials.

---

3. Medical and Government Suppression

McBean accuses the medical establishment and government agencies of concealing the dangers of vaccination and silencing dissent. Doctors and scientists who reported vaccine injuries were often ridiculed, censored, or stripped of their professional standing.

She explains that medical journals, public health boards, and funding systems have been constructed to promote vaccination while suppressing unfavourable evidence. The result, she says, is a long-standing conspiracy of silence sustained by financial and political power.

---

4. The Poisoned Body: How Vaccines Harm Health

At the heart of McBean’s thesis is the idea that vaccines pollute the bloodstream with toxic substances such as mercury, formaldehyde, phenol, aluminium, and diseased animal proteins. She argues that this artificial contamination weakens the body’s vitality, disturbs its natural balance, and lays the groundwork for chronic illness.

The author connects vaccination to a range of degenerative conditions, including paralysis, arthritis, neurological disease, heart disorders, and autoimmune dysfunction. She also documents historical reports of “vaccinal syphilis” and “post-vaccinal encephalitis” as examples of the damage caused by early inoculations.

---

5. Deaths and Documented Cases

McBean presents numerous examples of individuals and populations suffering after vaccination. These include infant fatalities, mass illnesses among soldiers, and epidemics in highly vaccinated regions.

She cites mortality figures showing that death rates rose in parallel with compulsory vaccination laws, while unvaccinated groups often remained healthier. Her conclusion is that vaccination not only fails to prevent disease but contributes directly to its spread and to premature death.

---

6. The Smallpox and Polio Narratives

Smallpox: McBean challenges the entire history of smallpox vaccination, arguing that the disease declined due to improved hygiene rather than vaccination. She documents cases where heavily vaccinated communities experienced severe epidemics, while unvaccinated regions did not.

Polio: She claims that the mid-20th-century polio epidemic was largely a result of environmental poisoning, particularly through chemical exposure such as DDT, and not a contagious viral infection. McBean maintains that the polio vaccine further intensified health problems under the guise of prevention.

---

7. Cancer, Syphilis, and Other Disorders

McBean explores the connection between vaccination and degenerative diseases. She references early medical observations showing tumour development and other pathological changes following inoculation.

She also argues that contaminated vaccines introduced syphilis and other infections into healthy individuals, with health authorities choosing to conceal the evidence to avoid public backlash.

---

8. The Politics of Fear and Profit

Vaccination, according to McBean, is maintained by fear rather than science. Public health campaigns exploit emotional manipulation, warning of deadly epidemics to ensure compliance. Behind these campaigns, she says, lies a vast commercial interest — pharmaceutical companies, government contracts, and professional prestige.

She calls vaccination a “sacred cow” of modern medicine, protected by propaganda and financial incentives. The medical industry, she suggests, profits both from vaccine sales and from treating the chronic diseases that vaccination itself causes.

---

9. Natural Immunity and the Path to Health

McBean advocates for a return to natural health principles. She teaches that true immunity arises from vitality, nutrition, rest, sunlight, and toxin-free living — not from artificial injections.

She encourages natural detoxification methods such as fasting, clean diets, and avoidance of chemical exposure. Disease, she writes, is not an external enemy but a healing and cleansing process within the body.

---

10. The Moral and Spiritual Dimension

In her conclusion, McBean views the vaccine system as a moral and spiritual corruption of natural law. She condemns forced vaccination as a violation of bodily autonomy and human conscience.

She urges readers to question authority, research independently, and reclaim responsibility for their own health. To her, resisting vaccination is both a personal and ethical act — one that defends life, freedom, and truth for future generations.

---

Key Takeaways

• Written in 1957, this book challenges the entire foundation of vaccination science.
• Vaccines were introduced without proof of safety or necessity.
• Disease decline resulted from hygiene and nutrition, not vaccines.
• Vaccines introduce poisons that damage health and lower resistance.
• Many chronic and degenerative diseases trace back to vaccination.
• Government and medical systems conceal evidence and protect profits.
• Smallpox and polio are presented as prime examples of vaccine failure.
• Health depends on natural living, not chemical or biological interference.
• Fear and propaganda maintain public compliance.
• Bodily sovereignty and informed choice are central moral rights.

If the content has concerned you in any way, feel free to download this accompanying worksheet to clarify any processes you have following reading this book review.

You can purchase the book here.

Recorded After the Jab – Overview

The article states that no one knows how many people the experimental COVID-19 vaccines are killing now or will kill in future. It says many deaths and injuries have occurred after vaccination but are not being highlighted by mainstream media. It points readers to VAERS and OpenVAERS, noting OpenVAERS’ statement that fewer than 1% of adverse events are reported. It cites the UK Yellow Card data and notes a standard disclaimer now placed on UK Pfizer and AstraZeneca analysis prints that a reported adverse reaction does not necessarily mean causation.

The article contrasts this with how COVID-19 deaths were tallied after positive tests and suggests vaccine-proximate deaths should be treated analogously.

Reporting Systems and Disclaimers

Using UK data headings for Pfizer and AstraZeneca, the piece lists reported post-vaccination problems: strokes, heart attacks, miscarriages, Bell’s palsy, sepsis, paralysis, psychiatric disorders, blindness, deafness, shingles, menstrual problems, alopecia, and COVID-19 itself. It links to the European database of suspected adverse drug reactions. It highlights the recurring disclaimer that adverse reports do not prove causation and juxtaposes this with the method of attributing deaths to COVID-19 after positive tests.

Catalogue of Reported Events and Sources

A large portion is an itemised catalogue of links to articles, videos, and websites describing injuries and deaths following vaccination. These include case histories, whistleblower testimonies, compensation cases, regulatory notices, and numerical summaries by various outlets. Themes across the links include myocarditis, pericarditis, cardiac arrests, neurological disorders, autoimmune conditions, miscarriages, stillbirths, sudden deaths in athletes and young people, and alleged spikes in all-cause mortality and insurance claims.

“Important Note” on Clots, Deaths, and Efficacy

The article states that blood clots are not limited to AstraZeneca; it says all experimental vaccines have been associated with clots. It asserts there have been many deaths (stating over 1,000 in the UK) and a vast number of adverse events. It says these vaccines are experimental, given to healthy people, do not prevent COVID-19 or transmission, and that the risk of a young, healthy adult dying of COVID-19 is extremely small.

Examples and Compilations the Article Cites

The link list spans multiple countries and contexts: children and teenagers with myocarditis or death shortly after vaccination; adults with heart attacks, strokes, paralysis, amputations, or sudden collapse; athlete collapses; and whistleblower statements from nurses, doctors, and airline pilots. There are references to school districts training for “sudden cardiac arrest,” and to alleged increases in stillbirths and life-insurance claims. The article includes pointers to “confidential documents,” database tallies, and analyses claiming tens of thousands of deaths and millions of injuries.

FDA Draft Working List (Pre-Rollout)

The article reproduces (by reference) the U.S. FDA’s October 2020 “draft working list” of possible COVID-19 vaccine adverse event outcomes. It enumerates: Guillain-Barré syndrome; various encephalitis/encephalomyelitis/myelitis presentations; meningitis/meningoencephalitis; encephalopathy; seizures; stroke; narcolepsy/cataplexy; anaphylaxis; acute myocardial infarction; myocarditis/pericarditis; autoimmune disease; death; pregnancy and birth outcomes; demyelinating diseases; non-anaphylactic allergic reactions; thrombocytopenia; disseminated intravascular coagulation; venous thromboembolism; arthritis/arthralgia/joint pain; Kawasaki disease; multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children; and vaccine-enhanced disease. The article urges vigilance for these conditions after vaccination.

“Yet Another Coincidence” Section on Deaths

In a subsection titled “Deaths Shortly After Covid Jab – Yet Another Coincidence,” the article lists news items where people died shortly after vaccination alongside official remarks that a link had not been established or was unlikely. The juxtaposition emphasises temporal proximity while noting authorities’ statements of no proven connection.

Other Vaccine-Related Materials the Article Points To

The article links to materials about online censorship, regulatory pauses or age restrictions, mixing vaccine brands, anaphylaxis rates, and policy shifts in different countries. It includes items about spike protein concerns, calls to halt vaccination, contractual and legal matters, life-insurance positions, and characterisations of mRNA products. It also references world maps of side effects and alleged “pathogenic priming” in older adults.

Athletes and Sudden Health Events

A dedicated section lists named athletes, referees, and sports figures (teens to early 30s) who collapsed, developed heart conditions, suffered embolisms, or died, with ages and brief descriptors. The piece presents the list for readers to consider whether the jab may have been involved, highlighting the rarity of such issues in “superfit” individuals who typically undergo screenings.

Informed Consent, Recognition, and Under-Reporting

The article repeats the themes that adverse events are under-reported and that media and authorities downplay or deny links. It says governments do not practise fully informed consent and states many side effects will never be recognised. It contrasts perceived low COVID-19 mortality risk for young, healthy adults with the potential harms it associates with the vaccines, and it characterises the rollout as preceding the usual tests and observations.

Proposed Comparative Study

The piece concludes by proposing a “simple, cheap trial”: track health problems in 20,000 vaccinated people and compare them with 20,000 unvaccinated over 3, 6, and 12 months, overseen by “honest doctors.” It says such a study would yield “very interesting results” but expresses doubt that authorities will perform it.

---

Key takeaways (as stated in the article)

• Many deaths and injuries are said to have occurred after COVID-19 vaccination and are not acknowledged by mainstream media; readers are directed to VAERS, Yellow Card, the European database, and numerous compilations.

• Standard disclaimers about causation in adverse event reporting are presented as diverting attention; the article contrasts this with COVID-19 death counting after positive tests.

• All experimental COVID-19 vaccines are described as associated with blood clots, with many deaths and a vast number of adverse events, including among young people.

• Extensive case lists and testimonies describe myocarditis, pericarditis, strokes, neurological injuries, miscarriages, sudden deaths, and athlete collapses temporally following vaccination.

• The FDA’s October 2020 draft working list of possible adverse events is reproduced and presented as a vigilance guide.

• Vaccines are described as experimental, not preventing disease or transmission; the article states young, healthy adults face very small COVID-19 mortality risk relative to vaccine risks.

• Claims of censorship, under-reporting, regulatory pauses, and legal/contractual issues are collated as context.

• A vaccinated vs. unvaccinated cohort comparison is proposed as a straightforward safety assessment, with doubt expressed that it will be undertaken.

Summary of Vernon Coleman’s “Proof That Face Masks Do More Harm Than Good” (Second Edition)

Overview

Vernon Coleman’s work compiles research studies, medical papers, and anecdotal evidence to argue that face masks, rather than protecting health, cause measurable physical and psychological harm. He challenges the scientific basis for mask mandates and explores broader ethical, medical, and social implications of enforced compliance.

---

1. Origins and Rationale

Coleman states that mask mandates were introduced without robust clinical proof of effectiveness. He notes that before 2020, public health guidance in several countries explicitly advised against general mask use for viral protection. He argues the shift in policy was political, not scientific, and contends that studies before and during the pandemic show no consistent benefit in reducing viral transmission in public settings.

---

2. Questioning Mask Effectiveness

The author references numerous trials and reviews which he claims demonstrate:

• No statistically significant difference in infection rates between masked and unmasked groups.
• Viral particles being too small to be filtered effectively by standard or cloth masks.
• Mixed results even in healthcare settings, where mask fit and hygiene are more tightly controlled.
• He concludes that mask policies were based on precautionary assumptions rather than proven outcomes.

---

3. Reported Physical Effects

Coleman lists a wide range of physical side effects he attributes to prolonged mask use:

• Reduced oxygen levels (hypoxia) and raised carbon dioxide (hypercapnia) leading to fatigue, dizziness, headaches, and slower cognitive response.

• Respiratory strain and potential exacerbation of existing lung or heart conditions.

• Microbial growth in damp or reused masks, raising risks of bacterial and fungal infections.

• Skin and dental issues, including rashes, acne, and gum inflammation.

• Particle inhalation from mask fibres or synthetic materials.

He cites studies and case reports indicating that these effects can accumulate with extended wear, particularly in occupational or school environments.

---

4. Psychological and Social Impact

Coleman argues that masks alter communication, emotional connection, and self-perception.

• Children, he says, may suffer developmental and social delays when facial expression is obscured.
• Adults may experience anxiety, detachment, and loss of trust in social interactions.
• Masking is a form of enforced conformity that encourages compliance rather than informed consent.
• He views the psychological cost as an overlooked consequence of prolonged mask mandates.

---

5. Ethical and Legal Dimensions

Coleman emphasises personal autonomy and informed consent as central medical principles. He argues that no government or employer should compel mask use without conclusive evidence of benefit. The text references legal exemptions for those unable to tolerate masks for health reasons and encourages individuals to assert such rights. He also claims that dissenting scientific views have been censored or discredited to maintain policy unity.

---

6. Alternatives and Recommendations

While rejecting mask mandates, Coleman recognises that some may still be required to wear coverings. He considers face visors less restrictive and more breathable, though he views both masks and visors as offering minimal viral protection. His principal recommendation is individual choice guided by personal health, not government directive.

---

7. Conclusion

Coleman concludes that:

• Mask mandates lack solid scientific support.
• Masks pose multiple physical and psychological risks.
• Policies enforcing them undermine medical freedom and human rights.
• Future health measures should prioritise autonomy, transparency, and evidence over fear or conformity.

---

Key Takeaway Points

• No proven community-level benefit of masks against viral spread.
• Reported harms: reduced oxygen, increased CO₂, microbial growth, skin and dental issues.
• Psychological effects: anxiety, impaired communication, developmental delay in children.
• Ethical concern: violation of informed consent and personal freedom.
• Coleman’s central assertion: face masks cause more harm than good and should remain a matter of personal choice.

Vernon Coleman’s Challenge to the Vaccine Narrative

In his September 2025 address, author and former GP Vernon Coleman outlines his concerns about vaccination policy, media control, and what he regards as the pharmaceutical industry’s dominance of modern medicine. He introduces the talk by noting that many of his earlier videos have been removed from major online platforms, which he interprets as suppression of dissenting medical opinion.

Government statements and loss of debate

Coleman refers to remarks attributed to Stephen Kinnock MP, Minister of State for Care, who allegedly told the BBC that vaccines are “100 percent safe” and that the Government intends to silence conspiracy theorists and misinformers on social media.

Coleman argues that no medical intervention can ever be “entirely without risk” and that the credibility of public health policy depends on open discussion, not the silencing of critics. He says that when officials exaggerate safety claims, they risk alienating informed members of the public.

Historical background and risk examples

To support his view, Coleman revisits a series of historical vaccine incidents described in his earlier works.

These include the 1930 BCG contamination in Germany, in which 72 children reportedly died; the 1955 Cutter polio vaccine incident in the US; and surveys from the 1960s and 1970s linking the whooping-cough vaccine with neurological reactions.

He notes that governments in several countries have compensation schemes for vaccine injury, which he interprets as official acknowledgement that adverse reactions can occur.

From this, Coleman concludes that vaccines are not entirely without risk, and that historical data demonstrate a need for transparency.

Pharmaceutical funding and professional incentives

Coleman asserts that pharmaceutical companies exert significant influence over modern medicine.
He describes how industry sponsorship extends from research and medical education to public-health messaging, creating an information environment shaped by commercial priorities.

He adds that general practitioners receive payments or bonuses for administering vaccines, which, in his view, introduces a conflict of interest by rewarding compliance with vaccination targets rather than independent judgment.

Several doctors who have written to him reportedly share this concern, stating that professional advancement and income depend on adherence to official vaccination policy.

Media control and omission of history

Coleman contends that mainstream media and official channels restrict dissenting discussion about vaccine safety.

He recounts being invited, then removed, from a PasTest medical conference on adverse-drug reactions, where he was told that certain parties considered him “too controversial.”

He argues that this pattern extends across broadcasting and print outlets such as the BBC, which he says operate under editorial rules that prevent critical perspectives on vaccination.

In his view, this selective presentation of information contributes to what he calls public “amnesia” about medical history.

He “reminds” audiences that Edward Jenner’s first son, who received an early smallpox vaccination, allegedly developed brain damage and died young, while Jenner did not vaccinate his second son.

Coleman presents this as an example of how historical complexities are omitted or simplified in favour of a single, unquestioned narrative.

The COVID-19 vaccine discussion

Addressing the pandemic period, Coleman describes the COVID-19 vaccine as ineffective and risky, particularly for children and pregnant women.

He refers to early reports from the US CDC that he interprets as showing notable rates of severe adverse reactions and cites the WHO’s acknowledgement that the vaccine does not fully prevent infection or transmission.

He lists possible effects reported by some clinicians—neurological and cardiac events, fertility concerns, and inflammatory responses—and argues that further independent investigation is required.

Coleman and several doctors he references question why debate on these issues has been discouraged, suggesting that financial and political pressures have replaced scientific evaluation.

Broader conclusions

Coleman concludes that medicine has become increasingly funded and directed by Big Pharma, with public agencies and mainstream media aligned to reinforce official positions.

He argues that, as a result, dissenting doctors and researchers face reputational risk if they question prevailing assumptions.

He maintains that the principle of scientific integrity demands unrestricted discussion and peer review of medical evidence, including data that challenge current policy.

For Coleman and those who share his outlook, restoring open debate is essential to rebuilding trust between the public, clinicians, and health authorities.

---

Summary of Core Assertions Presented in the Address

• Vaccines are not entirely without risk: historical examples illustrate adverse outcomes.

• Pharmaceutical companies have extensive influence over research, education, and public messaging.

• Doctors’ incentives: GPs receive bonuses or payments for vaccinations, shaping professional behaviour.

• Historical omission: mainstream narratives simplify vaccine history, producing public “amnesia.”

• Media restriction: outlets such as the BBC deliberately exclude dissenting or critical discussion.

• COVID-19 vaccine: insufficiently tested and potentially risky, especially for vulnerable groups.

• Open debate: Many doctors call for unrestricted examination of medical evidence to safeguard scientific transparency.

COVID-19 Vaccination: Current Evidence, Documented Effects, and Ongoing Areas of Research

Context

COVID-19 vaccines were developed to reduce infection, severe disease, and death associated with SARS-CoV-2. mRNA, protein-based, and adenoviral-vector platforms have been deployed internationally since late 2020. Surveillance systems such as the MHRA Yellow Card scheme, the US VAERS database, and European EudraVigilance record post-marketing safety data and are continuously updated.

---

Effectiveness

• Relative risk reduction (RRR): analyses for 2024–25 show reductions of approximately 30–45 % in hospitalisation compared with unvaccinated populations during high-transmission periods.

• Absolute risk reduction (ARR): varies with baseline risk. In adults aged 65 years and above with a hospitalisation risk of about 1 %, vaccination reduced that risk by 0.4–0.5 percentage points. In healthy adults under 40 years with a risk near 0.05 %, the reduction was approximately 0.02 percentage points.

• Protection against infection declines over several months; protection against severe outcomes remains longer but also wanes with time.

---

Reported or Studied Safety Issues

Myocarditis and Pericarditis

Identified after mRNA vaccination, occurring more in males under 30 and after second doses. Surveillance data record several tens of reports per million doses (it’s estimated that 10% of adverse reactions are recorded so these figures may be demonstrably higher). Research is ongoing into mechanisms and long-term cardiac outcomes.

Thrombosis with Thrombocytopenia (VITT or TTS)

Recorded after adenoviral-vector vaccines. Incidence in monitoring systems is about two to three cases per million doses. Studies continue on immune triggers and susceptibility factors.

Neurological Events

Guillain-Barré syndrome and Bell’s palsy have been reported following vaccination. Incidence data are comparable with pre-pandemic background levels. Temporal and mechanistic relationships remain under investigation.

Autoimmune or Inflammatory Syndromes

Autoimmune-type and inflammatory conditions have been described. Work continues to identify possible risk modifiers and biological pathways.

Rapid-Onset or “Turbo” Cancers

Reports exist of aggressive or rapidly developing cancers detected after vaccination. Cancer registries suggest that increases are due to screening backlogs and delayed treatment during the pandemic, but this is disputed. The relationship between vaccination and tumour progression is under research (Angus Dalgliesh).

Cognitive Decline and Dementia

A 2024 South-Korean cohort study (QJM) reported an association between vaccination and subsequent diagnoses of mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer’s disease in individuals aged ≥ 65. Replication and extended follow-up are in progress. This association is being researched (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38806183/).

Fertility and Miscarriage and Reproductive Outcomes

Thorp et al. analysed data from vaccine adverse-event reports to compare outcomes following COVID-19 vaccination with those following influenza vaccination. Their report identified higher proportional reporting ratios for miscarriage, foetal malformations, foetal cardiac disorders, foetal growth anomalies, stillbirth, preterm delivery, placental anomalies, and menstrual abnormalities in the COVID-19-vaccinated group. They concluded the findings warranted further research into placental pathology, spike-protein biodistribution, and inflammatory mechanisms during pregnancy.

Using three normalization methods (by time, by doses, and by persons vaccinated), the study finds consistent and strong “safety signals.”

Based on these findings, the authors argue for an immediate worldwide moratorium on COVID-19 vaccination in pregnant women and caution in women of reproductive age, until long-term safety data are available. They  contend the observed signals are strong enough to merit policy change.

Full text (clickable link)

Sudden or Unexplained Death in Adults

Health authorities in several countries review mortality data to assess reports of unexpected or unexplained deaths following COVID-19 vaccination. Post-marketing surveillance systems such as the UK MHRA Yellow Card programme, the US Vaccine Safety Datalink and other registries track deaths reported in proximity to vaccination and consequently it is deemed there is limited verifiable data available save anecdotal from those who have lost loved ones suddenly following the roll out. Sudden-death cases have usually been linked to cardiovascular or other conditions rather than vaccination because that would be deemed “misinformation” so readers are advised to research for themselves. Research continues into rare cardiac or arrhythmic events, including myocarditis.

---

Data Limitations

• Observational studies do not establish causation; confounding and reporting biases can influence results.
• Passive-reporting databases capture all events after vaccination, regardless of proven linkage.
• Population risks vary with age, health status, variant circulation, and time since previous infection or dose.

---

Ongoing Research Topics

• Duration of spike-protein expression and immune activation (click the link for a spike protein detox or see here:  for information (please be aware that mainstream deems this as “baseless” so keep an open mind and research for yourself)
• Chronic-inflammation and autoimmune mechanisms.
• Long-term neurological, oncological, and reproductive health outcomes.

---

Summary

Evidence to date indicates limited (arguably measurable) protection against severe COVID-19, but arguably in older or medically vulnerable adults.  Adverse events have been identified and quantified through surveillance. Several associations—cardiac, neurological, oncological, and cognitive—are the subject of continuing research to determine frequency, mechanism, and potential causality. Readers can verify data directly from public databases and peer-reviewed studies to inform personal and clinical decision-making.

---

Further reading – here are two books which the “mainstream” claim as mis/disinformation and contrary to publicly available guidance – you can make your own minds up regarding these but bear in mind that minds have been closed due to repetitive guidance and big pharma funding; the author is not claiming anything by citing them, simply considering an alternative viewpoint; both authors have studied scientific, medical and professional literature to start asking the questions – then consider is this considering terrain theory more extensively – i.e. hygiene,  nutrition, sanitation and toxins in the environment that play a greater part in overall human health?  I leave that question open:

Can You Catch a Cold? by Daniel Roytas

Subtitle: Untold History & Human Experiments

Here are six key themes or findings from that book:

1. Challenge to contagion theory
   Roytas reviews over 200 human “contagion experiments” and claims that many fail to show consistent transmission of cold or flu from sick to healthy volunteers. He argues this suggests the standard notion of catching a cold via droplets or contact is not fully validated.

2. Historical record & lost data
   The author examines old medical literature and records, arguing that much early work that questioned germ theory was suppressed or forgotten. He suggests that alternative models of disease were side-lined as germ theory became dominant.

3. Environmental, metabolic, and stress factors
   Roytas proposes that many “cold and flu” symptoms may arise from environmental exposures (temperature shifts, pollutants), nutritional or metabolic imbalances, and stress rather than a transmissible virus.

4. Psychological / nocebo influence
   The book discusses how expectation, belief, or fear (nocebo effect) may influence symptom development or perceived illness, particularly in group settings.

5. Questioning viral isolation and proof methods
   Roytas scrutinises virology methods, especially claims of isolation, purification, and re-infection tests. He contends those methods have methodological gaps or rely on inference rather than direct proof.

6. Alternative disease framework
   The book advocates a return to older frameworks (terrain theory, detoxification, innate resilience) as potentially more valid than germ-driven models, especially when viral causation is uncertain.

---

Virus Mania by Torsten Engelbrecht, Claus Köhnlein, Samantha Bailey, et al.

Here are six prominent themes from Virus Mania:

Viruses as unproven hypotheses
The authors argue that the existence, pathogenicity, and disease-causing role of many viruses (including SARS-CoV-2, measles, influenza) lack proof according to their standards. They contend that protocols claiming isolation rely on indirect methods (PCR, antibody inference, culture with host cells) rather than pure virus particles.

Critique of laboratory methods (PCR, antibodies, culture)
Virus Mania claims that molecular tools (PCR amplification, antibody binding assays) and cell culture are used to re-assemble viral genomes without having truly isolated intact virions, thus introducing circular logic in virus detection.

Diseases as cellular stress / metabolic response
The book proposes that symptoms attributed to viruses are better explained as responses to cell stress, toxicity (pollutants, chemicals, vaccines), metabolic disruption, or other environmental insults—not invasion by an external pathogen.

Disease “epidemics” as social narrative & medical industry factor
The authors assert the medical and pharmaceutical industries promote fear of viruses to justify vaccines, diagnostics, and profits. They discuss how media amplification, testing campaigns, and redefining normal thresholds contribute to perceived epidemics.

Historical reinterpretation
The text revisits past epidemics (Spanish flu, polio, smallpox) and argues that poor sanitation, malnutrition, and chemical exposures may have been more contributory than viral spread. It questions mainstream historical narratives about vaccine successes.

Call for virus redefinition & paradigm shift
The authors call for a reassessment of virology fundamentals, proposing that one should redefine “virus,” revisit Koch’s postulates, and adopt broader models of disease causation that prioritize cellular health rather than pathogen-focused models.

---

Please bear in mind “Vaccine Amnesia: How the Media Used to Report Vaccine Injuries” by A Midwestern Doctor from the USA

The article outlines how vaccine-related injuries and safety controversies were once covered in mainstream media but are no longer widely discussed. It presents a timeline of historical examples illustrating shifts in media reporting and public awareness.

Early Vaccine Incidents

Polio Vaccine (1950s–60s): Describes the Cutter incident, where some batches of the Salk polio vaccine caused paralysis. Mentions later discoveries of SV40 contamination and subsequent regulatory reforms.
Swine Flu Vaccine (1976): Notes the suspension of the U.S. programme following reports of Guillain–Barré syndrome, and highlights how coverage of vaccine side effects was widespread at the time.

Later Vaccine Controversies
DTP (Pertussis) Vaccine: Discusses reported cases of neurological injury and the formation of advocacy groups calling for reform. Mentions early television and newspaper investigations into these reports.
Hepatitis B Vaccine: Describes expansion of vaccination to newborns and low-risk groups, with media attention on cases alleging injury.
Anthrax Vaccine: Outlines complaints by military personnel and investigations into manufacturing and testing issues.
HPV (Gardasil): Lists reports of autoimmune and neurological issues after vaccination, and notes the presence of earlier critical news segments on the topic.
Influenza Vaccine: Summarises periodic public debates over effectiveness and risk.
Autism and Vaccines: References coverage in early 2000s television segments that discussed possible associations and government conflict-of-interest concerns.

Media Changes

The article states that, in the past, newspapers and television networks investigated vaccine safety concerns, whereas today similar stories are largely absent. It attributes this change to:

• Financial dependence on pharmaceutical advertising.
• Government partnerships with media outlets to promote vaccination.
• Professional pressure on journalists and editors not to publish critical vaccine stories.
• Decline of investigative journalism and rise of centralised media ownership.

Examples of Journalists and Media Figures

The article lists reporters who previously covered vaccine injury topics but later left mainstream outlets, including Sharyl Attkisson, Tucker Carlson, and Megyn Kelly.

Recent Context

The article compares historical vaccine controversies to the COVID-19 vaccine rollout, suggesting recurring patterns in how adverse events are discussed and reported.

Conclusion

The author introduces the concept of “vaccine amnesia,” describing a societal pattern of forgetting previous vaccine controversies once new programmes are introduced. The article concludes that this forgetting enables the repetition of past mistakes and limits open public discussion about vaccine safety.

The Flu Vaccine Debate: Benefits, Limits, and Controversies

Each winter, adults over 65 and those with chronic illness in the UK are offered a free flu vaccine.

Each GP surgery receives £9.58 per flu vaccination administered, plus reimbursement for the vaccine cost (NHS England, Item of Service Payment 2024–25).

---

1. What the Vaccine Does

The seasonal flu jab contains inactivated or protein fragments of selected influenza strains chosen months in advance.
It is designed to stimulate antibody production that may lessen illness severity and help reduce viral transmission.

For those over 65, Fluad Tetra includes MF59, an adjuvant made from squalene oil, polysorbate 80, and sorbitan trioleate.
The high-dose Efluelda vaccine quadruples the antigen quantity but contains no adjuvant.

According to manufacturer inserts compiled by JustTheInserts.com, the most common ingredients across flu vaccines include:

• Inactivated influenza virus antigens (A and B strains)
• Squalene (MF59 adjuvant)
• Polysorbate 80
• Sorbitan trioleate
• Sodium citrate and citric acid
• Potassium chloride (also used in lethal injection protocols in high concentrations (induces cardiac arrest)) and sodium chloride
• Magnesium chloride
• Hydrogen phosphate and dihydrogen phosphate salts
• Formaldehyde (trace)
• Octylphenol ethoxylate (Triton X-100)
• Egg protein (ovalbumin, trace)
• Sucrose and phosphate buffer
• Water for injection

These components differ slightly between manufacturers (Sanofi, Seqirus, GSK).

---

2. What It Doesn’t Do

The jab cannot guarantee protection; strain mismatch or weak immune response means vaccinated people can still get flu.
The vaccine’s modest benefit is season- and strain-dependent.
In care homes and hospitals, flu outbreaks still occur despite high vaccine uptake.

---

3. Reported Effectiveness

Average flu vaccine effectiveness ranges from 30–60% relative, equating to a 1–2% absolute reduction in the likelihood of laboratory-confirmed influenza.
Older adults typically have a weaker immune response.

---

4. Adverse Events

Common reactions: mild injection site pain, fatigue, and low-grade fever.
Rare reactions: Guillain–Barré Syndrome (1–2 cases per million).
Pandemrix (2009) was withdrawn following confirmed links to narcolepsy.

---

5. Mortality and Disease Data

Data from ONS and UKHSA indicate influenza contributes to 10,000–18,000 deaths per year in England and Wales.
These deaths are often linked to complications such as pneumonia or heart failure.

---

6. Financial and Marketing Factors

GP surgeries receive a direct payment of £9.58 for each vaccination and are reimbursed for vaccine supply costs.
Vaccines are marketed nationally via text messages, posters, and online campaigns.
Individual contraindications, ingredient sensitivities, and long-term cumulative effects are not routinely discussed during these campaigns.  So just because you are offered the jab, it doesn’t mean you *have* to take up the offer!

---

7. Repeated Exposure and Neurological Risk

Independent researchers, including Dr Vernon Coleman, have reported potential associations between repeated annual flu boosters and an increased risk of dementia and Alzheimer’s disease.  Long term studies have yet to be done, but there is no financial incentive to do thus.

---

8. Independent Analyses

• Dr Suzanne Humphries (Dissolving Illusions) — documented that improved hygiene, sanitation, and nutrition preceded declines in infectious disease mortality.

• Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (Vax–Unvax) — compiled comparative data between vaccinated and unvaccinated populations.

• Both note potential risks from adjuvants such as squalene and polysorbate 80, which may cross biological barriers and provoke immune overstimulation in some individuals.

---

Key Summary Takeaways

• Efficacy: Partial — may lessen severity but does not prevent flu; effectiveness varies yearly and by strain.

• Risk: Mostly mild reactions; rare autoimmune complications such as Guillain–Barré syndrome (1–2 per million).

• Mortality: 10,000–18,000 UK deaths each year despite vaccination, due to weak immune response in older adults and rapid viral change.

• GP Incentive: £9.58 per jab plus reimbursement for vaccine cost, creating a financial incentive for widespread promotion.  Arguably a massive conflict of interest, with little attention given to individual health responses.

• Ingredients: inactivated virus antigens, squalene, polysorbate 80, sorbitan trioleate, phosphate salts, formaldehyde, Triton X-100, and egg protein.

• Adverse Examples: Pandemrix withdrawn after narcolepsy reports; repeated boosters linked with increased dementia/Alzheimer’s risk (V. Coleman).

• Context: Historical declines in infectious disease pre-date vaccination programmes, correlating with improved sanitation and nutrition.

• Decision: Personal — best made after reviewing one’s current health, risk factors, and available research, bearing in mind that much relevant information has been censored or suppressed in recent years.  Russian roulette, anyone?

---

References

NHS England – Vaccination & Immunisation Services: Item of Service Payments (2024–25)
UKHSA / ONS Influenza Mortality Statistics
JustTheInserts.com – Influenza Vaccine Inserts
Coleman, V. How the Truth Is Suppressed
Humphries, S. Dissolving Illusions
Kennedy, R.F. Jr. Vax–Unvax

A reading list is supplied on demand.

Forbidden Facts – Government Deceit & Suppression About Brain Damage from Childhood Vaccines By Gavin de Becker (Skyhorse, Sept 2025) – A Book Summary (scheduled publish date 25 October 2025) 

Summary: The book is not “pro-” or “anti-vaccine,” but the process by which (the author argues) government agencies, private academies, and industry “debunk” inconvenient evidence about brain injury from childhood vaccines. Readers are pointed to original documents (e.g., the 2000 Simpsonwood meeting transcripts) and asked to judge for themselves. Apple+1

---

Headlines

• “Who debunked it—and how?” De Becker opens by challenging the oft-repeated claim that links between vaccines and brain injury/autism were “debunked.” He pushes readers to identify who did the debunking (often the Institute of Medicine/National Academy of Medicine, he says) and what evidence or process they used. Everand

• A recurring ‘debunking’ playbook. The book draws parallels to historical controversies (Agent Orange, talc/baby powder, Gulf War Illness, silicone implants, anthrax vaccine, burn pits, SIDS) that were once labeled “debunked,” then later revisited. Everand

• Language games. He argues that shifting official definitions—of “vaccine,” “pandemic,” and even widening diagnostic labels for autism—shape public perception and policy. Children’s Health Defense

• “Brain damage,” not labels. The author urges replacing contested labels (e.g., autism subtypes) with the blunter term “brain damage,” asserting that neurological injuries after vaccination are real but often relabeled or minimized. Children’s Health Defense

• Models vs. lives. He challenges a high-profile modeling claim (that routine vaccination saved ~154 million lives since 1974), arguing it depends on assumptions and omits harms. (For context, that 154-million estimate comes from a 2024 Lancet study widely echoed by WHO/Nature.) Nature+3Children’s Health Defense+3The Lancet+3

---

Key summaries (by theme, mapping to chapters)

1) The “debunking” machinery (Chs. 1–2, 11–13)

• Claim: Government-adjacent bodies and private academies (esp. IOM/NAM) are repeatedly tasked to produce definitive-sounding conclusions that neutralize public concern. The label “debunked” then travels through media and medicine.

• Examples used: Agent Orange, talc, Gulf War Illness, silicone implants, anthrax vaccine, burn pits, SIDS—each presented as case studies of premature certainty that later needed correction or nuance.

• Point: The same apparatus, he argues, was applied to childhood vaccines and brain injuries—“settling” the matter rhetorically, not scientifically. Everand

2) Words that move the goalposts (Chs. 5 & 14)

• Vaccine definition: De Becker highlights the CDC’s 2021 wording change (from “produce immunity” to “stimulate… immune response/protection”) as proof that official definitions are adjusted to fit products and messaging.
  Context: External explainers documented that change and CDC said it reflected clarity rather than substance. historyofvaccines.org+1

• Pandemic definition: He argues similar elasticity applies to “pandemic.” (Scholarly debates exist over whether WHO ever had one fixed, formal definition; interpretations vary.) PMC+1

• Autism spectrum broadening: The book contends widening criteria dilute severe-injury signals and make causal discussions easier to dismiss. Children’s Health Defense

3) “Brain damage by any other name” (Chs. 4, 6, 8)

• Claim: Neurological events (e.g., seizures, encephalopathy) following vaccination are real but get scattered across labels, codes, and narratives—hindering pattern recognition.

• Advice to readers: Focus on concrete injuries (“brain damage”), not contested diagnoses; read primary sources (trial data, transcripts, labels) whenever possible. Everand

4) Mercury & the Simpsonwood meeting (Chs. 9, 16)

• Focus: The 2000 CDC Simpsonwood retreat, where early Vaccine Safety Datalink analyses of thimerosal (a mercury-containing preservative) were presented behind closed doors.

• Author’s stance: Simpsonwood exemplifies pre-cooked conclusions and post-hoc reframing; leaked transcripts let the public see how signals were handled.
  Context: The meeting is real; transcripts exist and have long been public. Later reviews by mainstream bodies rejected misconduct claims—facts the book disputes. Children’s Health Defense+1

5) Models, big numbers, and what’s not counted (Chs. 12–13)

• Target: The 154-million-lives-saved claim (1974–2024) from a Lancet modeling study amplified by WHO and major outlets.

• Critique: The author says such models are fragile (assumption-heavy) and fail to account for adverse outcomes (his list includes neurological harms), so the headline number functions more as public relations than science.
  Context: The Lancet paper and WHO/Nature coverage do report the 154-million figure; the book disputes its validity/omissions. The Lancet+2World Health Organization+2

6) Media, gatekeeping, and RFK Jr. (Chs. 7 & 17)

• RFK Jr. chapter: Framed as “crazy questions” that, de Becker argues, remain unanswered on their merits because the labeler (not the evidence) wins the argument.

• Media: He describes a cycle where headlines rely on “debunked / safe & effective” language, while dissenters are characterized rather than addressed. Everand

7) What should a parent or patient do? (Chs. 18–20)

• Tone: The closing chapters insist the book is about deceit and suppression, not a blanket stance on vaccines.

• Practical posture: Read original documents (e.g., Simpsonwood transcript), ask specific questions (“who debunked it, how, with what data?”), and make informed choices with your clinician. Everand

---

Five key takeaways (plain English)

1. Ask “who” and “how,” not just “what.” If you hear “X was debunked,” ask by whom and using what process. Track originals (transcripts, methods, data), not just headlines. Everand

2. Watch the wording. Official definitions (of “vaccine,” “pandemic,” etc.) can and do change; those shifts affect public understanding and statistics. Read footnotes and glossaries. historyofvaccines.org

3. Separate models from measurements. Big numbers (like “154 million lives saved”) usually come from models. Models are tools with assumptions; decide for yourself if their inputs match reality—and whether they considered harms. (The widely cited figure comes from a Lancet model promoted by WHO and Nature.) The Lancet+2World Health Organization+2

4. Look at concrete injuries, not just labels. The book argues that neurological injuries can be hidden by fragmented labels (seizures here, encephalopathy there). If you’re investigating risk, follow the events, not only the diagnosis names. Everand

5. Primary sources > press releases. If a controversy matters to you, read the primary material (e.g., the Simpsonwood transcript) and note where later reviews land, then weigh both. Children’s Health Defense+1

---

Conclusion

Forbidden Facts is a short, punchy exposé arguing that what many people call “debunked” is often the product of committees, wordsmithing, and public-relations loops—not necessarily the end of the scientific story. De Becker’s core message isn’t to hand you an alternative doctrine; it’s to hand you documents and questions so you can test official certainties: Who declared this settled? What evidence did they accept or exclude? How did definitions change mid-stream?

If you’re a parent or patient, the book’s practical nudge is simple: read originals before you outsource your judgment, ask your doctor specific questions, and remember that models and slogans (of any kind) are not measurements. For context, major health bodies still cite strong benefits of childhood vaccination (e.g., the Lancet/WHO 154-million-lives-saved estimate); this book contends those headline benefits must be weighed against undercounted harms and opaque processes. It’s up to you to examine the sources and decide where you land. The Lancet+1

---

Notes & sources used here (for your own digging):

• Publisher & chapter list / positioning (Skyhorse; Apple Books; Everand preview with full table of contents and foreword). Apple+2Skyhorse Publishing+2

• CHD summary & Simpsonwood emphasis (includes author interview and claims about definition shifts and the modelling critique). Children’s Health Defense

• Simpsonwood primary transcript & neutral background. Children’s Health Defense+1

• 154-million lives figure (Lancet paper + WHO/Nature coverage for context). The Lancet+2World Health Organization+2

• CDC vaccine-definition wording changes (external documentation). historyofvaccines.org

This is a neutral summary of the author’s claims and cited materials, not medical advice. If you’re considering changes to vaccination plans, bring your specific questions (and any primary sources you care about) to a clinician you trust.

Alternative sources to check out

You can purchase the hard cover / kindle / audible version here