With Vaccine Misinformation, Libraries Walk a Fine Line

As vanguards of intellectual freedom, public libraries face difficult questions regarding what vaccine materials to make available. How to decide?

Amid a growing tug-of-war between adherents of evidence-based immunization practices and a roiling online subculture of suspicion, conspiracy, and misinformation related to vaccines, a beloved symbol of impartiality and free access to information — the public library — may now find itself at the center of the scrum.

Local public libraries are at least nominally committed to serving everyone in a community, regardless of their views.

Earlier this month, Hoopla — an online service that allows public library cardholders across the U.S. and Canada to download or stream movies and television shows for free — quietly pulled the documentary “Vaxxed” from its collection. The film, which peddles a repeatedly debunked theory linking vaccines to autism and claims to expose a vaccine-related coverup within the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, can still be found on DVD at libraries around the U.S.

But Terry Donahue, Hoopla’s public relations and communications manager, indicated that several libraries had contacted the service asking that the film be removed. Donahue would not comment on specifics, nor would he confirm the date on which the title was excised from Hoopla’s offerings. But he did share the libraries’ rationale: “They didn’t want to be a source of misinformation,” Donahue said.

The decision on what to make available to library patrons — and what not to — would seem perilous territory for America’s foundational repositories of ideas, though debates over library collections are not new. Still, in an era beset by “fake news” and other artifacts of the disinformation age, libraries (and librarians) may once again find themselves facing difficult choices. One of the core values of librarianship, said Andrea Jamison, a lecturer in library science at Valparaiso University in Indiana, is upholding the principles of intellectual freedom — which include challenging censorship. “We do want to make sure we are presenting information that is accurate,” Jamison said. “But then the question becomes, who becomes the determining factor?”

The Hoopla decision comes amid a rash of measles outbreaks across North America, driven in large part, scientists say, by the refusal of some parents to have their children receive what are considered standard vaccinations. Online retailers and social media companies, too, have been facing growing pressure from health experts and politicians to curb the spread of vaccine misinformation. Last week, following a report by Wired, the online retail giant Amazon pulled listings for two books that embrace the false vaccine-autism connection, and peddle unscientific and even dangerous “cures” for the developmental disability.

Major online platforms, including Facebook, Pinterest, and YouTube have also announced plans to combat false or misleading vaccine information. And earlier this month, Amazon removed several anti-vaccination documentaries from its Prime Video streaming service — though some are still available for purchase on DVD.

Of course, these companies, along with Hoopla itself, which is owned by a media distribution company in Ohio, are at liberty to make decisions about the content they want to provide. Specialized university and institutional libraries typically curate based on the interests of their clientele, and they may not experience demand for such materials. But local public libraries, symbols of intellectual freedom and broad cultural enrichment in cities and towns nationwide, are at least nominally committed to serving everyone in a community, regardless of their views.

Love Undark? Sign up for our newsletter!

In online forums, vaccine skeptics have been vocal in their outrage at recent decisions by online retailers and social platforms, which they often view as being driven by a censorious government — and one that colludes with mainstream pharmaceutical interests. These forces, they warn, meddle in the intellectual marketplace at everyone’s peril. “If Amazon is going to be leaned on by the government to censor certain kinds of information,” said Barbara Loe Fisher, co-founder and president of the National Vaccine Information Center, which advocates against mandatory vaccination, “then it could well extend at some point to cleansing the libraries of information that does not align with government policy or medical policy.”

But Allison Winnike, president and CEO of the Immunization Partnership, a nonprofit based in Texas that advocates for vaccination, said that handling misleading content is not necessarily about censorship, but rather “making sure that library patrons and consumers know that the information that they might be checking out contains anti-vaccine propaganda.”

While Winnike agreed that library collections should remain diverse, there are other considerations: “It’s also important they’re presenting useful and scientific information to folks as well,” she said.

Vaccination is not the first subject to raise concerns of public safety among libraries. In 1971, a publisher released “The Anarchist Cookbook,” a text written by a teenager named William R. Powell that includes instructions for making tear gas, explosives, and LSD, among other weapons and substances. In its initial investigation, the FBI called the book “extremely dangerous” and it has since been at the center of numerous legal challenges.

Local libraries might play a pivotal role in spreading misinformation if personnel are not properly trained, or if materials are presented without qualification.

“It really is a book that could allow you to do a lot of damage,” said Rachel Stark, a health sciences librarian at Sacramento State in California. Concern was renewed when the text became available online. Following the September 11 terrorist attacks, Stark said, some libraries chose to pull their copies. Others retained them, arguing for the public’s right to access the information. (Powell had himself gathered much of the material for the book by combing through military documents and other materials at the New York Public Library.)

Today, the text remains easy to find. Offered through many university libraries, “The Anarchist Cookbook” is also available to download for free online and hard copies are sold on Amazon.

For its part, the American Library Association (ALA) positions itself as a staunch opponent of censorship, even in cases where material could be viewed as harmful. A statement on the organization’s website makes clear its belief that it is in the public interest for librarians to “make available the widest diversity of views and expressions, including those that are unorthodox, unpopular, or considered dangerous by the majority.”

While not comprehensive, an online catalog search suggests that vaccine- and autism-related books espousing a variety of unorthodox views are available at libraries across the country. “Healing the Symptoms Known as Autism,” for instance — which was removed by Amazon last week — is offered at more than 20 public libraries or library systems across the United States. The book instructs parents in how to treat autistic children with chlorine dioxide, a chemical commonly used as an industrial bleach. The other book that was pulled from Amazon, “Fight Autism and Win,” appears to be available at just a few libraries, while other dubious titles turn up at hundreds of locations.

In some of the nation’s current measles hotspots, catalog results suggest collections — and viewpoints — are mixed. As of Thursday, all copies of “Vaccines Did Not Cause Rachel’s Autism,” a spirited defense of vaccination by pediatrician-scientist Peter Hotez, and “Callous Disregard” by the discredited British doctor and chief architect of the rigorously debunked theory connecting autism to vaccines, Andrew Wakefield, were checked out of the Fort Vancouver Regional Libraries, which serve Clark County, Washington. Parents in Washington are permitted to claim “philosophical exemptions” from standard vaccinations for their children, and in areas like Clark County, vaccination rates are low. More than 70 cases of measles had been confirmed there as of March 21.

There’s some evidence to suggest that local libraries can play a pivotal role in spreading misinformation if personnel are not properly trained, or if materials are presented to patrons without qualification. A 2015 study by researchers at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill’s School of Information and Library Science, for example, randomly visited 78 local libraries in upstate New York, Delaware, and North Carolina. At each location, a researcher, posing as a patron, asked library staff for information on whether vaccines cause autism.

In nearly 70 percent of cases, the information provided — a wide assortment of mostly books, but also websites, magazines, and other materials — did not accurately answer the question with authoritative information. The book that was most often recommended was “Evidence of Harm,” by David Kirby, which a BMJ review said “echoes the conviction of parents who believe that vaccines are to blame for an ‘epidemic of autism.’” In three cases, the patron was pointed to a book by the actress Jenny McCarthy, who blames vaccines for her own child’s autism.

“She knows a lot about this subject,” one library staff member told the researcher. “She’s pretty much the expert.”

A more recent study, released last month, sought to test the utility of public trust in libraries as a way of combatting misinformation. The results were mixed.

Books and other media espousing a link between autism and vaccines, or other anti-vaccination positions, are plentiful. But should libraries carry them, and if so, how to present them?

Visual: Undark

The decision by Hoopla to remove “Vaxxed” from its offerings at the behest of libraries notwithstanding, the ALA has mostly watched moves by Amazon and other online companies from the sidelines, and it has not taken any official action or position on the availability of vaccine-related materials. “From our perspective,” said Deborah Caldwell-Stone, interim director for the ALA’s Office for Intellectual Freedom, “it’s a pure collection-development issue that libraries address individually according to their policies.”

“I care deeply about people’s personal liberties, but I care most that we actually get our personal liberty when we’re alive to have it.”

While the ALA publishes guidelines — including a “Library Bill of Rights” — they do not constitute mandatory rules. Rather, the fate of these books and media, and the context in which they’re presented, is left up to libraries to decide based on their specific missions. “If a book is represented as nonfiction, there may be requirements in the policy that it meets certain standards for accuracy or tested knowledge,” Caldwell-Stone said. “And it’s the job of the library to evaluate whether the book falls under that. Or they may classify it as a book that’s addressing a controversy and catalog it accordingly.”

In a public Facebook group devoted to library issues, Sara White, a youth services librarian in Olympia, Washington, posed the question in 2017: “Should libraries collect materials that have ‘alternative facts,’ simply because there is patron demand?”

She pointed to “Vaxxed” by way of example.

The response from many group members was mixed. Some shared that their libraries did not carry “Vaxxed” or similar titles. Others said they did, though they suggested that such material ought not be included among other nonfiction offerings. But others argued that such parsing was not the role of the librarian: “Why do you feel you are protecting the public by [censoring],” asked Sue Shear Moyer, director of the Scio Memorial Library in Scio, New York. “And how do you determine what is worthy by your own personal opinion?”

She later added: “I never considered it the job of the library to protect the public.”

Such divergent opinions on the matter are not unusual. In a phone call, Andrea Heisel, collections services manager at the Timberland Regional Library system in western Washington, which includes the Olympia library where White works, noted that her library system’s collections policy does not specifically address the issue of accuracy. “We have lots of books on Bigfoot and Sasquatch,” Heisel said. But even when considering more serious content that could be harmful, she notes that librarians are trained not to assume the intent of their patrons. “We try to present information without judgment.”

Heisel added that so far, no patrons have complained about the library’s holdings, which include the “Vaxxed” video. “I’m kind of surprised honestly,” she said, speculating that this may be due to the large community of people who are opposed to vaccinations in the state.

Another librarian in central Kentucky, who asked not to be identified because she was not authorized to speak for the institution, said that her library had previously removed the “Vaxxed” DVD from its shelves simply because there was “no interest and because it was already in the collection” through Hoopla. But given that the streaming service has now pulled it, and in light of information that emerged on that film, she added, the library would not re-stock the title. “We would not buy it again,” she said.

Though she wasn’t previously familiar with the title, when asked, Kathy Penny, manager of collection services for the Cambridge Public Library in Massachusetts said the move by the Kentucky library “sounds like a very sound decision.”

Of course, libraries routinely make judgment calls when selecting what materials to carry. And if a library’s collection development policy provides justification for a removal, libraries are, for the most part, well within their rights to pull it. “There’s this underlying recognition,” said Bob Drechsel, an expert in media law at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, “that it’s extraordinarily important and unavoidable that librarians have a great deal of discretion to make decisions about what they think is in the best interest of their collections and their patrons.”

If a library’s policy does allow them to pull material “because it is demonstrably, factually false — and potentially dangerously false information,” Drechsel said, a librarian would have “an awfully strong argument to make” against any potential challenges.

Personal decisions by parents to avoid vaccinating their children, of course, can have a devastating impact on individuals and their communities — a fact known well by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). When “Vaxxed” was first released in 2016, the AAP applauded a decision by the organizers of the Tribeca Film Festival in New York — made under pressure — to cancel its planned screening of the film. Asked whether the organization would similarly applaud a decision by public libraries to remove “Vaxxed” and likeminded books and media from their shelves, Wendy Sue Swanson, a pediatrician and spokesperson for the AAP, suggested that the question was “delicate.”

“We have lots of books on Bigfoot and Sasquatch. We try to present information without judgment.”

“If it’s Hoopla or if it’s a film festival or if it’s a social network, or anything else, I think people are starting to recognize and realize that by being a distributor of any kind — even a library system, right, being a distributor — might hold a greater level of importance when it comes to something specifically like vaccines because of the community health outcome,” Swanson said.

“I care deeply about people’s personal liberties,” she added, “but I care most that we actually get our personal liberty when we’re alive to have it.”

Still, Caldwell-Stone reiterated that context is always important to keep in mind. “These books have been in the news — or the authors have been in the news,” Caldwell-Stone said, “and people may be curious to read the books without any intent of taking action on what’s in the books, but they want to understand what the controversy is.”

In addition to contextualizing information on the shelves, librarians also advocate for continued education, both for their peers and the public. “Libraries tend to be very siloed,” Stark said. She noted that librarians may benefit from consulting with their colleagues who specialize in health information or from bringing in experts from their local communities to talk to the public about the importance and safety of vaccination.

As libraries have to budget their limited time and resources, however, Stark recognized that they may instead choose to pull a book “to protect — or what they would see as protect — the public from what could be deadly information.”

If a library does ultimately decide to remove a book or other content and that decision is challenged by a patron on the basis of censorship, the ALA may review the case to determine whether it was done according to that library’s policies. And while some anti-vaccination groups have a monetary incentive to keep their messaging going — selling books and online courses, as well as raising money for future social media campaigns — public libraries make such content available for free in the name of serving the public.

An interpretation of the ALA’s “Library Bill of Rights” suggests that a rating system to advise patrons about the suitability of certain content “may be unconstitutional.”

Still, Allison Winnike of the Immunization Partnership says libraries should adequately research new materials before making them available to patrons and evaluate those already on the shelves. Part of the reason some books end up in libraries at all, she suggested, is because of deliberate tactics taken by some well-funded anti-vaccine groups to purchase “large quantities of their books in an effort to boost their sales numbers so they’ll rise in the rankings.”

Local libraries appear to sometimes host public viewings of the “Vaxxed” documentary and in December, a Facebook page devoted to the movie began encouraging its 94,000 fans to lobby their local libraries to offer it.

Winnike says she would not call for the removal of such materials — just that they be properly identified. “If a student’s doing a research paper, it’s important that they can see varied information,” she said, “but they just need to know when it’s considered a reputable source” compared to one that may contain misinformation.

Winnike also floated the idea of labeling such materials, similar to parental warnings on TV shows, but the ALA is staunchly opposed to this. According to an interpretation of its “Library Bill of Rights,” published on the ALA website, the adoption of a rating system to advise patrons about the suitability of certain content “may be unconstitutional.”

Whatever the answer to that, public health officials like Swanson of the American Academy of Pediatrics worry that absent real context, pulling unscientific and even dangerous vaccination misinformation from library access may be worth it if it helps to fight the spread of preventable diseases. On libraries that might choose to do so, Swanson was unequivocal: “As a pediatrician, as a mom, and as somebody who understands infectious disease and the benefit — the profound benefit of vaccination science,” she said, “I support their choice at not distributing something that could cause harm.”

Still, as a lecturer on library science, such moves make Jamison uneasy. Labeling and pruning of collections can quickly lead to murky territory, she suggested, and curators need to stay as neutral as possible in order to preserve the role that libraries play in communities nationwide.

“We represent the core values,” Jamison said, “of what democracy is.”

Jane Roberts is the deputy editor of Undark.

UPDATE: An earlier version of this piece incorrectly noted the abbreviation for the American Academy of Pediatrics. It is the AAP, not the APA.

Top visual: Aurora via Getty
See What Others Are Saying

38 comments / Join the Discussion

    Thank goodness I’m an academic librarian and do not really have to deal with these issues. However, if I worked in the public library realm, I don’t think I would pull books already in the collection, but I definitely wouldn’t purchase anti-vaxine related books unless written by experts in the field of medicine. So I wouldn’t purchase Jenny McCarthy’s books but one written by an actual medical professional, I would consider adding to the collection to provide all sides of an issue. I personally believe that vaccines are absolutely necessary in maintaining public health and because this is such a controversial issue that can affect public health on such a large scale, I would definitely pay careful attention to who is writing the information of books purchased with public funds, in most cases. I don’t believe in censoring topics in almost any circumstance, no matter how ridiculous they may seem. However, I think it is valid to be very mindful when adding books to a public library collection that can have an effect on public health on a massive scale. Books written by doctors or other medical professionals, to provide arguments against vaccines based on actual evidence is one thing. Books celebrities who think their children are vaccine injured is another and is dangerous in my opinion. Remember, Jenny McCarthy’s children turned out to not be on the autism spectrum.

    The Vaccine Reaction Newsletter which is published by the NVIC, the National Vaccination Information Center, is populated with a diverse array of opposing viewpoint articles, many of which are written by accredited and/or licensed medical professionals. This is the information people should review for astute analysis written by people whom do not have conflict of interest concerns. Then make up your own mind after reviewing non censored information.

    But it will be a miracle if this comment goes through, because the issue is censorship, and I just talked about a broadly censored informational source that goes directly against the multi billion dollar pharma industry.

    Librarians have a responsibility to protect access. The reason libraries keep titles like this when commercial entities stop selling it (and count Hoopla in that category, since they charge libraries per view) is that the public still has the right to see the content, and libraries allow that without the author continuing to profit. For example, this journalist should have access to the work that is being discussed. Professionals may want to see what’s presented in order to form a counter-argument. Commercial sites refuse to sell in order to cut profit from the author(s) of such work. Libraries make sure that censorship isn’t part of it. A request to have access to the work doesn’t mean that the reader will believe it, after all. People have a wide range of reasons for wanting to see any book in a library collection. Americans have the right to see what comes from the press–and they are free to decide for themselves what to think. Libraries are in the business of access–either through their local collection or through inter-library loan.

    You people are all crazy.
    First of all, let’s look at a little history, like the 1800s when people – especially children – died each year by the communicable illnesses such as TB (“consumption), whooping cough, diphtheria. And let’s not forget polio – feel like spending the rest of your lives in an iron lung? Too bad American’s have such an issue with learning history. So ignorant. Go ahead, stop all people from getting vaccinated and let’s see our increasing longevity plummet. The reason why people had so many children in the past was because they lost them so easily to the very diseases for which we are vaccinated. And they didn’t die from vague, unverifiable connections like “vaccine may cause autism, or maybe even cancer.” They’d go to bed with a fever, and die by morning. We take this for granted, but boy, would there be panic and mayhem if those diseases started wiping us all out again.
    Second thing, I am a librarian, so I can tell you we are responsible to an extent for the information on our shelves. Would I stock Mein Kampf on my shelves when many of patrons are Jewish? Would I think twice about buying a book that say, denied the reality of 911, or proposed that it was a government job? You bet! In terms of anti-vaccine content, I probably wouldn’t pull it, but I would sure as heck have plenty of sources right alongside that counter this dangerous bolderdash!

    The misinformation is on the vaccine proponents side, not vaccine critics. Vaccine makers and their supporters routinely tell the public that vaccines are safe, but fail to mention the fact that no vaccines, not one, have been evaluated for their potential to cause cancer, mutate DNA, or impair fertility – often found in Section 13 of vaccine package inserts. There is a mountain of scientific studies, papers, books, articles, documentaries, and litigation that have been warning about vaccines for decades. The Vaccine Court has awarded over $4 billion dollars to vaccine victims. Does any of this sound “safe” to you? Libraries have a responsibility to allow the public to do their own research and make up their own mind. Stop name calling and please educate yourself before you start pulling books and movies off the shelf – http://www.healthalertphilly.org/VACCINES.htm

    reminds me of the discussion about including books on creationism: libraries can offer those books, but catalog them in Religion instead of Science.

    As a librarian, I say this is a no-brainer. There is no argument for “intellectual freedom” here. This is dangerous nonsense and public libraries should play no part in its dissemination.

    Reading the comments from all the anti-vaccine nobodies puts a smile on my face. Fantastic way to start my day!

    Heartening to see such thoughtful replies by informed people! I always say, real science will win in the end. Inclusive of this is new physics and energy source technologies. Lack of real knowledge and open-minded research are the only blocks to enlightenment, and we do need more enlightened in this country of ours that is so young, impulsive and uneducated in the real sense. There are indications of new medicine that will actually eradicate disease of every kind safely and non-invasively, and it is not by injecting dangerous chemicals and pathogens directly into the blood stream. Commercial interests have been destroying our health and our environment since the industrial revolution. They have to be reined in, which is why we need a social democratic political structure to protect human health and well-being. Unrestrained capitalism is killing us all.

    Vaccines aren’t injected directly into the bloodstream.

    public health officials like Swanson of the American Academy of Pediatrics stated: “I support their choice at not distributing something that could cause harm.” Perfect. Tell vaccine manufacturers to stop distributing their vaccines because these do cause harm.

    Books belong in libraries, ALL books. Are we really talking about book banning/burning because the narrative of these books is contrary to pharmaceutical interests? Is this Nazi Germany or America?

    Thank you for saying that. I do not like the justifications ALA and the like are starting to use to support certain narratives and silence others. This is the antithesis of librarianship and I for one will not play a part. Whenever I buy materials of a controversial nature I always make sure to purchase works from both sides of the issue. It is up to the patron to decide which argument they want to peruse not me. Taking people’s voice away is one of the scariest things any organization can do.

    How is this even a question?
    You make everything available and people do their own research and make up their own minds.
    Libraries don’t get to decide what is worthy or appropriate for it’s patrons to read and learn and know. They are the centers of free speach and free access to information. Vital for a free society. To fulfill their purpose they need books both for and against every topic possible.

    Why will those who claim they have ‘the science’ on their side never engage in a fair, even and open debate. Robert F Kennedy Jr. was to debate ‘a panel’ of vaccine ‘pushers’ but low and behold at the last minute they were ‘persuaded’ to skip the rigours of ONE lonely voice with concerns about ‘their science’. There is a plethora of research showing just how damaging vaccines are to many people, especially the children who are too young to articulate how they are feeling after the vaccinations. This is nothing but ‘censorship’ to protect those that really are making the money from this vial medical mantra. pHARMa is making billions which they share with politicians as well as the MSM as ‘hush money’.

    Ah yes infallible science; it has never led us astray. Never caused accidental deaths or birth defects; never ever been subject to influence by the rich and powerful. Perhaps the Earth really is the center of the universe after all. Let’s go back to routine x-rays for pregnant women, dope them up and strap them down in labor. The data doesn’t lie.

    Who gets to decide what is “misinformation?” Vaxxed is a documentary about a CDC Whistleblower who presented 10,000 pages of documents to Congressman Posey about fraud with an MMR safety study. Posey stood on the House Floor and begged his fellow representatives to subpoena Thompson so the truth could come out, but as we all know, many in Congress are heavily funded by the pharmaceutical industry, and we are still waiting. Thompson continues to work at the CDC under whistleblower protection, unable to speak.

    Vaxxed also documents personal stories about vaccine injury. There is an entire law called the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, and there is a National Vaccine Injury Compensation Fund, and a Federal Vaccine Injury Table. And the CDC cites a 2013 study on their website that–although they found the number of antigens in vaccines don’t correlate with autism–the authors say in the conclusion, “It can be argued that ASD with regression, in which children usually lose developmental skills during the second year of life, could be related to exposures in infancy, including vaccines.”

    Is this misinformation? A CDC cited study? The media and public health officials who fear undermining faith in the vaccine program are working overtime to silence very real science and very real concerns about vaccine products and unintended consequences of vaccination programs. But you only have to scratch the surface of the science to see that the pertussis vaccine is utterly failing, that whooping cough is breaking out in fully vaccinated students, and that Merck is on trial for fraud issues related to the MMR, Gardasil, and more. Vaccines are potent pharmaceuticals DESIGNED to provoke an immune response. As with any product, there will be non-responders and over-responders. There will be injuries, and there are hundreds of injuries possible, many of them autoimmune, not just the hotly disputed autism. Most of these injuries are not denied by the CDC — it is only the frequency at which they happen that is in dispute.

    Because truth is being labelled misinformation, and now censoring is beginning, distrust in vaccines and vaccination programs are growing. This is not good for anybody, least of all for a free society founded on freedom of speech.

    I believe a rational response to misinformation concerning artificial inoculation is to call out, legally if possible, the politicians, doctors, supposed experts, and all the rest who are spreading thier own misinformation. Following is my first salvo. Please note the copies to the Attorney General and Inspector General. Also the referenced petitions:

    Fri Mar 22 05:43:24 PDT 2019

    From: Tod Merley

    Greetings Senator Patty Murray

    During the March 5th Health Education Labor, and Pensions Committee meeting entitled “Vaccines Save Lives: What Is Driving Preventable Disease Outbreaks?” in your opening remarks before that committee you made several statements which I believe you cannot factually support but which do greatly affect public health and therefore must be addressed legally.

    You said “vaccines are safe”. It is quite apparent to me that no safe product requires liability protection to be enabled to exist. Vaccination does require and does have this liability protection and therefore I believe this class of medical products are unsafe. I believe that the pubic awareness of these safety issues are currently being greatly repressed by the very unique National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program where Health and Human Services guards the artificial inoculation medical products programs by avoiding the discovery process of the normal legal tort proceedings. At the time that the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) of 1986 (42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to 300aa-34) was created the programs using vaccination were in the process of dying an appropriate legal death.

    I believe that we were profoundly unwise to delay that appropriate legal death.

    The rationalization that supposedly justified the use of this liability limitation was that vaccination supposedly reduced the rate of death, disability, and disease by taking on one distinct individual pathogen at a time. As I am aware that there are currently some one thousand four hundred individual distinct potential pathogens that we are aware of at this time and that that this list likely sees only a very small percentage of what nature could use blocking a few dozen of these likely thousands appears to be an effort quite vain. I believe that if you block one you save none. Nature will always adapt and easily substitute from her host.

    You must measure the overall outcomes to determine what your medical product is actually doing.

    To find out if using the artificial inoculation medical products actually does reduce the overall rates of death, disease, and disability we would need studies which looked at otherwise similar populations which did and do not use our artificial inoculation medical products and those which do use the artificial inoculation medical products. Then we could accurately measure the true effects. There is no other way to actually justify the use of the artificial inoculation medical products than to actually measure the true overall effects. There is currently no comparative measurement of the overall death rates of those who do not use the artificial inoculation medical products compared to those who do. Therefore there is no data to justify the statement that “vaccines save lives” as we simply do not know if they do or not. There is no proof that they reduce the overall rates of diseases but there is some evidence that they greatly increase the rates of diseases. There is no proof that they reduce the overall rate of disability.

    So there actually was no justification to delay the appropriate legal death of the vaccination programs.

    At any rate to say that these untested artificial inoculation medical products are safe is unsupportable with our current data and so I believe that it is not legal to do so. To say that they save lives is unproven and so it is not legal to say this as well. Please stop spreading this misinformation!

    Please do bring back tort liability for vaccine caused injury.

    Almost unknown as it is the highly occulted Vaccine Injury Trust Fund paid out $4,061,322,557.08 (Posey’s Letter to Zuckerberg). This has happened in spite of the fact that the legal requirement for reporting vaccine injuries is apparently so well hidden (occulted) that it is often reported that Pediatricians do not understand their legal obligation to report adverse reactions much less what to look for from the Vaccine Injury Table (42 U.S. Code § 300aa–14). Please draft the laws putting teeth in and expanding the adverse event reporting laws nation wide. This is not just a “passive system” this is an occulted passive system such that the true extent of the underreporting of vaccine injuries is unknown.

    Not only is the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program “Court of Special Masters” nearly unknown it is also alleged that fraud of great magnitude has happened during massive proceedings there. It is alleged that during the Omnibus Autism Proceeding (OAP) in that court expert testimony was fraudulently disregarded. So recently Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Rolf Hazlehurst filed a petition “Re: Request for investigation of fraud and obstruction of justice by HHS and the United States Department of Justice officials that deprived over 5400 children of compensation for their vaccine injuries in the Omnibus Autism Proceeding. This fraud and obstruction of justice in the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program influenced and corrupted the decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in Bruesewitz v. Wyeth which further deprived all families nationwide of their ability to pursue vaccine injury cases in civil courts.” with the Attorney General and the Inspector General. Please do see that this matter is fully investigated. Please do pay the 5400. Please also set up appropriate compensation for those yet found to be injured under what will be new proper tort proceedings.

    Accessing Data from Vaccine Safety Datalink is not possible for the public. It appears to be highly guarded information. Please make this information public so we can see what is going on and can all respond to the situation appropriately. Please see that the data from the new “overall” studies is made completely public.

    Senator Patty Murray it has been under your watch that the department of Health and Human Services has failed to produce the legally mandated yearly safety studies and reports concerning the safety of the vaccine schedule. This has gone on for 31 years of which 26 of those years have been under your watch! The safety of the vaccine schedule remains unknown. The selling and use of these medical products untested for safety as it is currently being done by the CDC, doctors, and chain stores in America is therefore not being done legally (Generic Docket FDA-S-2013-0610-0001). All of this has happened under your watch!

    Please make the appropriate changes. Thanks!

    Sincerely, Tod C. Merley


    William Barr, Attorney General Department Comment Line: 202-353-1555
    U.S. Department of Justice Department of Justice Main Switchboard: 202-514-2000
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530-0001

    Michael E. Horowitz, Inspector General
    U.S. Department of Justice Phone: (202) 514-3435
    Office of the Inspector General
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 4706
    Washington, D.C. 20530-0001

    PACs, Newspapers, Interested individuals.

    Wow, what other time in history did they ‘burn’ books and censor that they deemed were opposing or misinformation ? Ever hear of freedom of speech, Nuremberg Code, Fascism, Nazi vaccine mandates, book burning, first do no harm, vaccines are unavoidably ‘unsafe,’ the U.S. Constitution… Censorship shows the truth…. in Truth, you allow adults to read and use their minds to discern what is right for themselves and their families. This is what critical thinking, intuition and using your mind to make decisions. In a free world, we don’t need the government, corporations, and the local library to make these decisions for us. It feels like too many are trying.. Facebook, ETSY, Amazon and more… and now the public library have lost their way and will not find themselves on the right side of history. The vaccine damage that has been done to many families will not derail any attempt to silence the TRUTH. You have come between parents; mother and father bears that bear witness to the truth. There is always darkness before the dawn. And the DAWN is coming. The genie is out of the bottle and it can’t go back . Mark my words.

    I saw Vaxxed…it’s about the CDC cover-up of William Thompson’s statement the he was told to destroy data, but he kept copies. There is still an on-going whistle blower case against the CDC. And, stories of injured children. Everyone should watch it before making outlandish remarks and censoring a true story.

    Right, and there are other whistleblowers!
    The Vaccination Debate – http://fullmeasure.news/news/cover-story/the-vaccination-debate
    Fraud by Merck – Court Hears Gardasil Science and Moves Forward – https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/court-hears-gardasil-science-and-moves-forward/
    Former Merck Scientists Sue Merck Alleging MMR Vaccine Efficacy Fraud – ongoing case..https://ahrp.org/former-merck-scientists-sue-merck-alleging-mmr-vaccine-efficacy-fraud/
    My Hero – Robert F Kennedy Jr – using real data to go after this fraud that is hurting children – and winning – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Yf4-P2qbHo&feature=share
    This pediatrician has real-life data showing that there is very probably a high degree of vaccine damage occurring in our nation – AMERICA’S PEDIATRICIAN REVEALS SHOCKING AUTISM DISCOVERY – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bjvjf4MnFqc

    So much to look into and yet this website and others promote censoring so-called “misinformation – without even looking into it… the should help to uncover this real information

    As of March 31, 2018, there has been more than 89,355 reports of measles vaccine reactions, injuries, hospitalizations and deaths following measles vaccinations made to the federal Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System, this includes:

    445 related deaths
    6,196 hospitalizations
    1,657 related disabilities

    These number represent 1% of the actual numbers. According to a recent study done by Harvard and paid for by the CDC less than 1% of injuries and deaths are reported. Most Doctors do not know they have to report injuries and that is by design.
    Over 60% of those adverse events occurred in children 3 years old and under. Adverse events following MMR Vaccination reported to VAERS include:
    GBS (Guillain-Barre syndrome)
    Encephalitis (brain inflammation)
    Aseptic meningitis (inflammation of the lining of the brain)
    Cardiomyopathy (weakening of the hearth muscle)
    Hypotonic-hyporesponsive episodes (collapse/shock)
    Subacute sclerosing panencephalitis (SSPE)
    Ataxia (loss of ability to coordinate muscle movements)
    Paresthesia (numbness, burning, prickling, nerve irritation)
    Transverse Myelitis
    Acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (ADEM)

    As you can see the Measles vaccine causes very high collateral damage to children and adults. Parents have a right to not trust Big Pharma especially since the makers of vaccines do not have any liability for all of the deaths and injuries.

    This is not about censorship; it is about curating what’s best for a library. Noone imagines that libraries should devote a shelf to printouts of the maunderings of pederasts on 8chan, or keep a collection of Isis beheading videos. If librarians feel that vaxx-denialism is based on poor science (or have any reason within reason) they can choose to not make it available. Censorship would involve curbing the sources of of the denialism movement which, on our on-line world, cannot be done.

    So if we call censorship “curation” then it is no longer censorship? Imagine being so small-minded that you believe this.

    I couldn’t help but laugh when I read the part about anti-vax groups having a monetary incentive to keep their message going. Are you kidding me? Who has a massive monetary incentive when it comes to vaccines? The pharmaceutical companies that make billions on vaccines! The same companies that have extremely limited liability for the safety of their product.

    Beyond whether one agrees with vaccines or not, the very issue of this level of censorship is frightening. First, anti-vaccine information, then what? What other concepts will someone else decide is good or bad for you to read or see? Don’t you want to make your own choices?

    Let me try a fairer and more appropriate title…

    With vaccine misinformation, libraries walk a fine line

    How about…

    With vaccine debate reaching a climax in this country, libraries now being pressured to censor

    There are numerous whistleblowers regarding vaccine safety – the press conference addresses many of the issues… Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Press Conference – The Science of Vaccines Forum – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Yf4-P2qbHo&feature=share

    Also – this pediatrician has real-life data showing that autism rates can be greatly reduced… This would help families and help overburdened special ed teachers. (The rates of severe autism have skyrocketed in California)

    Censorship is a ridiculous proposal in light of the scientific and safety controversies around vaccines. Measles is the least of our worries. We still get 100 cases of leprosy a year in the USA – but the country is not in an uproar …

    Prevent vaccine injury. Prevent SIDS. Prevent fraud in the CDC … Listen to the personal eyewitness accounts of parents.

    Pharma ads “own” the press. Dissent on vaccines is not allowed. Now, through fear, they are trying to take away any other sources of valid information that question their product.

    It is the responsibility of the patrons to decide what is appropriate, not the libraries to censor and filter it. Slippery slope, censorship…

    Also, not sure why some information that is well-sourced with .gov sites is considered “misinformation”… Over $4 billion dollars paid for vaccine injury and death claims per .gov sourcing, clearly shows that the science is NOT settled, and vaccines are not safe for everybody. No medical intervention is! Why would vaccines be magical? There is risk. We have a right to the information about risks as well as benefits.

    Censorship. Censorship. Censorship. And who decides what is to be removed? And those deciders, they are always right, yes?
    What if they decided back in 1975 to remove all books referencing low carb diet as dangerous. Where would we be now. What if they just banned butter altogether because, obviously, it was s public health threat. Clearly, margarine is the only healthy thing you put on your morning toast. Hey, I have a suggestion. The USDA just came out with version 5 of its food guidelines, now called myplate. It replaces several iterations of the food pyramid which replaced the four food groups. Hmm. Well we certainly have it all figured out now. So let’s shut down all dissention. Let’s name some other things in recent history that we’re once considered safe…. DDT, lead in gasoline, Mercury in antiseptics (do you remember Mercurochrome? See it in CVS today?), Aluminum in vaccines… Oh yeah, they haven’t come around to that one yet. Sorry.

    Get some critical thinking exercise and watch vaxxed the movie. Tell me where the propoganda is please. Instead you will find actual tapes of phone calls with the NOW WHISTLEBLOWER and still employee of the CDC doctor William thompson, co-author of the official CDC study that “debunked” the vaccine autism link. In his own voice he tells you of the fraud. But hey, this kind of information is dangerous. Better to call it propoganda and censor it.

    Very valid examples! Science is never settled. If it is… It’s because of money, not facts.

    Censorship in 2019 in the US – and yet those responding to this pressure have not even scratched the surface.

    Here’s 1,000 studies on autism. http://envgencauses.com The efforts to make ASD look “genetic” have failed.

    All information should be allowed, even if Big Pharma is sponsoring it. A library is a place to hold books. People go to the libraries and choose the books that interest them. There is no need for censorship. It would be great if they would have books that discuss how vaccines have never truly been tested for safety or how the CDC vaccination schedules have never been tested for safety. That they need to go against a control group that receives a saline solution. That those groups need to stay pure for 1, 5, 10, 20 years so that the two groups can be compared.

    Your “experiment,” while totally unethical and prohibited by every ethics committee and rulebook that I know of, was already run, back in the day. Here’s the result. https://vaxopedia.files.wordpress.com/2018/06/smallpox-two-boys1.jpg

    Fear mongering.

    Can you tell me how many deaths are associated with vaccines each year in the u.s. ? How many severe adverse reactions? Official government stats please. Bet you don’t know how to find this data.

    Do the math. If you kid is scheduled to receive 68 immunizations before age 18, what are the odds of something bad happening. Hmm…

    Oh yeah, I forget, these things are totally safe and totally effective for anyone that gets these shots, regardless of their health status, genetics, or prior history. Even though no one has ever tested 68 shots if one is ok, surely 68 are fine.

    Oh yeah. And don’t worry… Monsanto says round up is safe too.. go ahead, spray it all over your food sir.

    This is not about science, because science hides nothing. Science does not NEED to hide anything because if is able to be replicated, it stands up easily to inspection, debate, challenges, and so forth. It welcomes questioning because it can answer those questions. That is the nature of science. This subject, however, is about censorship. It is about hiding any opposing viewpoints. That is the opposite of what science does.

    DanO, agreed. However it’s not that simple these days. Purely speaking, yes what you’re saying is accurate, utilizing the scientific method. But in the real world that’s not how it’s done these days, not with the vaccine issue. The CDC is one of the only government agencies of this type whom allows an exception to the conflict of interest rules pure scientists would expect. You really can promote a new item on the CDC vaccination schedule, while also having a financial incentive to do so. Mr Kennedy whom we hoped Trump would promote as the head of a new vaccine investigation panel, he talked all about this. He personally witnessed all the people approving a new vaccine, then rushing into the hallway and ordering investment in that particular product or company.

    One considers how ingrained the big pharma industry is within medical and educational communities, and we then understand how the mechanisms of funding keep dissenting views out of the educational and well funded research communities at large. You can’t even get into many schools if you don’t comply in the first place. Then we compare the actual educational content students receive about how vaccines work, why, synergistic reaction, long term cause and effect, etc, and we learn they’re woefully under educated on the actual science. Some regular non accredited objectors to vaccines have schooled their medical providers on camera, and highlighted the need for better education from non biased sources, as the providers refuse to furnish actual inserts and instead are only willing to furnish fact pages, and are unable to answer many highly technical questions about adjuvants, additives, efficacy, product safety, synergystic reactions, all of that. The problem with vaccines, is they’re tested in an isolated bubble and nobody has performed detailed broad large sample group studies regarding how the individual vaccines react with each other, as well as examining how the synergystic reaction may occur with other common toxins we may have, like other medicines, glyphosate or other pesticide residue, etc. Not to mention tracing genetic cursors which may be indicators of likely predisposition to danger. Then with the researchers discovering the adjuvants found in unexpected places they’re not supposed to end up, like in inter muscular and inter cranial cists all the years later, we learn that some people are incapable of processing these substances. Now we learn the sub atomic adjuvant approach may be more dangerous approach because of the way aluminum is processed in the body. It’s just all bad. Bounce to known non vaxxed groups vs known vaxxed groups like amish vs, well, everyone else, the stats indicate a high risk of danger. Hush hush, don’t talk about that.

    I don’t claim to be an expert on the matter, but I’ve read a lot of The Vaccine Reaction Newsletter articles over the several years that NVIC has published this amazing online informational source. My opinion is that we’re simply opting out until the scientific community regains control of their ability to be honest with the scientific method rather than seeking predisposed positions in the interest of profit and gain.

    When the people supposedly protecting your safety need to erode your constitutional and civil rights at a breathtaking pace in order to force the sale of their products, you know there is a problem. Scroll down on this link for the ever changing ongoing list of regulatory pressure big pharma puts on citizens. Let’s face it, if this was not a subsidized program, nobody would be willing to pay thousands of dollars for vaccines cash out of pocket and they’d be more inclined to be more hygienic, eat safer foods with less chemical pollutants, etc, etc. Now the lists have grown so long for recommended vaccines, parents are no longer clearly aware of whats’ there to protect against lethal diseases, vs what is just fluff added to hopefully help prevent non lethal diseases. The measels mumps is a good example of this unfounded hysteria.

    There are no easy answers and we simply have said, we don’t have to make up our minds, and we’ve opted out until the scientific community at large can behave in an ethical unbiased way again, hopefully one day in the future. In a free market economy a product sells because it’s effective and the consumers demand it. In a socialistic model you have to buy the product, from only the government approved company, because that’s the law. That’s enough for me, just looking at this below page, to recognize our rights are in danger and that’s why we opted out of all shots, regardless of type or use. Without liberty, life is not even worth living anyways. Liberty first. The scope of injection by lobbyists vs their unwillingness to rather spend funds on better research is a tell al in itself, this below list changes so rapidly over the years, it’s shocking. If the product is so great, why do they need to censor opposing viewpoints and why can’t the refute the claims with science? Tic Toc.


Comments are closed.


& Tipsters

Corruption in science?
Academic discrimination?
Research censorship?
Government cover-ups?

Undark wants to hear about it.

Email us at tips@undark.org, or visit our contact page for more secure options.