top of page

CDC Lies About the Risks of Vaccination of Preterm Infants

According to the CDC, it is perfectly safe to vaccinate preterm babies by the same childhood vaccination schedule as full-term infants. “You can vaccinate premature babies according to chronological age”, the CDC says, meaning that there is no reason to delay vaccination until the infant has matured more, developmentally. The CDC states that “The vaccines cannot harm them and they will develop active immunity.”

“The vaccines cannot harm them….”

On its face, this is a remarkably bold lie from the CDC. After all, the CDC acknowledges that vaccination carries risks of adverse events in children born full-term, so how can it possibly be true that vaccination “cannot harm” infants born prematurely?

Perhaps what the CDC is trying to communicate is that vaccination of preterm babies carries no greater risk. But if we assume this is simply a miscommunication, it would be a shockingly irresponsible one, particularly given that the CDC’s target audience for this information is medical professionals, from hospital administrators to physicians to medical students. In fact, the information just quoted comes from an online course presented by the CDC through its Training and Continuing Education Online program.

Moreover, if we assume the CDC means to say that vaccination of premature infants does not place them at any greater risk, in the above video (presented by the team that made the documentary film Vaxxed), Suzanne Humphries, MD, shares research exposing what a dangerous lie this still would be. As she demonstrates, science informs us just the opposite: that vaccinating infants born prematurely puts them at significantly greater risk of a host of known adverse reactions.

The Significance of Dr. Humphries’ Research

Preterm birth, or premature birth, is defined as a birth occurring before the completion of 37 weeks of pregnancy. In 2015 (the same year the above CDC course was last updated), one out of ten babies was born prematurely. This represents a significant decline over the prior seven years, but the sheer number of babies we are talking about at this rate is important context for the information Dr. Humphries shares with us.

According to CDC data, there were 3,978,497 births in the US that same year. Hence, in our example year of 2015, nearly 400,000 were born prematurely. That’s 400,000 babies whom, absent other accepted contraindications to vaccination, the CDC recommended not delaying vaccination for.

As Dr. Humphries shows us, we are talking about hundreds of thousands of babies every year who are being put at significantly increased risk of harm — specifically, unnecessary treatment with antibiotics and adverse events requiring respiratory support and intubation — due to public vaccine policy.

Inflammatory Response to Vaccination in Preterm Infants

The first study Dr. Humphries shares with us is titled “Interleukin-6, C-reactive protein, and abnormal cardiorespiratory responses to immunization in premature infants“, published in March 1998 in the journal Pediatrics, which is the journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP).

In 1982, working in collaboration with the CDC, the AAP issued a recommendation to routinely vaccinate preterm infants. It recommended “never” reducing the dose of any vaccine given to preterm babies on the grounds that doing so could result in an “inadequate immune response”. Also, with the exception of the HepB vaccine, birth weight and size “are not factors in deciding whether to postpone routine vaccinations of a clinically stable preterm infant”.

The AAP further claimed that “Preterm and low birth weight infants tolerate most childhood vaccines as well as term infants.” In other words, the AAP claimed that, for most vaccines, this practice of vaccinating preterm infants does not increase the risk of an adverse health outcome compared to vaccination of infants born at or after the 37th week of pregnancy. It listed some exceptions. For example, “Apnea [pauses in or shallow breathing] with or without bradycardia [slow heart rate] was reported to have occurred in some extremely low birth weight (less than 1000 g) infants” after vaccination with the diphtheria, tetanus, and whole-cell pertussis vaccine (DTP or DTwP). Furthermore, the AAP acknowledged an increase in “cardiorespiratory events, including apnea and bradycardia with oxygen desaturation” — the latter of which can cause adverse health outcomes such as cerebral palsy — after vaccination with the the following:

  • Diphtheria, tetanus, and acellular pertussis (DTaP);

  • Inactivated poliovirus (IPV);

  • Hepatitis B (HepB);

  • Haemophilus influenza type B (Hib).

However, the AAP further claimed that “these postimmunization cardiorespiratory events generally do not have a detrimental effect on the clinical course of immunized infants.” In other words, yes, vaccines increase the risk of adverse cardiorespiratory events, but this is not something doctors need to worry too much about. It’s not a reason not to vaccinate preterm infants.

But how sound was that judgement, which still underscores CDC and AAP policy and guidance toward the medical community today?

Returning to the aforementioned Pediatrics study, the authors started out by expressing their concern that “only 56% of pediatricians and 34% of family physicians were in compliance” with the AAP’s recommendation to routinely vaccinate premature or low-birth weight infants.

Dr. Humphries emphasizes the important point that this indicates how many doctors instinctively felt that following the CDC and AAP’s recommendation could put preterm infants at an increased risk of harm.

The authors further noted that antibiotics were frequently being given to infants who “developed abnormal cardiorespiratory signs soon after immunization”. The reason for this was that their C-reactive protein (CRP) levels were elevated, which, along with the cytokine interleukin-6 (IL-6), is a marker of inflammation, as well as a “reliable marker of bacterial sepsis”. Doctors were assuming the elevated CRP was due to bacterial infection. However, blood culture results for bacterial infection were “regularly negative in these infants”.

They therefore hypothesized that antibiotics were being given unnecessarily because the inflammatory response was being caused not by bacterial infection, but by vaccination. To test this hypothesis, they “studied interleukin-6 (IL-6) and CRP responses to immunization, seeking to demonstrate that immunization itself stimulates increases in blood IL-6 and CRP levels, and that usually there is no need for antibiotic therapy.”

The researchers looked at 89 premature infants in a neonatal intensive care unit vaccinated according to the CDC and AAP’s recommendation. Seventy-nine of these had received DTP, Hib, HepB, and IPV simultaneously. The other 10 first received the acellular pertussis vaccine (DTaP) followed two days later by Hib, HepB, and IPV delivered simultaneously.

What the researchers found with respect to the first group was a clearly demonstrated temporal relationship between vaccination and an increase in inflammatory markers. Furthermore, of the 79 infants in the first group, 24, or 30%, “had abnormal cardiorespiratory signs that increased in frequency or appeared for the first time. These signs included apnea, bradycardia, and oxygen desaturation that required vigorous stimulation, initiation, or increase in oxygen supplementation. One of these infants required continuous positive airway pressure, and 2 others needed intermittent positive pressure ventilation.”

They also found that the the magnitude of the inflammatory response to vaccination was unrelated to the incidence and severity of the cardiorespiratory events.

Among the other group of 10 infants, three showed cardiorespiratory signs that began or increased in frequency “after the simultaneous immunizations with Hib, HVB, and IPV. Each of these infants required vigorous stimulation, initiation, or increase in oxygen supplementation or bag/mask.”

However, inflammatory markers were not elevated for any of these infants.

They summarized three main findings of their study of preterm infants vaccinated according to the CDC and AAP’s recommendation while in the neonatal intensive care unit:

  1. “Cardiorespiratory symptoms occur in a substantial number (30%)” of vaccinated preterm infants.

  2. Vaccination with DTP “triggers production of IL-6 and therefore CRP in virtually all infants”.

  3. The only infant in whom there was not a CRP response after vaccination with DTP was later found to have a T-cell deficiency.

The authors also noted that, while their study was unique in looking mostly at babies who “had chronic lung disease, which may have predisposed them to the abnormal clinical responses we observed”, numerous other studies had previously reported cardiorespiratory symptoms after vaccination. Their study confirmed these previous findings.

Yet rather than advising reconsideration of the policy, the authors simply parroted the AAP’s recommendation that these babies be closely monitored for 48 hours after vaccination.

The authors additionally concluded that the “whole-cell pertussis component of DTwP was responsible” for the increased inflammatory response, noting that their study was “the first to demonstrate systematically IL-6 and CRP increase after routine immunization with whole-cell pertussis vaccine.”

This is significant because DTP has been phased out of use in the US, so today it is DTaP that is used. However, as Dr. Humphries points out, the study was not properly designed to determine this through a direct comparison of the whole-cell versus the acellular pertussis vaccine. It was rather designed to test the hypothesis that regular administration of antibiotics to infants showing elevated inflammatory markers was unnecessary since this inflammation was being caused instead by the vaccinations. For example, the fact that the DTaP vaccine was administered two days prior to the rest, while the DTP vaccines was administered simultaneously, introduces an uncontrolled variable that calls into question the validity of this conclusion.

The key takeaways from this Pediatrics study were that:

  1. Infants were being unnecessarily given antibiotics, which, as Dr. Humphries emphasizes, would also indiscriminately also wipe out the beneficial bacteria of the gut microbiome, which scientists now understand play an important role in the body’s immune response to pathogenic challenge. In other words, doctors were regularly giving infants a medical treatment that not only was unnecessary, but could only cause harm.

  2. Vaccination with DTP invariably causes an inflammatory response in preterm infants.

  3. Apparently unrelated to elevated inflammatory markers, routine vaccination of preterm infants increases the risk of adverse cardiovascular events.

However, Dr. Humphries also draws our attention to a more recent study by members of this same team of researchers contradicting their conclusion about the relative safety of the DTaP vaccine compared to DTP.

The researchers pointed out that the AAP had in January 1996 issued a revised recommendation to use the DTaP rather than DTP vaccine due to the latter’s “increased reactogenicity” and association with cardiorespiratory events. As they explained (emphasis added):

Vaccination-associated adverse reactions are not uncommon and may resemble serious infection in infants. Creative protein (CRP) is a marker of inflammation or infection in neonates. A consistent increase in CRP has been reported after immunization of preterm infants with vaccines containing diphtheria-tetanus-whole cell pertussis (DTwP); however, CRP responses to DTaP and other vaccines have not been studied.

Instructively, their hypothesis was that vaccination of preterm infants in the NICU with DTaP would not be associated with either cardiorespiratory events or abnormal levels of the inflammatory marker CRP.

They were wrong on both counts.

As the authors noted, “contrary to previous reports, cardiorespiratory events can be observed even if DTaP is given as a single vaccine.” Indeed, their finding was that 24% of infants who received DTaP “had abnormal CRP”.

Additionally, they found that “infants who received multiple vaccines were almost four times more likely to have immunization-associated cardiorespiratory events and 16 times more likely to have abnormal CRP value”. (Emphasis added.)

As the authors summarized their findings:

Our study revealed that some vaccines, including DTaP, even if administered alone were associated with cardiorespiratory adverse events and abnormal CRP values in premature infants in the NICU. However, the incidence of these events was higher following simultaneous administration of multiple vaccines compared with administration of a single vaccine.

They also cited other studies reporting cardiorespiratory events after vaccination with DTaP and added, “These studies and ours suggest that cardiorespiratory events can occur with use of DTaP vaccine given alone, simultaneously with other vaccines, or as part of a combination vaccine.”

Once again, however, rather than calling into question public vaccine policy, they simply concluded that hospitalized premature infants vaccinated according to the AAP’s recommendation at two months of age need to be closely monitored because of the known risks.

Adverse Events After Vaccination of Low-Birth-Weight Infants

Another even more recent study Dr. Humphries draws our attention to is titled “Adverse Events After Routine Immunization of Extremely Low-Birth-Weight Infants“, published in June 2015 in JAMA Pediatrics, a journal of the American Media Association (AMA).

The authors of this study noted that vaccination “of extremely low-birth-weight (ELBW) infants in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) is associated with adverse events, including fever and apnea or badycardia, in the immediate postimmunization period. These adverse events present a diagnostic dilemma for physicians, leading to the potential for immunization delay and sepsis evaluations.”

To determine whether there was an increased incidence of sepsis evaluations among ELBW infants after vaccination compared to before vaccination, the researchers did a retrospective cohort study of 13,926 infants born at or before 28 weeks of pregnancy.

The results were that infants had a 3.7 times greater chance of undergoing sepsis evaluation after vaccination, a 2.1 times greater risk of needing respiratory support, and a 1.7 times greater risk of needing intubation.

They also found that post-vaccination adverse events were similar whether combination or single vaccines were used.

Remarkably, as Dr. Humphries emphasizes, rather than concluding that therefore the CDC and AAP ought to revise their policy to allow for a delay in vaccination of preterm infants, the authors simply concluded that there was no reason to use single rather than combination vaccines.

This is illustrative of the institutional myopia and cognitive dissonance that exists within the medical community when it comes to the practice of vaccination. Note that while the authors implicitly acknowledged that there is good reason for doctors to reject the CDC and AAP’s recommendation and instead delay vaccination of babies born underweight, their concern was not that vaccinating preterm infants nearly quadrupled their risk of sepsis evaluation, doubled the risk of needing respiratory support, and nearly doubled the risk of needing intubation, but that too many doctors were not adhering to policy.

In fact, one of the explicit aims of their study was to gain better knowledge “of the risk factors for and timing of adverse events after immunization in ELBW infants” in order to “reduce” this tendancy of “immunization delay” among doctors. Even though their findings contradicted their own assumptions and validated the decision of doctors to delay vaccination, they incongruously persisted in their predrawn conclusion that doctors ought to continue following the recommendation.

Examining their study more closely, the researchers looked at infants who had received at least one of the following vaccinations, reflective of the vaccines routinely administered at two months according to the CDC’s schedule:

  • DTaP

  • IPV

  • HepB

  • Hib

  • Pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV)

  • Combination DTaP, IPV, and HepB

  • Combination DTaP, IPV, and Hib

  • Combination HepB and Hib

In addition to the “significant increase in adverse events in the postimmunization period”, five of the infants died within three days of having been vaccinated. One thing that the researchers did not compare was the mortality rate of vaccinated versus unvaccinated preterm infants, which would have allowed them to determine whether the fatal outcomes were associated with vaccination.

This is no minor oversight. To this day, while discontinued in the US, the DTP vaccine is still widely used elsewhere around the globe, and studies have consistently shown that, contrary to the assumption of policymakers that this would prevent deaths, it actually results in an increased mortality rate. As the authors of the most recent of these studies (published in February 2017) bluntly put it, “All currently available evidence suggests that DTP vaccine may kill more children from other causes than it saves from diphtheria, tetanus or pertussis.”

Returning to the JAMA Pediatrics study, the authors stated that their findings “provide no evidence to suggest that physicians should not use combination vaccines in ELBW infants.” In other words, there was no reason to use, say, DTaP, IPV, and HepB separately rather than the one combination shot — no reason, that is, other than the fact that vaccinations, whether given in single doses or in combination, significantly increased the risk of these adverse events.

This increased risk is starkly illustrated in three graphs presented in this study showing that the rate of adverse events was steadily decreasing among the preterm infants until vaccination, which is associated with a dramatic increase in incidence of sepsis evaluation, increased respiratory support, and intubation.

Astonishingly, the authors advise adherence to the CDC and AAP’s recommendation on the basis of the assumption that “Immunization delay burdens an already fragile patient population with the increased morbidity and mortality of vaccine-preventable diseases through the first year of life.” However, as Dr. Humphries emphasizes, this conclusion does not follow from their findings. They could not reasonably draw conclusions about the morbidity or mortality rates of vaccinated versus unvaccinated preterm infants for the simple reason that they did not do this comparison.

We’ve seen the result of studies that have done this comparison for DTP, and it illustrates just how dangerous–indeed, just how fatal–it can be for the CDC to devise public vaccine policy on the basis of such assumptions.

10,000 Vaccines At Once?

One concern that parents — and, evidently, many doctors — have about vaccines is that too many administered at one time can overwhelm the immune system.

The CDC poo-poos this concern.

On its website, it declares that “Getting multiple vaccines at the same time has been shown to be safe.” Further: “Scientific data show that getting several vaccines at the same time does not cause any chronic health problems. A number of studies have been done to look at the effects of giving various combinations of vaccines, and when every new vaccine is licensed, it has been tested along with the vaccines already recommended for a particular aged child.”

The CDC provides no sources to substantiate these claims. Furthermore, note the CDC’s deceptive wording: “A number” of studies have been done on “various combinations” of vaccines, and every new vaccine “has been tested along with the vaccines already recommended”. That simply means that all recommended vaccines have been tested prior to being added to the CDC’s schedule, and that some combinations of vaccines have been studied for safety in addition to the studies that only consider the safety of each new vaccine individually.

Although this wording is transparently intended to lead concerned parents to believe otherwise, the CDC is not saying here that clinical trials evaluate the safety of every new vaccine given in conjunction with every other vaccine already on the CDC’s schedule. They do not. In fact, there has never been a long-term, randomized, placebo-controlled study examining health outcomes of children fully vaccinated according to the CDC’s schedule and children who remained completely unvaccinated.

On an FAQ page for its “Parents Guide to Childhood Immunizations”, the CDC offers:

Q: Can’t so many vaccines overwhelm a child’s immune system? A: We may not know exactly how many germs a baby’s immune system can handle at one time, but it is considerably more than they will ever get from vaccines. After all, this is the immune system’s job. From the day a baby is born, her immune system has to deal with the thousands of germs she is exposed to as part of daily life. As one doctor put it, “Worrying about too many vaccines is like worrying about a thimble of water getting you wet when you are swimming in an ocean.”

Once again, the CDC declines to provide its sources, but the quote is from an article published on the website that in turn cites a paper published in Pediatrics in January 2002. The lead author of that paper was Paul Offit, MD, who argued, on the basis of certain assumptions, that every infant has “the theoretical capacity to respond to about 10,000 vaccines at any one time”.

One of his underlying assumptions was that each vaccine would contain 100 antigens, and since “most vaccines contain far fewer than 100 antigens”, he argued, therefore “the estimated number of vaccines to which a child could respond is conservative.” He cites the specific example of HepB, which the CDC recommends infants receive on the first day of their lives. This vaccine, Offit asserted, contains just “1 antigen”.

This is an incredibly audacious lie.

The CDC defines an antigen as a foreign substances in the body that is capable of causing disease, the presence of which triggers an immune response. When Paul Offit claims that HepB contains just “1 antigen”, he is deceptively redefining the word “antigen” to mean only the antigen in the vaccine that is derived from the bacteria or virus that causes the disease the vaccine is intended to prevent. Specifically, he is referring to a protein referred to as hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAG). It is true that this protein is the only antigen from the hepatitis B virus used in the manufacture of the HepB vaccine. However, it is not the only antigen in the vaccine.

In proclaiming otherwise, Offit and his coauthors are completely ignoring the existence of any and all other antigenic ingredients in vaccines.

Among other antigens, the HepB vaccine also contains aluminum. In fact, although aluminum is a known neurotoxin, this antigen is included in the vaccine precisely because it causes an increased immune response. This kind of ingredient is known as an “adjuvant”, the purpose of which, as the CDC also informs us, is “to increase the body’s immune response to a vaccine”, i.e., to increase the level of antibodies produced in response to vaccination so that an amount considered “protective” can be obtained (which is required to obtain licensure).

Offit argued that “infants actually encounter fewer antigens in vaccines today than they did 40 or 100 years ago”. For example, the smallpox vaccine contained about 200 proteins of the target antigen, whereas the 11 vaccine routinely recommended in 2002 contained a combined total of “fewer than 130 proteins”.

This is deceptive, however, because it completely ignores the fact that vaccine manufacturers today are able to use fewer target antigens today than in previous generations of vaccines in large part because of the use of adjuvants in many vaccines, typically aluminum.

Note, furthermore, that although this paper was written to assure parents that vaccines are safe, Offit’s theory was actually strictly limited to the question of whether an infant’s immune system would respond to the antigenic challenge of 10,000 vaccines at once. Offit and his coauthors did not ask whether it would actually be safe to do this. For instance, they wrote about “the estimated number of vaccines to which a child could respond“; they did not write about “the estimated number of vaccines which a child could safely receive“.

To more starkly illustrate the implications of asking the wrong question, consider that Offit, et al, completely ignored the question of whether the amount of aluminum a child would be exposed to if given 10,000 vaccines would be safe.

Some quick math gives us a pretty good indication of the answer.

With respect to aluminum, the federal government has established the safety limit for vaccines at a maximum of 1,250 micrograms. The Hepatitis B vaccine contains 250 micrograms. So, if a child was to receive 10,000 doses of HepB at once, they would be injected with 2,500,000 micrograms of aluminum.

This is the same Paul Offit who has, in the op-ed pages of the New York Times, accused parents of child abuse for not vaccinating their children. Yet injecting these same children with 2,000 times the government’s own safety limit for aluminum exposure would not be child abuse, by this guy’s demented reasoning.

And this is precisely the same fallacious and demented reasoning the CDC relies upon to poo-poo parents’ concerns about their child receiving too many vaccines at the same time.

This is illustrated in the same limited scope of the CDC’s answer to parents’ question about the safety of their child receiving multiple vaccine at once. Note that the CDC in its answer only considered the infants’ exposure to “germs” from vaccines. Aluminum and numerous other ingredients contained in vaccines are not “germs”, we are not already “swimming” in them (or we’d be dead), and parents’ concern that receiving too many vaccines at once might harm their child is legitimate and, indeed, scientifically validated.

The Autism Question

The studies Dr. Humphries has cited thus far have further illustrated the absurdity of Offit’s claim. She goes further, directing us to an article at the website There, we are informed about a number of studies indicating that an elevated level of the inflammatory marker IL-6 in the brain is associated with neurodevelopmental disorders, including autism.

One of the studies cited is titled “Maternal Immune Activation Alters Fetal Brain Development through Interluekin-6“, published in the Journal of Neuroscience in October 2007. The researchers experimented with mice to determine the effects of immune activation in the pregnant mother on the brain development of the offspring. While the researchers had in mind an inflammatory response to infection, such as with influenza or rubella, they noted that in humans, “[maternal immune activation] in general, is detrimental to the developing brain”. (Emphasis added.) This would, of course, include elevated IL-6 due to vaccination of the mother during pregnancy.

According to another of the studies cited, “Maternal immune activation promotes hippocampal kindling epileptogenesis in mice“, published in Annals of Neurology in July 2013, this elevated IL-6 due to maternal immune activation “is necessary and sufficient for producing autism in the offspring”.

Another recent study found that “IL-6 activation in placenta is required for relaying inflammatory signals to the fetal brain and impacting behaviors and neuropathologies relevant to neurodevelopmental disease.” (Wu, et al, “The placental interleukin-6 signaling controls fetal brain development and behavior“, Brain, Behavior, and Immunity, May 2017.)

These findings are relevant in light of the CDC’s recommendation that women receive a booster shot of the acellular pertussis vaccine during pregnancy.

The CDC also recommends the influenza vaccine during pregnancy, declaring this to be safe, despite the fact that the flu shot also elevates IL-6. The CDC also does not distinguish between single-dose and multi-dose influenza vaccines in its recommendation to pregnant women, despite the fact that multi-dose flu shots still contain as a preservative ethylmercury, another known neurotoxin we are not already “swimming” in that passes through both the placental and blood-brain barriers.

The Trauma of Vaccination

As Dr. Humphries also points out, concerns about the inflammatory effects of vaccines and their relationship to adverse events are not something new. She cites a 1967 study titled “Physiological changes of the vaccinated organism: a basis for the interpretation of the clinical complications due to prophylactic vaccines“, published in Progress in Immunobiological Standardization.

This study noted that “the use of any vaccine induces, at a varying rate, secondary effects or real complications”, including complications that “seem to be quite independent of the known properties of the vaccine–such as in all the reactions, observed after different vaccinations, concerning the respiratory tract, the Endocrine system, the blood coagulation process, the renal function, the intestinal tractus, the joints, the eye, and, above all, concerning the great number of secondary infections.” (Citations omitted.)

The author, A. Del Campo, wrote further that to explain the pathogenesis of such complications, “it is necessary to admit firstly that vaccination is always a trauma of considerable intensity–though variable from vaccine to vaccine–for the body”. (Emphasis added.) Secondly, it must be admitted “that the pre-existence–in a minority of individuals–of special organic conditions”, including “peculiar predispositions” (i.e., genetic predisposition), “can induce an abnormal response to the vaccinal trauma, that is a pathological reaction.”

Del Campo describes the outcome of a series of experiments carried out on more than 200 children and used the term “post-vaccinal syndrome” to describe the “complex of the physiological changes detected after the various vaccinations”. The complexity of this syndrome, he wrote, was “remarkable when the activity of the vaccine manifests itself slowly, involving the appearance of fever or of other inflammatory processes which represent a second stress for the vaccinated organism”. (Emphasis added.)


As Del Campo observed half a century ago, “vaccination is always a trauma of considerable intensity” — and some children are at higher risk for adverse reactions to vaccines than others. Yet the CDC’s recommended vaccine schedule remains to this day premised on a one-size-fits-all approach to disease prevention — even for babies born prematurely.

While the CDC claims that vaccines “cannot harm” preterm infants and that therefore there is no reason to delay vaccinations, it is recognized that adverse events associated with vaccination “are not uncommon”, and babies born prematurely are certainly no exception. On the contrary, studies have demonstrated an increased risk of inflammatory markers, including a cytokine associated with autism, and a host of cardiorespiratory events and medical interventions which carry their own host of risks and which might have been avoided altogether had doctors trusted their instinct rather than adhering to the CDC policy.


PLEASE NOTE: The content, ideas, and views in this article are those of the presenter(s); Arvesa does not claim ownership of the content or the information provided above. Arvesa’s intention in sharing information is to provide access to said information so that viewers may come to their own informed conclusion(s). FAIR-USE COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER: Copyright Disclaimed under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, commenting, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research. Fair use, including that of educational or personal use, is a use as permitted by copyright statute. Arvesa has uploaded this information as to preserve its integrity for educational purposes. Therefore, the use of material in this post constitutes a ‘FAIR USE’ of any such copyrighted material; the martial in this article is for research and educational purposes only.


bottom of page