Dissolving Illusions about Vaccines, By Mrs. (Dr.) Abigail Knight (Florida)

Dr. Suzanne Humphries, a former nephrologist and co-author of Dissolving Illusions: Disease, Vaccines, and the Forgotten History, makes several provocative arguments during her appearance on Joe Rogan's podcast:

https://www.vigilantfox.com/p/joe-rogan-guest-completely-shatters

Humphries argues that the 1986 NCVIA, signed by President Reagan, gave vaccine manufacturers immunity from lawsuits, removing accountability for vaccine injuries. Before 1986, manufacturers faced lawsuits due to injuries like Guillain-Barré syndrome linked to the 1976 swine flu vaccine, which led them to demand government protection.

The NCVIA created a compensation program (the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, or VICP), but Humphries calls it a "kangaroo court" that rarely pays out deserving claims.

This immunity allowed manufacturers to experiment with adjuvants (vaccine additives) and expand the childhood vaccine schedule without fear of legal repercussions, prioritising profits over safety.

Humphries claims vaccines aren't tested against true placebos (like saline) but against other vaccines, which hides adverse effects.

She asserts that the few studies using saline placebos reveal vaccines can make recipients more susceptible to diseases, not less.

Humphries challenges the idea that the polio vaccine eradicated the disease, arguing that polio still exists but has been redefined.

She claims the diagnostic criteria for polio were changed after the vaccine's introduction in the 1950s, reclassifying cases as Guillain-Barré syndrome, coxsackievirus, echovirus, or poisoning from lead or mercury.

She links the rise and fall of polio to environmental toxins like DDT, noting that paralysis decreased as DDT use declined, not because of the vaccine.

Humphries describes poliovirus as a "commensal" virus, largely asymptomatic (95–99 percent of cases), and cites a study of the Javante Indians, who had immunity to polio strains without paralysis.

She references a 1916 Rockefeller lab experiment that allegedly created a highly pathological polio strain, leading to a devastating epidemic with 25 percent mortality after an accidental release.

In essence, Humphries argues that the vaccine industry is built on deception, from flawed safety testing to the redefinition of diseases like polio, and that environmental factors—not vaccines—played a larger role in reducing polio cases.

Humphries' point about the 1986 NCVIA is factually accurate and has been a point of contention for decades. The law was passed after vaccine manufacturers, facing lawsuits over injuries (e.g., from the DTP vaccine and the 1976 swine flu vaccine), threatened to stop production unless they were protected. The NCVIA established the VICP to compensate vaccine injury claims, but it also shielded manufacturers from direct lawsuits, meaning they can't be sued for injuries unless claimants first go through the VICP process—a system critics argue is stacked against families.

The VICP has paid out over $4.8 billion for vaccine injury claims since 1988, as reported by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) as of 2023. However, the program has a high rejection rate—only about 1 in 5 claims is compensated, according to a 2017 study in the Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics. Critics, including vaccine sceptics, argue that the process is overly burdensome and biased toward protecting the vaccine industry.

Humphries' claim that immunity led to "creativity" with adjuvants and an expanded vaccine schedule is correct. Post-1986, the childhood vaccine schedule did grow significantly—from 3 vaccines in 1986 to over 70 doses of 16 vaccines by 2017, per the CDC. Adjuvants like aluminium have been used to boost immune responses, but their long-term safety remains debated. A 2020 study in Toxicology Reports suggested that aluminium adjuvants may contribute to neurological issues in some individuals, though this is not widely accepted by mainstream medicine.

Humphries' argument highlights a real conflict of interest: when manufacturers are shielded from liability, their incentive to prioritise safety over profit diminishes. This lack of accountability can erode public trust, especially when the VICP process appears to favour industry over injured families.

Humphries' claim that vaccines aren't tested against saline placebos is a well-documented critique among vaccine sceptics. Mainstream vaccine trials often use another vaccine or an adjuvant-containing solution as the control, rather than a true inert placebo like saline.

A 2010 review in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons (a journal often associated with alternative medical views) found that many vaccine trials lack true placebo controls. For example, the Gardasil HPV vaccine was tested against an aluminium-containing solution, not saline, as noted in its FDA approval documents. A 2018 study in Vaccine acknowledged that placebo-controlled trials for vaccines are rare due to ethical concerns—researchers argue it's unethical to withhold a vaccine from a control group—but this practice makes it harder to isolate vaccine-specific adverse effects.

Humphries' claim that saline placebo studies show vaccines increase disease susceptibility is harder to verify without specific citations. However, some studies have raised concerns about "non-specific effects" of vaccines. A 2017 study in Clinical Infectious Diseases found that the DTP vaccine, while protective against diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis, was associated with higher overall mortality in girls in Guinea-Bissau, possibly due to immune system changes. This suggests vaccines can have unintended effects.

Humphries' point about testing practices is a valid critique of vaccine trial design. Without true placebo controls, it's harder to accurately assess safety, which fuels scepticism about the "safe and effective" narrative. This lack of transparency contributes to the broader theme of institutional distrust.

Humphries' most controversial claim is that the polio vaccine didn't eradicate the disease and that its decline was due to redefinition, environmental factors, and propaganda. This challenges a cornerstone of modern medicine.

Humphries claims that diagnostic criteria for polio changed after the vaccine's introduction, reclassifying cases as other conditions. This has a historical basis. Before the Salk vaccine in 1955, polio was diagnosed based on clinical symptoms like paralysis, often without lab confirmation. After the vaccine, the CDC tightened criteria, requiring lab confirmation of poliovirus and a longer duration of paralysis (60 days instead of 24 hours), as noted in a 1960 paper by the U.S. Public Health Service. This change reduced reported polio cases, as some were reclassified as non-polio acute flaccid paralysis (AFP), Guillain-Barré syndrome, or other conditions.

A 2012 article in The Lancet noted that non-polio AFP cases rose in India after polio vaccination campaigns, suggesting possible diagnostic substitution. Globally, the WHO still tracks AFP cases, and in 2023, over 700,000 AFP cases were reported, though most were not polio-related. This supports Humphries' claim that paralysis resembling polio still exists but is labelled differently.

Humphries links polio's rise and fall to DDT use, arguing that the pesticide caused spinal nerve damage mimicking polio. DDT was widely used in the 1940s and 1950s, and its neurotoxic effects are well-documented. A 1953 study in The American Journal of Pathology found that DDT exposure in animals caused neurological damage similar to polio symptoms. Additionally, polio epidemics in the U.S. peaked during the height of DDT use (1940s–1950s) and declined after its ban in 1972.

Humphries' claim about DDT mirroring polio diagnoses is supported by historical data. U.S. DDT production peaked at 188 million pounds in 1963, per the EPA, while polio cases dropped from 57,879 in 1952 to near zero by the 1970s. A 2007 study in Environmental Health Perspectives noted that DDT exposure can cause neurological damage, though direct causation with polio-like paralysis remains debated.

Humphries' claim that 95–99 percent of polio cases are asymptomatic is accurate. The CDC confirms that most poliovirus infections are asymptomatic, with only 1 in 200 leading to paralysis. Her reference to the Javante Indians—where nearly all had immunity without paralysis—aligns with studies showing that poliovirus exposure often leads to natural immunity without severe outcomes, as seen in a 1992 study in The Journal of Infectious Diseases on indigenous populations.

Humphries' story about the 1916 polio epidemic is historically accurate. Researchers at the Rockefeller Institute, including Simon Flexner, conducted experiments to passage poliovirus through monkeys, creating more virulent strains. A 1916 epidemic in New York City, with over 27,000 cases and a 25 percent mortality rate among paralytic cases, was linked to this research, as documented in a 2011 book, The Polio Paradox. While the "accidental release" claim is speculative, the epidemic's timing and severity raised questions about lab-related origins.

Humphries' polio argument is a compelling alternative narrative. The redefinition of polio, the role of environmental toxins like DDT, and the natural history of poliovirus suggest that the vaccine's role in eradicating polio may have been overstated. While the vaccine likely contributed to reducing wild poliovirus transmission (now limited to Afghanistan and Pakistan, per the WHO), Humphries' points about diagnostic changes and environmental factors highlight a more complex story than the mainstream vax narrative allows.

Humphries' critique of the vaccine industry—particularly the 1986 NCVIA and lack of proper safety testing—reveals a system that prioritises profit over public safety. This mirrors concerns about global leaders making decisions that lead to war rather than peace. If the public can't trust health authorities to be transparent about vaccines, how can they trust governments to handle geopolitical crises responsibly? A 2023 Edelman Trust Barometer report found that only 40 percent of Americans trust their government, a trend exacerbated by perceived failures during the Covid-19 plandemic.

The vaccine debate, as highlighted by Humphries, has deepened societal divisions. Pro-vaccine and anti-vaccine camps are more entrenched than ever, with figures like Rogan amplifying alternative views. This polarisation mirrorssocietal unrest, such as protests in Europe over economic inequality. In 2021, anti-vaccine protests in France and Canada turned violent, reflecting broader discontent with institutional overreach.

Humphries' reference to the 1916 Rockefeller lab experiment—where a manmade polio strain may have caused a deadly epidemic—parallels blog warnings about the risks of escalation in the Middle East and Europe. Just as a lab accident led to unintended consequences, a miscalculation in the Ukraine-Russia conflict or a U.S. strike on Iran could spiral into a larger war. Both scenarios highlight humanity's tendency to create crises through hubris or negligence.

Humphries' argument that the polio narrative was built on "propaganda" and redefinition suggests a broader pattern of deception by those in power. This aligns with scepticism of official narratives about peace in the Middle East and Europe. If health authorities can obscure the truth about vaccines, what else are global leaders hiding about their war preparations?

Dr. Suzanne Humphries' appearance on The Joe Rogan Experience challenges the foundational narratives of vaccine safety and efficacy, particularly around polio. Her claims about the 1986 NCVIA, flawed vaccine testing, and the redefinition of polio are supported by historical evidence and scientific critiques, though they remain controversial. By exposing these issues, Humphries contributes to the broader argument that "things are not okay." The institutional failures she describes—lack of accountability, transparency, and trust—mirror the geopolitical failures, such as military build-ups and fragile peace negotiations. Together, they paint a picture of a world where dark storm clouds are gathering, not just on the battlefield, but in the very systems meant to protect public health.