Every single case of vaccine injury occurred like this:

  1. assurances from the doctor that the vaccine is “safe and effective” and that serious adverse events are “extremely rare”
  2. the parents discover that the vaccine was not safe for their child, and the chances of serious injury were much higher than “extremely rare”

According to Nassim Nicholas Taleb, the author of the classics Fooled By Randomness, Black Swan, Antifragile, and Skin In The Game: 

“The first principle of iatrogenics is as follows: we do not need evidence of harm to claim that a drug or an unnatural procedure is dangerous… harm is in the future, not in the narrowly defined past.” 

Iatrogenics refers to any harm or adverse effect resulting from medical treatment or advice.

ChatGPT, a popular AI-driven chatbot, has some really good insights into this when you don’t tell it that you are actually talking about vaccines.

Me: What does Taleb mean about not needing evidence of harm?


In this specific quote, Taleb's "first principle of iatrogenics" suggests that when dealing with drugs or any unnatural procedures, we should not wait for evidence of harm before being cautious about their use. Instead, Taleb argues that the potential for harm should be assumed, especially because the future effects of these interventions are unknown and can't be fully predicted just by their past performances or studies.

What does this mean for you?

It means that you need to define a cautious vaccination approach for your family.

One way to do that is to look at how other countries like Denmark vaccinate: they don’t start until 3 months.

Another way is to refuse lifestyle vaccines like HepB. Denmark doesn’t bother with it. Why should you?

Yet another way is to refuse all vaccines for non-serious diseases like rotavirus. Denmark doesn’t bother with that one, either.

But what about outbreaks of serious disease?

A new version of the VaxCalc subscription-based service is coming out really soon. It can help a lot with navigating this minefield.