Vaccines cause incalculable harm
Executive summary
Claims that “vaccines cause incalculable harm” are not supported by the bulk of recent mainstream reporting and peer-reviewed studies: large safety studies show no increase in long-term mortality after COVID vaccination and public-health experts warn that reducing childhood vaccine coverage has led to resurging measles and other outbreaks [1] [2]. At the same time, high‑profile disputes inside U.S. agencies and provocative memos from officials have stoked uncertainty and produced contested allegations of rare harms that experts and journalists say lack full publicly presented evidence [3] [4].
1. The broad evidence base: vaccines overwhelmingly tied to disease prevention, not ‘incalculable’ harm
Decades of population-level vaccination programs are linked to dramatic declines in disease: for example, infant hepatitis B immunization contributed to a 99% drop in reported acute pediatric hepatitis B cases from 1990 to 2019, and large studies have found no increase in long‑term mortality after COVID vaccination through March 2025 [5] [1]. These data support the mainstream scientific position that vaccines are powerful public‑health tools [1] [5].
2. Where people cite harms: rare adverse events and ongoing safety surveillance
Reporting and scientific literature acknowledge rare but real adverse events—anaphylaxis and myocarditis are repeatedly discussed in 2020–2025 literature—but those events are described as uncommon and weighed against large numbers of prevented hospitalizations and deaths [6] [3]. Public-health agencies maintain surveillance systems (V‑safe, VAERS and others) precisely to detect such rare signals [3].
3. Recent institutional controversies that amplify fear
Internal memos and contested claims have heightened concern: a senior FDA vaccine regulator’s memo alleging at least 10 child deaths after COVID vaccination drew skepticism from outside experts because the memo did not present detailed data publicly, and journalists described the disclosure as “highly unusual” [3] [4]. These episodes matter because they change public perception even when the underlying evidence remains unpublished or disputed [3] [4].
4. Policy shifts and the political dimension: decisions that risk more disease
U.S. vaccine advisory changes—such as moves to reconsider universal newborn hepatitis B shots—have alarmed many clinicians and epidemiologists who warn such shifts could expose more children to preventable infection, especially where prenatal screening is imperfect [7] [8]. Critics note the committee includes members aligned with RFK Jr. and that some proposed options (antibody titer testing before dosing) have “little scientific support,” a point stressed by reporting in The Atlantic [8].
5. The cost of scares: social contagion and erosion of herd immunity
Modeling and retrospective studies show that small changes in perceived vaccine risk can tip communities from protection to outbreaks; vaccine scares spread through social networks and can transform localized outbreaks into far larger epidemics [9]. In 2025 the U.S. saw its largest measles outbreak in decades, tied to falling immunization rates and growing hesitancy, underscoring the public‑health consequences of eroded confidence [5] [2].
6. Disputed claims and recycled misinformation
Several widely shared claims—such as recycled lists alleging thousands of vaccine side effects newly “released” by manufacturers—have been debunked: fact‑checkers and reporters traced these lists to earlier documents and stressed they represent reported adverse events, not verified causation [10]. The presence of such misleading posts complicates honest discussion about rare vaccine risks [10].
7. What the sources do not say (limits of current reporting)
Available sources do not present a definitive, peer‑reviewed analysis that quantifies a net “incalculable” global harm caused by vaccines; instead, they offer large studies finding no increase in long‑term mortality after COVID vaccination and reporting on rare adverse events and policy disputes [1] [3]. They also do not provide full public datasets from some agency memos that would allow independent verification of certain alarming internal claims [3].
8. Bottom line for readers weighing risk claims
Public-health literature and mainstream reporting frame vaccines as having substantial net benefit and well‑documented, rare risks that surveillance systems monitor; conversely, policy turmoil and selective disclosures can amplify fear and have real consequences—declines in uptake have coincided with resurgent measles and other outbreaks [1] [2] [9]. Readers should distinguish between documented, quantified risks in peer‑reviewed studies and disputed or unpublished allegations that have not been subjected to independent analysis [3] [10].