GoldCare Townhall
The Pandemic Games: Deciphering the Future of Medical Tyranny
February 11th – 8 PM EST
00
DAYS
00
HOURS
00
MIN
00
SEC
June 6, 2025
.png)
In the realm of public health, vaccines have long been heralded as a cornerstone of disease prevention. However, recent analyses suggest that the narrative surrounding vaccine safety and efficacy may not be as clear-cut as once believed. Investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson delves into this complex issue, presenting data that challenges the conventional wisdom on vaccination.
Attkisson's research reveals a startling disparity between the risks associated with vaccines and those posed by the diseases they aim to prevent. According to her findings, serious adverse events from vaccines are reportedly 60 times more frequent than severe outcomes from the diseases themselves. Even milder side effects from vaccines occur 14 times more often than similar complications from natural infections.
Consider this: In 2024, there were only 271 reported cases of measles in the United States, with no deaths. Polio has been virtually eradicated, with no wild cases since 1979. Yet, children continue to receive 43 vaccine doses as part of the recommended schedule, exposing them to potential side effects with each shot. The data suggests that the risk of adverse reactions from vaccines may now outweigh the threat posed by the diseases themselves.
The concept of herd immunity has been a driving force behind mass vaccination campaigns. However, Attkisson argues that this notion may be outdated, especially given the current low incidence of many vaccine-preventable diseases. If the majority of the population is already immune, either through vaccination or natural infection, the rationale for continued mass immunization becomes less compelling.
Moreover, the assumption that unvaccinated individuals pose a significant threat to public health is increasingly questionable. With diseases like measles and polio nearly eliminated, the risk of outbreaks is minimal. This raises the question: Are we vaccinating out of necessity, or out of habit?
Public perception plays a crucial role in shaping health policies. Media coverage often emphasizes the dangers of infectious diseases while downplaying or ignoring the potential risks associated with vaccines. This imbalance can create a skewed understanding of the true risk-benefit ratio of vaccination.
Attkisson highlights the need for transparent reporting and open dialogue about vaccine safety. By presenting data that challenges the prevailing narrative, she encourages individuals to critically assess the information presented to them and make informed decisions about their health.
Informed consent is a fundamental principle of medical ethics. Patients have the right to understand the potential risks and benefits of any medical intervention, including vaccines. However, Attkisson suggests that this principle is often overlooked in the context of vaccination.
Many individuals are not fully aware of the potential side effects associated with vaccines or the actual risk posed by the diseases they aim to prevent. This lack of information undermines the ability of patients to make truly informed choices about their health.
The data presented by Sharyl Attkisson invites us to reevaluate our approach to vaccination. It challenges us to consider whether the current practices align with the best interests of public health and individual well-being.
In an era where information is readily accessible, it is imperative that individuals are equipped with accurate and comprehensive data to make informed decisions. By fostering open dialogue and critical thinking, we can ensure that health policies are grounded in evidence and respect for individual autonomy.
When the data shows that vaccine injuries are far more frequent than the diseases themselves, the question is no longer “how safe are vaccines”—it’s “why is no one talking about this?”
That silence is not accidental. It’s engineered. And while agencies double down on outdated schedules and ignore emerging evidence, platforms like GoldCare are breaking ranks.
GoldCare was built for those who refuse to be misled—those who demand clarity, not compliance. No corporate ties. No filtered data. Just the truth they keep off the record. Get the facts, protect your family, and stop playing by their rules. Click here to join GoldCare now.
Disclaimer: This content is not medical advice. For personalized guidance, please consult a GoldCare provider.
"New Vaccine Risk vs. Disease Risk." Published by Sharyl Attkisson's Substack. Available at: New Vaccine Risk vs. Disease Risk
.png)
.png)
%20blog.png)
.png)
.png)
%20(3).jpg)
%20(2).jpg)
%20(1)%20(1).jpg)
.jpg)
%20(1).jpg)
.jpg)
.png)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
