Vaccination cards, sometimes called immunization records, are pieces of paper given to patients as a way to track the vaccines they’ve received over time. Keeping this record handy ensures a patient is not given more vaccines than is recommended.

Once envisioned as a badge of honor in an effort to protect society’s most vulnerable, these immunization records also chart the growth of the CDC recommended vaccine schedule.

This government recommended vaccine series is technically a complex medical experiment, as no adequate safety studies of the entire vaccine schedule exist, according to the Institute of Medicine (IOM), now known as the National Academy of Medicine (NAM), 2013 report titled “The Childhood Immunization Schedule and Safety: Stakeholder Concerns, Scientific Evidence, and Future Studies.”

In Chapter 5 of that report:

“The committee’s review confirmed that research on immunization safety has mostly developed around studies examining potential associations between individual vaccines and single outcomes. Few studies have attempted more global assessments of entire sequence of immunizations or variations in the overall immunization schedule and categories of health outcomes, and none has squarely examined the issue of health outcomes and stakeholder concerns in quite the way that the committee was asked to do in its statement of task. None has compared entirely unimmunized populations with those fully immunized for the health outcomes of concern to stakeholders.

Queries of experts who addressed the committee in open session did not point toward a body of evidence that had been overlooked but, rather, pointed toward the fact that the research conducted to date has generally not been conceived with the overall immunization schedule in mind.”

Here we are in 2024, and still no studies have been conducted on the safety of the vaccine schedule in its entirety, or that assess the health outcomes of a fully vaccinated cohort to a fully unvaccinated cohort.

Several studies have been conducted by non-government researchers and those papers concluded there were indeed differences in the health outcomes of children who are unvaccinated and vaccinated.

It’s shocking to me that a government can recommend an entire schedule of vaccinations taken together and sequentially every few weeks and months of a young, growing infant’s life—and do this with confidence no less—despite not a shred of evidence assuring its safety. And they keep adding more shots…

These following documents may inadvertently hold a clue for the unexplained increases in children’s neurological and immune related health problems, such as asthma, food allergies, seizure disorders, SIDS, and autism.

As you look at these records, please take special note that not all infants in real life began vaccines at 2 months of age. And some infants received the DT vaccine instead of DTP vaccine for some doses, suggesting a reaction occurred to the DTP vaccine. This also explains why coverage of DTP was much lower than it is today, hovering around 65% for 2 year olds.

Just to explain why I have these, many of them were submitted to me when I put a call out for vaccine cards from the late 1980s and early 1990s. I wanted to get an idea of what DTP vaccines infants were getting in these years, to see if any infants were getting off-label acellular DTaP vaccines prior to their licensure for the doses 1-3. If you would like to participate, and include your card in this post, please send it to me by contacting the author. I will block out your name, or you can.

This one below I find interesting because while I don’t know her birthdate, her first dose of DTP was in July, and her second dose was 6 months after the initial dose. Then, the third dose was 4 months after that, suggesting a very delayed and customized schedule:

This one below is interesting to me because she received the DTP for the first dose, and then each subsequent dose was a DT: