Vaccine Sales Pitches: What Your Doctor Won’t Tell You

Most people do some basic research on important consumer decisions, like buying a house or a car. Buyers do not completely trust what the seller says. They conduct inspections, read consumer reviews, and try to avoid safety issues. What would that consumer process look like for drugs and vaccines? Should we blindly trust the pharmaceutical provider who is financially incentivized to sell drugs and vaccines? Should we consider the testimonials of people who had adverse reactions? At a minimum, we should check the ingredients for allergens, read the clinical trial results for efficacy level, and consider adverse reports in FDA drug safety alerts and the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). All this information provides a much more comprehensive view beyond the marketing mantra of “safe and effective” or the bully tactics of “required for school” language.

Colorado: Recommended, Required, and Exemptions for Vaccines

The following vaccines are “recommended,” which means optional, and no exemption is required: COVID-19, Dengue, Hepatitis A, HPV, Influenza, MPox, Pneumococcal, RSV, Rota virus, and Meningococcal. The following vaccines are “required,” which means an immunization record, exemption certificate or exemption education module, or proof of immunity (titers blood test) is required for schools and daycares: Hepatitis B, Diphtheria/Tetanus/Pertussis (DTaP or TDaP), Haemophilus Influenzae (Hib),  Pneumococcal, Polio, Measles/Mumps/Rubella (MMR), and Varicella.

For exemptions, Colorado has a medical exemption certificate, and a “non-medical” exemption certificate, which in 2020 legislation replaced the religious and philosophical exemptions, established in 1978. Doctors refuse to sign either of these forms, because it puts their quotas for vaccine sales at risk. Doctors lose significant compensation for every patient who is not fully vaccinated with every “required” vaccine. Most parents who choose to exercise their exemption rights complete a vaccine education module option, which omits all serious adverse injury, disability, and death data.

In one Blue Cross Blue Shield example cited by Children’s Health Defense, pediatricians are incentivized with bonuses for vaccinating a high percentage of children:

“For vaccination, providers receive $400 for each eligible two-year-old who has received all 24-25 vaccines [per the CDC schedule], but only if the provider manages to administer each and every shot to at least 63% of his or her patients. Thus, there is a formidable incentive not to let any patients slip through the cracks.”

Doctors are financially conflicted under this “performance recognition program” to coerce vaccine uptake. Any parent who communicates a choice to delay or refuse a vaccine can expect the doctor to label the parent as “difficult,” and in some cases the doctor will dismiss the family from the practice. Parents are pushing back on the vaccine schedule with 76 doses of 18 vaccines by age 18, compared to 11 doses in 1986.

Doctors often provide a Vaccine Information Sheet (VIS) with each vaccine, which list pain and mild swelling at the injection site as the only possible adverse reaction. Lacking full transparency, parents are not informed of the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) which was designed to address vaccine disability and death in a quasi-judicial government process where records are commonly sealed from the public and compensations are rare. Doctors also do not inform patients that vaccines have been shielded from liability since 1986, and disability from adverse reaction is completely the risk of the patient to include medical expenses, loss of employment, and loss of quality of life. This risk should be part of the cost-benefit discussion for illnesses which are extremely rare and non-fatal in the first world in 2025.

CDPHE has set up vaccinated student population goals of 95% for each school, with school-shaming reporting requirements for schools which fall below this goal. CDPHE is also under financial incentives to promote this 95% vaccinated criteria. Historically, herd immunity was based on 60% of populations having naturally acquired immunity. Sixty percent natural immunity was the threshold which protected the elderly and infants. Ninety-five percent vaccinated is a criterion based on financial incentives for federal grants to CDPHE.

On June 9, 2025, Secretary Kennedy tweeted, “Our entire healthcare system runs on a bundle of perverse incentives.”

Secretary of HHS retires all ACIP Committee Members

On June 9, 2025, HHS Secretary Kennedy removed all seventeen members of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). As reported by The Defender:

“The committee decides which vaccines should be recommended to the public, who should take them and how often — recommendations the CDC typically rubber stamps. However, most members have financial ties to pharmaceutical companies marketing vaccines or have worked with public health agencies to promote controversial vaccines, including the COVID-19, RSV and HPV shots. These problems have plagued the committee for decades. A 2000 investigation by the U.S. House of Representatives found that enforcement of conflict-of-interest rules was ‘weak-to-nonexistent.’ A 2009 HHS inspector-general report made similar findings, Kennedy wrote. Investigations by The Defender in 2021 and 2024 also found that most committee members had direct ties to pharmaceutical companies. Kennedy wrote that the committee has ‘never recommended against a vaccine — even those later withdrawn for safety reasons.’ He said the committee has failed to ‘adequately scrutinize’ vaccines for babies and pregnant women.”

Kennedy has replaced 8 of the 17 ACIP members, to include scientists, public health experts, and physicians. Kennedy has also been very vocal that none of the current required vaccines have been tested against a true saline placebo in the licensure approval process. The lack of saline placebo controls potentially hides adverse reactions and side effects in clinical trials. On June 10, 2025, Kennedy tweeted. “No one can scientifically ascertain whether these products are averting more problems than they are causing.” In an interview, Kennedy alluded to his concern that the unknown risk profiles of vaccines might be contributing to autoimmune diseases.

How did Colorado preemptively respond to Kennedy’s signaled removal of the heavily conflicted ACIP members? Colorado passed CO HB 25-1027 which included a change from following vaccine recommendations of ACIP to following recommendations of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP), American College of Obstetrics and Gynecologists (ACOG), and American College of Physicians (ACP). These organizations also incentivize vaccine uptake for the providers under their accreditations, and they are under industry capture with board members who have conflicts of interests.

Conclusion

Consumers must use neutral sources to make vaccine decisions and not rely on vaccine salesmen. The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) provides fact-based information on each vaccine, and the risk prevalence of each disease. The current immunization program is operating under a system of coercion rather than voluntary informed consent, as well as health agency corruption rather than gold-standard, placebo-controlled science.