ARE VACCINES WORTH the RISK? | A Quantitative Summary

Today Mango provides a Summary of Comparative Risk between Vaccines and the Diseases they are designed to prevent, according to the data provided in the World Health Organization’s own information sheets, showing the precise trade-off that all parents face when following the CDC vaccination schedule… Cheers.



VACCINE COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS TABLE v3.0 – An Objective Look at Vaccine Dangers

WHO vaccine reaction rates information sheets

Autistic Brains Have High Aluminum Levels

Three Alleged “Vax-Unvax” Studies Debunked

Healthy User Bias: The Fatal Flaw in Vaccine Safety Research

DTP Vaccine Increases Mortality 5-Fold, In Study Without Healthy User Bias


7 thoughts on “ARE VACCINES WORTH the RISK? | A Quantitative Summary

  1. André Angelantoni says:

    Mango, this is great. May I share it with the people who will take The Vaccine Course, which will be a free course on the history and science of vaccines (and put out by a non-profit)? If you’d like to know more about what we are doing, please give me a way to contact you and I’m happy to share more.

    • Andre, thank you for watching and commenting. I am elated to think that this video and associated information is escaping the Big Tech algorithm and being shared anywhere at all. Please feel free to share this with The Vaccine Course students and any else who still parrot the claim that vaccines are safe and vaccine-preventable diseases are statistically threatening. Blessings & Cheers, – Mango T.

      • Andre Angelantoni says:

        Thank you. I’m sharing it widely on FB as well and I can see that it is already getting around in the Vaccine Risk Awareness community. My team also has an initiative to determine when the vaccine cross-over point occurred. The cross-over point is when the next vaccine added to the schedule caused more harm than good.

        As you no doubt know from your own work, even though it’s the best we have, SAE’s are not accurately reported in the documents that you used for your analysis. The licensure studies use a variety of techniques to reduce the number of SAEs that are credited to vaccines to make the vaccines look better than they are.

        Vaccines are actually causing far more extensive damage across every major body system, immune, endocrine, metabolic and nervous, that isn’t being caught by the poor studies that currently exist. In my view, when a proper accounting is done that includes deaths by autoimmune diseases such as MS, autism (yes, they cause autism) and many others we will likely see that the cross-over point was back in the sixties or the seventies, at the latest.

        The next logical step is to see that early and widespread use of these drugs is fueling the bad health in the developed countries and that is driving pharmaceutical sales. We just don’t have the long-term studies or the 100% vaxxed vs. 0% vaxxed studies to prove it (though last I checked Mawson’s full study was getting IRB approval). If RFK Jr. can prove to a judge that fraud has occurred, he can get around the 1986 law, bring a case against the vaccine manufacturers and perform proper discovery. This might turn up an email communication that demonstrates that they knew all along that damage from the vaccine program would benefit sales of their other product lines. The key is to pierce the 1986 law and get these companies into court.

        It’s quite a situation we find ourselves in and it’s a big step forward to have RFK Jr. join the team.

  2. someguy152 says:

    I think this is a great start…hopefully it continues to get improved.
    1) Include formulas in your sheet so we know how you are doing the math. (Highlight columns, rows, and cells with formulas a different number so they are distinct from hardcoded values)
    2) Ur description doesn’t have a link to the page where you are getting the infection rates from.
    3) Is it truly fair to compare worldwide adverse events to what i presume are the US infection rates? this is one part i think will not convince skeptics who will say us adverse events would be much lower due to nutrition and sanitation. The best counter is that the data is being taken at face value, without considering the possibility of conflicts of interest that may result in methodological mistakes and statistical manipulations. We know they have a history of doing this. (see the recent Peter Gotzsche debacle at Cochrane over HPV vaccine).

    You mentioned how ridiculous it is to have such high rates of reactions from placebos, but one thing u should add to the video (via annotations) is how the controls almost always show more adverse reactions than the treatment group. Only 4 explanations for that imo: the vaccine actually improves ur health (which if were true, the scientific community would be praising and publicizing it), nonsignificant differences due to random chance (but then why is it not distributed evenly? why is it one-sided where basically every category has controls showing more adverse reactions), statistical manipulations/fraud, or the most likely, Healthy User Bias, which you said.

  3. Nay says:

    Hi I think it’s great what you’re doing and I’d love to see the following additions, as I’m not a lover of spreadsheets and didn’t find it easy to follow. I’d love to see a written report summarizing all the statistics from this data. I’d like it referenced to the sources for all the pre-vax infection rates and mortality rates. This data written up into a support with the spreadsheet as a supporting document would be really really valuable and much more shareable on social media. Always happy to chat if you need help with report writing. Many thanks

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s