05/13/2026
A pediatric office in Fort Wayne shared a post a few months ago that said “MULTIPLE VACCINES AT ONCE” and “VACCINE SAFETY.”
They stated that “research shows” giving multiple vaccines at the same time is “safe.”
I clicked the source they linked, which led to an article on HealthyChildren .org, a site run by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). The article was titled “Multiple Vaccines at One Time.”
In that article, it says:
“Combining some vaccines in a single shot—or giving several shots at the same visit—has been ‘carefully studied and tested over many years’ to ensure it works well for children.”
The source cited for this information was the American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Infectious Diseases. In other words, the organization was citing itself.
So I decided to look further on my own. I searched for an up-to-date, high quality study that examined the question of multiple vaccines at once, What came up was a 2023 systematic review and meta-analysis published in the Journal of Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics.
This systematic review included 26 different studies and looked at data from over 15,000 children, comparing the safety of giving three or more vaccines at once versus giving them separately.
The key findings from this Level 1 evidence were that there was no increase in serious adverse events, and that “the pediatric immune system has the capacity to handle these antigens simultaneously without causing long-term health problems.”
Naturally, the next question was, who conducted and funded this review?
The review was conducted by a research team at the University of Florence. The authors reported no conflicts of interest. On its face, this is an important study, because a systematic review gathers years of data and carries more weight than a single trial. Right?
I then asked a few more questions. This is apparently what I do for fun 😄
Did the researchers themselves work for vaccine companies? No.
Did the university receive funding from vaccine manufacturers? No.
But looking more closely, another layer appeared!
When examining the 26 individual studies included in the review, MOST of them were funded by the pharmaceutical industry.
In most of those studies, at least one author was either a direct employee of a vaccine manufacturer or had received money from a vaccine company. We’re talking MILLIONS.
The parties who stood to gain the most funded these studies and had their employees conducting them.
A systematic review can act like an “independent audit,” but it’s only as reliable as the honesty of the original data. In this case, the “proof of safety” was largely generated by the same industry that profits from the product.
The only way to find truly conflict free raw data would be a large, double blind, placebo controlled trial. However, under modern international research ethics, once a vaccine is considered “effective,” it is deemed unethical to give children a placebo.
But here’s the catch! The “effective vaccine” is already in circulation because of safety and efficacy studies that were created with significant industry involvement.
In plain language, we’re told we can’t use a placebo because the vaccine has been “proven” to be protective, and it would be wrong to leave a child unprotected. Yet the proof that it’s protective was produced and paid for by the very companies selling it.
If the vaccine industry were required to fund a truly independent, large scale placebo trial, it would be the first time in modern history that Level 1 evidence was tested without this closed loop of industry influence. The cost would be less than 0.5% of annual industry revenue, but the results could reshape the entire medical landscape.
The fact that a trial of this scale would cost less than 0.5% of annual revenue suggests that the barrier isn’t money or logistics. It’s the risk that a truly independent, large enough study might show that many positive health outcomes credited to vaccines were already achieved decades ago through improvements in sanitation and nutrition.
This is as far as I got researching regarding the OP. I think the moral of the story is to not blindly trust safety claims. Look further, always ask questions.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/196846
