Do doctors get paid to vaccinate?


Lately, people opposed to vaccines have been very upset about a recent finding that Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan has a Performance Recognition program for provider incentives, including paying $400 to providers for every fully vaccinated two year old in their practice.  This screen shot comes from page 16 of the document:




As you can see, the target is 63% of patients, so people opposed to vaccines think this means that if a provider can vaccinate at least 63% of two year olds in his or her practice, they will receive $400 per patient. As many pediatricians have between a few hundred to 1000 patients, people opposed to vaccines postulate that providers could be earning as much as $80,000 extra a year for vaccinating.

There are many problems with this claim.  First of all, most people opposed to vaccines  (POTVs) are not recognizing or posting that this program is only for BCBS of Michigan providers and only if they join the incentive program, called the Physician Group Incentive Program.  Secondly, POTVs are not clarifying this only works for patients insured by BCBS, with providers enrolled in the program. Thirdly, they are also not clarifying that the program is comprehensive and involves many different healthcare outcomes, not just vaccines. There are incentives for helping patients achieve healthy weight, healthy diabetes control, hypertension control, and more. Finally, POTVs are not sharing that these programs SAVE the insurance company money.



Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan is a non-profit company.  Saving $155 million a year is considerable and enables them to make healthcare more affordable for all enrollees.  They have done a seemingly tremendous job creating partnership programs with providers that save money and keep people healthy. Pediatricians earn a good living, but compared to most specialties, they earn considerably less. The average pediatrician earns $175,400 a year while cardiologists earn $525,00 a year and orthopedic surgeons earn almost that much. Clearly, pediatricians could earn far more money with other medical specialties. Furthermore, BCBS of Michigan doesn’t come anywhere near paying out the $80,000 per provider POTVs estimate because this benefit only applies to a few children.

Think about this:  How many fully vaccinated, two year old children are there in a pediatrician practice?  Pediatricians see patients from age newborn to 21. Even if they are getting $400 per fully vaccinated two year old, pediatricians usually have a case load of 1000 patients each so that would be about 45 two year olds per practice. They are not going to all be fully vaccinated. The threshold is 63% and not all providers will meet it. Assuming they do meet it, 63% is 28 two year olds so that could mean $11,000 a year, but only if they  meet the threshold. After taxes, that would be an extra $7000 a year, perhaps? And, remember, the insurance company IS SAVING MONEY by offering this and other incentives. In fact, if you browse the brochure, they pay out more for vaccines than anything else. That tells me that vaccination saves them MORE money than the other health indicators.

So what if insurers pay out providers a benefit when they vaccinate? This is about saving money, in the long run. Insurance companies save money when children are healthy. They lose money when children are chronically ill or hospitalized. This incentive is PROOF that vaccines work and save insurance companies money.

Always think for yourself.








95 thoughts on “Do doctors get paid to vaccinate?

  1. In fact, insurance company adjustments to do the right thing for patients are so paltry, it barely mitigates the chronic and systemic underpayment of primary care. This is the reason I have stopped accepting any insurance, so I can take my time, do the right things, keep up with patient needs, listen when necessary, educate when required and just not go crazy doing dumb-ass paperwork. Oh ya, and make a decent living at it.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. When cold-hearted insurance companies support a policy, it’s pretty good indication the policy cuts their costs. Chronic disease increases costs. As you point out, this incentive is more support of vaccine safety. Insurance companies certainly care about profits, and having health costs cut those. Vaccines, this shows, mean less health costs.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. It is also why tax payer funded healthcare systems fund vaccination. It saves money in the long run.

    In socialised medicine systems the government is essentially the general insurer of all the people. It has a massive financial incentive to reduce costs. They fund vaccine action because it is cheaper than treating disease.

    The exact opposite of what anti vaxxers claim.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Antivaxxers are NOT what you claim. This issue is the preservatives (THIMERISOL) in the vaccine! Do YOU know what Thimerisol is? I BET YOU DO NOT!! It is MERCURY!!! What does Mercury (A HEAVY METAL) do in a human body! Get and get back to me.


      • Please tell us which vaccine on the present American pediatric schedule is only available with thimerosal. Do not mention influenza vaccine, because three of the seven available do not have thimerosal.

        Also, if you claim the actual issue is thimerosal, then why is there such a hue and cry over the MMR vaccine. It has never contained a preservative since the first version was approved in 1971.

        Now if you are so terribly concerned about something that has not been issue for fifteen years, you need to provide the PubMed indexed articles by reputable qualified researchers written in the last five years that it is still relevant. Do not link to anything written by the Geiers, nor by anyone on this list of speakers:


      • Please don’t be stupid. If a molecule contains an atom, it doesn’t mean the molecule is the atom. Thimerosal is no more mercury than water is oxygen or salt is chlorine.
        Both are deadly when inhaled and thimerosal is proven harmless.


  4. Pingback: The Truth about vaccines 4: influenza, HIB, and pneumococcal vaccines and herd immunity | vaccinesworkblog

  5. My pediatrician friends, on the whole, vaccinate at a net loss. They express extreme frustration over parents who suspect vaccination and THEM for pushing it. Some of them refuse to take unvaccinated patients, which infuriates those parents. I’m not a pediatrician – something I am more grateful for every day – but like them, I spent many years in university (13) and supervised clinical training (6) in order to HELP people. If my plan was to get rich, I would have gone into business. I certainly wouldn’t have spent a couple of very expensive decades getting trained!

    Pediatricians want to care for children. They take the greatest pleasure in seeing children thrive and it grieves them when children suffer. The things I hear from anti-vaxxers leave me thunderstruck. Sent those parents to the third world so they can see some unvaccinated populations.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Chris, the MMR vaccine was first introduced in 1988, you lose all credibility saying it hasn’t been in the vaccine since 1971. And yes MMR vaccine still contain Thimerosol. The CDC and FDA were trying to fedefend themselves regarding Thimerisol in congress only a couple of years ago.

    Kathy, parents are being forced to fully vaccinate their kids for preschool/day care, school and some Paediatricians are refusing to see them otherwise so 63% is nothing and the numbers you quote are very strange i.e. “23 – 2 year olds in a year if they see 100 patients” ?
    Firstly they see more than 1000 per year, secondly why only 2 year olds ? It’s not just 2 year old who meet the criterior, where did you get this nonsense from ? Did you just parrot the CDC who are part of government (Pharmaceautical industry are the biggest lobbiests/donors behind the oil companies) with their (CDC) advisory board full of employees of Pharmaceautical compsnies which sell vaccines such as Merck) while the CDC own 56 patents and distribute vsccines for $$$ and Director (Julie Gerberding) sold 2.3 million dollars in Merck shares and is now the vise president for Merck.

    Reised, Insurance companies are paid by vaccine companies, simple. Ask some people you know in the insurance industry, oh you don’t know any but are an expert on insurance and vsccines ?

    Of course most medical Doctors simply go by what Pharmaceautical companies who sell vaccines say as most of their training after diagnosis was based on using pharmaceautical drugs relieve symptoms rather than to find and treat the underlying cause snd the only vaccine training they got was the schedule and bias for them. Add to this pharmaceautical reps developing a relationship with them, also including financial insentives and you have very loyalcusomers who don’t question it unless something major wakes them up and they start researching the ingredients and who is conducting the research etc.

    Liked by 1 person

    • The CDC holds patents on technologies it develops. They lease those out to any scientists That money then goes back into funding more CDC research. Vaccines are products of many technologies, so the CDC does not hold any patents on vaccines.

      In my state, Washington, all vaccines for children are purchased by the state or the federal government. Doctors don’t bill. They get them free. That throws your whole argument to the wind.

      Pharmaceutical companies are also banned from the entire hospital where I live, which is the only hospital in our county, and the medical centers they run, which includes all the pediatricians in our county of 250,000 people. They are further banned from the family medicine network I see.

      Oh, and guess what? The hospital and medical centers have a 99% vax rate amongst staff and my family med doctor and his partners and all their staff are 100% vaxxed. His kids, too. And theirs!

      Insurance companies love to pay for vaccines, in other states, along with other healthy lifestyle choices, because that decreases their costs overall. If you don’t think insurance companies are about saving money, then you have never met an actuary.

      Sorry, I do not buy into the paranoid conspiracy theories.


    • “Chris, the MMR vaccine was first introduced in 1988….”

      In the UK. It was introduced in the USA 1971, and was the preferred vaccine for the 1978 Measles Elimination Program:

      You lose all credibility if you think that only the UK counts. There are various forms of an MMR vaccine that differ around the world. There is one that was developed in Russia, another in Japan… and in the USA. The MMR vaccines used in the USA and UK have never used thimerosal, because it would make it useless. (it comes as a freeze dried powder that is reconstituted with sterile water, which needs to be kept cool and used within a few hours)

      Also, the American MMR vaccine has never contained the Urabe mumps vaccine strain (which was developed in Japan). It has only ever used the Jeryl Lynn mumps vaccine, which is named after the developer’s daughter. There is a book about him, you should read it and expand your knowledge beyond the UK:
      Vaccinated: One Man’s Quest to Defeat the World’s Deadliest Diseases by Paul A. Offit

      Liked by 1 person

    • You are deluded and misinformed.
      There is no thimerosal in MMR and I opposed the removal on the grounds that there was no scientific basis for the concern and that it would feed the lunacy of the anti-science brigade.
      As for the proposition that doctors “just go with” what the reps say, it is laughable. If you think all physicians are sheep that concede to whatever someone else tells them, then you have never been to a physicians’ meeting and you don’t understand the culture of independence bred amongst physicians. This is the land of “it didn’t get done unless you did it yourself.” You are clearly ignorant regarding all the things about which you profess knowledge, but that’s pretty much “the usual” for the anti-science crowd. Don’t even know how to make a proper argument that hangs together or has any logical cohesion. Also known as fiction; and bad fiction to boot.

      Liked by 1 person

      • “There is no thimerosal in MMR and I opposed the removal on the grounds that there was no scientific basis for the concern and that it would feed the lunacy of the anti-science brigade.”

        Very good points. Though we should clarify that some vaccines never ever contained thimerosal because the antimicrobial effect would have made some vaccines useless. From :
        “Measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccines do not and never did contain thimerosal. Varicella (chickenpox), inactivated polio (IPV), and pneumococcal conjugate vaccines have also never contained thimerosal.”

        One clue that someone does not know about the subject is when they say something like “the thimerosal in the MMR vaccine.” 😉


      • Vaccines are poison, research the ingredients or your opinion is not valid! Aborted babies and animals to make cultures?? Messing with DNA?? Cancer anyone!!

        Liked by 1 person

      • Wiki explains this accurately so I am copying from them

        “In biology, poisons are substances that cause disturbances in organisms, usually by chemical reaction or other activity on the molecular scale, when an organism absorbs a sufficient quantity.[1][2]

        The fields of medicine (particularly veterinary) and zoology often distinguish a poison from a toxin, and from a venom. Poisons are toxins produced by organisms in nature, and venoms are toxins injected by a bite or sting (this is exclusive to animals). The difference between venom and other poisons is the delivery method. Industry, agriculture, and other sectors use poisons for reasons other than their toxicity. Pesticides are one group of substances whose toxicity to various insects and other animals deemed to be pests (e.g., rats and cockroaches) is their prime purpose.”

        Nothing in vaccines is poison and nothing in vaccines is toxic at those doses.


  7. Pingback: That $3 Million Vaccine Bonus for Pediatricians – VAXOPEDIA

  8. Your numbers appear to be way off. Using the numbers from “Size and age-sex distribution of pediatric practice: a study from Pediatric Research in Office Settings:”

    The average number of kids in a practice is around 1500, not 1000, and it’s heavily skewed younger (“more than half of the children were aged 6 years or younger”).

    So let’s say 750 are 6 or younger. That put 2-year olds at 250 in the practice, not 45. 63% of 250 is 157 kids. Thus, at least $63,000 is on the line, not $11,000.

    63% is easy to meet in a compliant population. Probably most doctors in this program are making their numbers.

    “Kathy” signs off with “think for yourself.” I would add, “and use real-world data to make estimates.”

    Liked by 1 person

      • “If there are 1500 kids in a pediatrics practice and those kids are between birth and 21, how on earth could here be 250 2 year olds?”

        The distribution is not even, according to the citation, so I just divided by three. May not be correct, as your subsequent comment shows but we are getting closer to the real numbers.

        Regardless of whether it is a bonus or not, it’s a lot of money on the line that disappears if the threshold of vaccination is not met. Thus, is it solely because of the concern for the children that the pediatrician is advocating for vaccination? Obviously not because the incentive system would not be in place if the plan administrator didn’t find that incentives were needed.

        Liked by 1 person

      • “The money used to make the payout or incentive reward comes from “a percentage of the applicable fee schedule on most professional paid claims.” So it is, in effect, money that the pediatrician has earned and should have already been paid. And if they don’t meet HEDIS performance measurements, they don’t get that money.”

        from the vaxopedia link

        Yes, insurance companies want to incentivize healthy living choices that save them money in the long term. Can you blame them for wanting to cut costs?


      • “a percentage of the applicable fee schedule on most professional paid claims.”

        Sure, 1%, 10%? Without saying how much we don’t know what the bonus amount is. Could be mostly bonus amount from what you have written; we just don’t know.

        And, again, regardless of the bonus amount, the *entire* amount is on the line if 63% of the kids are not vaccinated, assuming all the other measures are met.

        Parents should know that their pediatrician, if they are in this program (but probably others, too), has a great monetary incentive to have their child vaccinated and take that into account if the pediatrician recommends this medical procedure. At this point, the pediatrician has become a sales person reaching for their incentive payout.

        This is exactly what the program administrator wants, btw, because they have designed the program that way to have the pediatrician work to get the bonus money. The program administrator has purposely added additional financial incentive to encourage vaccination. I am simply stating the obvious.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Andre, it is not a bonus. Not sure why cannot understand how this works. Did you even bother to read the BCBS of MI pamphlet?

        Parents should know that their insurance company pays 100% of well check visits and their doctor bills the insurance company so he or she can get paid for services rendered. Patients should be happy their insurance company is promoting healthy living choices because saving money means lower insurance rates.

        Do you know about HEDIS?


      • “The money used to make the payout or incentive reward comes from “a percentage of the applicable fee schedule on most professional paid claims.”

        Given your own words that include “incentive reward,” the customary way of interpreting that is as a bonus (or “incentive”) offered when a measure is met. Further, it says that the incentive reward comes from “a percentage of the applicable fee.” It is just “a percentage” precisely because the remainder is a bonus to incentivise the doctor to meet the measures.

        Now you are saying that there is no bonus, which makes no sense given what you have written above.

        Further, regardless of whether there is a bonus, the entire amount is on the line. This alone is a *very great* incentive to make sure that the measures are met. Who wants to lose $33k in income and possibly more if one has a bigger practice? (five doctors x $33k = $150k)

        Liked by 1 person

      • Well, if they don’t sign up for the program and/or they don’t meet the many healthy living goals, they won’t get the incentivized part of the reimbursements. It is up to the doctor. They can refuse to help their patients prevent disease, stop smoking, take their diabetes meds, or whatever and just make less money. The insurer will need that extra money to pay the extra healthcare costs associated with less healthy patients. It’s a win-win program.

        Of course, in my state, it’s moot point since all vaccines for children are paid for by feds or the state. No programs here like the BCBS of MI 2016 program.

        It is still true that doctors are not paid to vaccinate. They are just reimbursed/paid less if they don’t vax their patients.


      • “Well, if they don’t sign up for the program and/or they don’t meet the many healthy living goals, they won’t get the incentivized part of the reimbursements.”

        Very good. This is an incentive program that a doctor can voluntarily sign up for that will compensate them at a higher rate per individual child compared to if they do not participate in the program. In everyday language, it is a bonus program similar to what one finds all across the business world. We’re making progress.

        “It is still true that doctors are not paid to vaccinate.”

        Such a shame. I actually thought we were getting somewhere. Yes, doctors are paid to vaccinate:
        • they make a small amount of profit on the vaccines themselves
        • they make an administrative fee for the visit that typically is larger than the profit of the vaccine
        • they may participate in one of many bonus programs that encourage higher vaccination via their insurance plan or by various levels of the state.

        Dr. Paul Thomas runs through the numbers for his practice:
        “Just doing the selective vaccines that I do on the vaccine friendly plan in the last eight years, I’ve lost over $1 million just in vaccine profits. I’m still getting the well-child visit income; the insurance company reimburses me for doing the well visit, but there was an administration fee for each vaccine and a tiny little profit, a dollar or two, that’s hopefully worked into each vaccine. It’s a huge loss of income.

        The reality is, for most pediatricians, the profit from the markup on the vaccine itself is almost nothing. I’d say, probably, you could pay $100 for a vaccine and you’re going to get reimbursed $102 – a couple of bucks. You do get an admin fee, which is just for the labor of administering it, and that’s some profit – probably in the range of $12-$15 per shot. If you’re giving six vaccines to a two-year-old and there’s an admin fee for each one, there’s $100 right there for each kid each time. It adds up. A well-baby visit is usually a half hour appointment because you’re covering more than just giving the shots. You’re doing a full exam and you’re talking about development, what to expect and a lot of those things.”

        Of course they are paid to vaccinate and, depending on how large the practice is, the profits can be substantial (primarily because of the administration fee per shot).

        Here is my first cut of an estimate for a child who follows the complete CDC schedule (2017) by age 18:
        • 34 single and multi-valent shots
        • 18 flu shots

        Profit from the vaccines, using Dr. Thomas’ numbers:
        • $2 x 52 = $104 (I think the profit on the flu vaccine might be higher but I’d have to look into that)
        • 52 administration fees x $13 (avg) = $676
        • well-baby visit (90% are used just to give vaccines, don’t need a doctor visit every two months): $?? per visit; leave out for now

        So the best I can do with the data I have is $780/child. A practice of 1500 kids is worth $1,170,000 at a given point in time just for vaccines. Over a 40 year career it’s probably four times that and I haven’t even added the “vaccine injection visits,” er, the “well-baby” visit compensation from the insurance companies, which might increase that by 20% or more.

        Of course they get paid to vaccinate. That looks like pretty good money to me.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Andre, being paid to vaccinate implies doctors are paid only to vaccinate, for not other reason. This is a health benefit program where the doctor’s fees are less if they don’t meet HEDIS goals. Yes, that means they get paid less if they don’t meet healthy goals. That does not, in my book, translate to doctors are paid to post. Plus, in WA state, there are NO programs like this at all. All vaccines are free to doctors.

        I don’t believe one word Paul Thomas says. He never verifies his claims. Evidence or move along. But, if he doesn’t buy the vaccines, then he doesn’t get to bill for them. Insurers rarely reimburse the entire cost of vaccines anyway. Peds usually eat the difference because they want to keep their patients safe. And if he does not do well visits on the recommended schedule, then he is also not losing any money.

        What a ridiculous claim. Vaccines and the associated bookkeeping likely cost the office far more than $780 per child. He is billing insurance for his costs plus and making a good profit.

        You are an idiot. Go away.


  9. Reblogged this on ucbarbi and commented:
    Kathy – Here are facts you may have not considered. How about the statistic that 16 out of every 100 fully vaccinated two year olds are negatively or fatally affected by the poisonous adjuvant in these vaccines causing autism, allergies, serious mental and physical disorders and even death. There are better ways to handle disease: a pathogen killer for instance. Chlorine Dioxide is a proven pathogen killer without side affects to the body, and with pathogens removed allows the body to heal itself. The fact that millions of people around the world have used a chlorine dioxide protocol to eradicate disease is completely ignored by the medical industry. This is criminal in itself.

    Liked by 1 person

      • I’m glad that you didn’t say that they didn’t cause autoimmune disease—because they do. And about 50 million Americans, according to AARDA, have an autoimmune disease:

        Learn about just one mechanism for how vaccines cause autism with this recent paper:

        Vaccine-induced autoimmunity: the role of molecular mimicry and immune crossreaction, Cellular & Molecular Immunology, March 2018


      • Your first source does not show vaccines cause autoimmune diseases and your second appears to be an opinion piece by Dr. Shoenfeld and a young collaborator. Dr. Shoenfeld’s claims in past years have been consistently disproven. His claims of autoimmune diseases are based on small numbers of cases studies countered by large studies – here is one review of one set of claims.

        I find it highly misleading to present the first link, which is not about vaccines, as if it shows something about vaccines, and the second link does not support your claims, either.

        I am willing to assume the first problematic use of a link was the result of an error rather than intentional misrepresentation, and hope you will now withdraw the unsupported claim.

        Liked by 2 people

      • The first link was to back up the 50 million Americans number; that’s why it’s a page to the statistics page of the American Autoimmune Related Diseases Association.

        Lol, sure, a Nature journal published a paper by a quack discussing a very well-known mechanism in the autoimmunity field.

        And everyone knows that quacks want to rebuild trust in the vaccine program:

        “It is therefore pertinent for the scientific community to seriously address public concern of adverse effects of vaccines to regain public trust in these important medical interventions. ”

        And it looks like you didn’t even read it but read just the abstract.

        Liked by 1 person

      • It doesn’t matter if it was about 100 million people. If it does not mention vaccines, then it does not make your point.

        Yes, Nature published a well known quack. Dorit and I are both very familiar with Shoenfeld.

        Liked by 1 person

      • The first link with your comment appeared to try and make a claim that vaccines cause those numbers. Even if vaccines did, generally, cause autoimmune diseases, that would be untrue. I accept your comment as correcting that apparent interpretation, and explaining you were not trying to suggest that, in which case, I withdraw my criticism.

        This is not Nature. The journal belongs to the Nature group, but is not Nature, and Shoenfeld is one of the editors.

        Shoenfeld had, in the past, an illustrious career. His vaccine-related work in past years was deeply flawed (some of it retracted), mostly small case studies, often counter evidence.

        The opinion piece makes much of the unusual case of narcolepsy from a very specific brand of influenza vaccine – which is not good support for a general “vaccines cause autoimmune diseases”. It also addresses GBS, another unusual and rare case, where the evidence for a link between it and any vaccine on the schedule now is limited to non-existent.

        It makes claims against HPV vaccines that go against large studies in millions.

        Yes, it’s an opinion piece by someone who has for several years now been doing sub-par work aimed at delegitimizing vaccines, and it follows the mold.

        So far, you have not provided serious evidence that vaccines cause autoimmune diseases. Vaccines do prevent deaths, harms and disabilities.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Andre: “The first link was to back up the 50 million Americans number”

        That is kind of “So what?” bit. Measles causes immune issues after someone lives through it. Diabetes has been around long before vaccines. Autoimmunity happens, much of it is genetic. Nothing to do with vaccines.

        Also, as a general rule of thumb no one on this following list is considered reputable nor qualified, so don’t post articles by them:

        Liked by 1 person

      • “Andre: “The first link was to back up the 50 million Americans number”
        That is kind of “So what?” bit.”

        When making an argument, it is customary to back up a number with a citation. Your objection is a standard procedure like this is…very, very odd.

        “Also, as a general rule of thumb no one on this following list is considered reputable nor qualified,”

        Naw, I’ll take the reputation of a Nature journal over yours any day. Shoenfeld has 1800+ papers to his name and Cellular and Molecular Biology is a reputable journal.

        Sorry, your opinion in this matter does not count for me even a little bit.

        Liked by 1 person

      • A. This is not Nature. It’s a journal owned by the group. One that Shoenfeld is an editor on. Needing to start on the legitimacy of the Nature journal is a bit weak.

        B. Shoenfeld had, in the past, a serious career. For several years now, how work has been sub-par, anti-vaccine and serving his paid career as an expert witness. A sad end to a previously serious past.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Gosh, none of you are very good at reading.

        A. I wrote “a Nature journal” not “the journal Nature.” I was specifically referring to a journal in the Nature group. The title of the actual Journal is Cellular and Molecular Immunology, which is clearly visible by clicking the link.

        B. Shoenfeld is not an editor, he is on the editorial board. There is a link called “About the Editors,” which is here:

        He is not on that list.

        And there is a link called “Editorial Board,” a list that he is on, along with ~95 other people:

        C. “The first link with your comment appeared to try and make a claim that vaccines cause those numbers.”

        No, it did no such thing. Again, y’all can’t read. I used the first link to back up how many people have autoimmune diseases. May I recommend that you try reading with the intention of being accurate in your comprehension? Here is *exactly* what I wrote:

        “And about 50 million Americans, according to AARDA, have an autoimmune disease:

        No mention of vaccines there.

        In any case, by all means keep arguing that vaccines don’t cause these problems. It just hurts your credibility. It allows us to say that you are lying. Helps me when I talk to people as I explain that y’all are actively trying to deceive the public.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Andre, it is not our fault you were unclear. Three people read your comments to have different meaning than you intended. That should tell you something.

        That 50 million Americans have autoimmune disease does not mean vaccines are causal.

        Dorit’s point about Shoenfeld is that he has conflicts of interest in his association with that journal.

        This is a good read about Shoenfeld.

        None of us are lying.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Yeah, sure “Nature.” Here is the actual citation:
        Cell Mol Immunol. 2018 Mar 5. doi: 10.1038/cmi.2017.151.
        Vaccine-induced autoimmunity: the role of molecular mimicry and immune crossreaction.
        Segal Y1, Shoenfeld Y1,2.

        Um, no. Not Nature. By the way Scientific American is also a publication related to Nature. It is a magazine for the general public it does not publish original research. It is also owned by “Springer Nature.” Don’t site stuff from it as research (though it is fun to read).

        If you read an actual paper printed Nature magazine, you will find it is full of opinion pieces and general articles. The last page is “Futures, which consists of short stories ( ). When I had to chauffeur a kid to a class/test at the local community college, I would head straight to the library to read that week’s edition of the Nature magazine.

        Hint: because something is published in “Nature”, it does not mean it is actual research or even if it is nonfiction.

        Other general hints to avoid bad science:

        Learn to recognize the difference between an opinion piece and actual research.

        Mice are not people. Petri dishes are not people.

        Avoid anything from someone on the Dwoskin payroll. They generally start with a conclusion and then force the data to fit that conclusion.

        Also, for just general health information: sore arms after a vaccine is not an autoimmune disease.

        Liked by 1 person

      • You have yet to actually provide evidence of a link between vaccines and autoimmune diseases generally. Shoenfeld’s opinion piece, again, latching on a few unusual cases and making claims about HPV vaccines that studies in millions show to be incorrect is not evidence of it.

        Trying to claim that to any serious degree vaccines cause autoimmune diseases goes against the evidence. The need to overstate vaccines risks is natural for anti-vaccine activists who want to argue that preventing diseases is a bad thing, but it requires them to ignore the evidence.

        It’s not those of us pointing to evidence from large scale studies that have a problem with credibility. It’s those ignoring it, the anti-vaccine activists.


    • Citation required for that 16 out of 100 “statistic.” Plus that chlorine dioxide, an industrial bleach, can cure viral diseases like measles.

      Make sure that those citations are PubMed indexed studies by reputable qualified researchers that are not on the Dwoskin payroll. Until you do that your blatant assertions without evidence can be disregarded without evidence. Especially since you are promoting a known harmful scam.

      Liked by 1 person

  10. Pingback: THE ADULT (ANTI) VACCINE PLEDGE | vaccinesworkblog

  11. What a waste of time and energy. Why are you circling around the true problem of all this. That there is a financial compensation for vaccinating. Doesn’t matter if it is for a small group, this or that or any of that jibber jabber. MONEY corrupts people, makes them SUBJECTIVE. GREED drives wrong decisions.

    Liked by 1 person

    • “That there is a financial compensation for vaccinating.”

      Prove it. And then prove that it is cheaper to let kids get sick instead of preventing diseases with vaccines. Just give us a valid economic study that hospitalizing the one out ten kids who get measles instead of giving them two MMR vaccines. Also include wage losses for a parent who needs to take care of a kid with mumps, rotavirus, chicken pox, influenza, etc. Essentially prove these economists wrong:
      Economic Evaluation of the Routine Childhood Immunization Program in the United States, 2009

      By the way I have taken care of a baby with chicken pox and a toddler with rotavirus (who was taken by ambulance to the hospital due to seizures from dehydration), so you have been bring on some actual factual documentation.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Begin Snark: Yeah, sure, ya betcha… it is so much better to just let kids get sick:

      ….. “Overall, seven per cent of the cases (n = 181) were hospitalised, most commonly for pneumonia (48%, n = 86) or dehydration/diarrhoea (15%, n = 27). For one per cent (n = 23), we do not know whether or not cases were hospitalised. Seven cases required intensive care admission for pneumonia (n = 5), encephalitis (n = 1) or both (n = 1). The median duration of stay in the hospital due to measles was 4 days (interquartile range 3–5 days). Adults with measles were at higher risk of hospitalisation than children (Table).”

      There are your tax dollars at work.

      End snark.

      Liked by 1 person

      • He lives the Netherlands, apparently there is a mandate to buy health insurance (yeah, I erred about the tax dollar bit). He obviously is not aware that his anti-vax attitude will cause his mandated insurance premiums to go up!


      • Oh, and yes, I know they use Euros in the Netherlands*. It is just an easier turn of phrase.

        * I’ve been there twice to visit hubby’s relatives. Last year they came here. We visited for a bit, and then they went to New Mexico to tour around in an RV (which they called a caravan).

        By the way, the vaccines the private practice doctors get are only distributed after others get them. Our family doctor actually encourages us to get our influenza vaccines at the local pharmacy.


    • Dear Gianluigi,

      Why do you want to increase your mandated health insurance premiums? Is it some kind of financial self-punishment, or just simple ignorance of health economics?


  12. Your logic is so weak and compartmentalised; I know I’m going to regret posting this but here goes…
    Saying that insurance companies incentivise (pay bonuses to) paeditricians to save themselves money in paying out on claims is just utter nonsense/garbage.

    Do you have any comprehension of the global insurance market and the divestment of risks that causes additional costs for all purchases of insurance of any type when one market suffers?

    Put simply: more claims = higher premiums. Not just for the claimant but everybody. Whether your a Yank buying healthcare or a Brit insuring your house. Ripples from one market affect everyone else. That equals greater profits for all members of the allopathic cartel; from supplier to insurers. That means more sickness equals more money for the share holders.

    The only modern doctors who I have any respect for are surgeons. They actually save lives with their knowledge and skills. All the other’s are pill pushing dolts who’ve learnt so called facts by rote and then parrot the information back as if gospel. Go and research how many fraudulent studies have been peer reviewed and still been accepted. The numbers are ridiculously high. The allopathic model of medicine only treats the symptoms; not the cause. There is no money or long term profits from a healthy, knowledgeable population. Being ‘under prescription’ is a form of palliative care; except death may take decades rather than months. The same is true of vaccines. The neurotoxic ingredients are patently causing serious harm. Plenty of court settlements and payouts to confirm this. The endocrine system of every human on this planet is under constant attack on a daily basis and it’s all for profit and harm.

    Problem, reaction, solution. Human’s are cattle. If you genuinely care about humanity then it’s time you open your eyes to the bigger picture. Or maybe you’re just another sell out like in the film ‘They Live’. Happily spreading more harm to keep your coffers full.

    Liked by 1 person

    • “Put simply: more claims = higher premiums.”

      Citation needed. Show that vaccines are a cause of more claims than the actual diseases, which actual factual documentation in the form of PubMed indexed studies by reputable qualified researchers not on the Dwoskin payroll. Here is an example of such an economic study:
      Pediatrics. 2014 Apr;133(4):577-85.
      Economic Evaluation of the Routine Childhood Immunization Program in the United States, 2009.

      “Go and research how many fraudulent studies have been peer reviewed and still been accepted.”

      We know about many of them, usually by folks who are paid by the Dwoskin family.

      “The neurotoxic ingredients are patently causing serious harm. ”

      Do tell us what “neurotoxic” ingredients in vaccines are more harmful than tetanospasmin, diphtheria toxin and pertussis toxin that are all created from the bacteria that we try to prevent with the DTaP and Tdap vaccines. Make sure that they are PubMed indexed studies by reputable qualified researchers not on the Dwoskin payroll.

      “Plenty of court settlements and payouts to confirm this.”

      Oooh, do tell! Just provide us the ratio of the compensated claims versus the total number of vaccines given. Provide a link to where you got that data, and then tell us what that ratio means.

      “Human’s are cattle. If you genuinely care about humanity then it’s time you open your eyes to the bigger picture.”

      You first. Get us the actual factual data, but do try to work out when to use or not to use apostrophes.


    • “paeditricians”

      Which universal healthcare country are you from? The way you spell pediatrician is British so you must be from UK or Australia or some other country which spells it that. You are not American. So, you are from a country with universal healthcare and you think you can criticize our insurance system? More vaccines means less illness, less costs for insurers, more profit for the for-profit companies and more money for the non-profits.

      The American healthcare system is broken in many ways but when every single country on earth vaccinates then your theories hit a very big wall. There is no vast global conspiracy to push vaccines in order to make the population sick.


  13. I was very interested and liked your clear math and explanation. There was one hiccup that threw the whole thing off though, and I wish you had noticed it so I could see you work out the real numbers. You said in a practice with 1000 patients from 0 to 21, 45 of them would be babies. Way off. Babies are required to do wellness visits multiple times in their first 2 years, so they go to the pediatrician way more than your average 15 year old. We can assume the pediatrician does not have the same amount of 18 year olds, 19 year olds, 20 year olds, and 21 year olds as they do 1, 2, 3, and 4 year olds. I have never met an 18 year old that goes to their pediatrician. Could you find an actual statistic of what percentage are under 2 and do the math again for us?


    • “pediatricians usually have a case load of 1000 patients each so that would be about 45 two year olds per practice. They are not going to all be fully vaccinated. ” I got that figure by dividing 1000 by 22.

      Does this matter? In my state, WA, all pediatric vaccines are paid for by the state or the federal government. Doctors get them for free, do not bill for them, make no money off them. The bottom line is doctors do not get paid to vaccinate. In some states, insurance companies may tie reimbursement rates to healthy living goals. Meaning they will reimburse the doctor for the office visit at a higher rate if the doctor is helping the person meet healthy living goals. So, the doctor may charge $150 for that visit, bill $150 to the insurer, and get paid $xxx in reimbursement for the unhealthy person (less than $150 because insurers always pay less) and $yyyy for healthy person who has stopped smoking, is taking their insulin, got their vaccines, had the yearly well checks, etc. That is how this works.

      And, the antivax math is horrible. No question.


  14. Pingback: What is the vaccine guide? | vaccinesworkblog

  15. It sounds like you are interpreting this incentive program as a punishment for failing to vaccinate, rather than as a reward for vaccinating. Regardless of whether you consider it a punishment to miss out on a bonus or a reward to receive a bonus, the bigger question is: How do kickback programs like this influence doctors’ willingness to push vaccines even in the face of evidence that they are unnecessary or harmful? The United States has passed anti-kickback laws in select areas of healthcare, but vaccines are EXEMPT from those anti-kickback laws, a little-known loophole. Kickback programs create dangerous conflicts-of-interest that most patients are completely unaware of. So why is it necessary to exempt vaccines from anti-kickback programs? You mentioned that Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan is the insurance company behind this program. What makes you think that this program is unique to Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan? More likely, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan just happens to be the insurance company that did not password-protect their incentive program or hide it behind a physician-only log-in. Studies show that kickback programs influence doctors’ recommendations and care of patients, which ultimately hurts patients. That’s why many people (outside of those who are benefiting financially) find kickback programs to be “appalling and disgusting.” That’s the problem, think again for yourself.


    • Why do you think health insurance companies encourage vaccination? They would prefer to not spend money on medicine and medical procedures, hence the prevention programs. If you think it is some kind of money making racket, then do give us the financial evidence that it is cheaper to treat measles, mumps, pertussis, Hib, etc than to prevent the infections.

      Thirty years ago it was common for health insurance companies to not cover well child check ups, which even included vaccinations after the age of four. I know I was surprised that they did not cover the vaccines my oldest kid needed to enter kindergarten. Many families avoided the costs and usually waited until the kid needed vaccines to enter kindergarten. Then measles roared back in 1990:
      J Infect Dis. 2004 May 1;189 Suppl 1:S69-77.
      Acute measles mortality in the United States, 1987-2002.

      It was quite costly for all health insurance companies. They changed so quickly that my two younger kids had their vaccines paid by the insurance company. But since this country does not have universal health coverage it was the impetus for the creation of the Vaccines for Children program due to the efforts of Rosalynn Carter and Betty Bumpers:

      Which says:

      Unfortunately, in 1991, a deadly outbreak of measles swept the U.S., sickening more than 55,000 people, hospitalizing over 11,000, and killing more than 120 people, many of them young children. It was determined by public health officials that many families were not fully vaccinating their children until age five, leaving them vulnerable to deadly diseases such as measles, diphtheria, tetanus and more. Carter and Bumpers immediately sprung into action by formally establishing Every Child By Two. Within five years, they traveled to nearly every state in the nation, raising awareness of the critical importance of vaccinating by age two, and helping to establish immunization coalitions made up of concerned community leaders and public health advocates.

      Now start working on finding the economic studies that shows it is cheaper go back to every kid being vulnerable to measles, pertussis, pneumonia, etc.


  16. Pingback: vaccination discussion 1 - Custom Nursing Help

  17. Pingback: vaccination discussion 1 -

  18. Pingback: vaccination discussion 1 -

  19. Pingback: vaccination discussion 1 -

  20. Pingback: vaccination discussion 1 -

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s