The lie that vaccines have been thoroughly studied is over

Dr. Stanley Plotkin and his followers in the field of vaccination science have been arguing for decades that vaccines are the most thoroughly researched items ever made, but they recently published a paper acknowledging the exact opposite.

They recently acknowledged that neither pre-licensure nor post-licensure vaccination research has been done correctly. They acknowledged, for instance, that “postauthorization safety studies are not funded” and that “prelicensure clinical trials have limited sample sizes [and] follow-up durations.”

That is a truly amazing reversal. However, allow me to set the scene so that no one is duped by what they are obviously doing:

Medical professionals have maintained for decades that vaccines are the most researched commodity ever created. Dr. Paul Offit, for instance, stated, “I think we should be proud of vaccines as arguably the safest, best tested things we put in our body.”

Parents of children wounded by vaccines, adults injured by vaccines, and other stakeholders disputed these assertions for decades, but the medical establishment and government health authorities rejected and maligned them.

In 2018, I was given the once-in-a-lifetime chance to remove Dr. Plotkin, the father of vaccineology and the architect of our vaccination program, and provide the facts that demonstrated the complete dearth of vaccine safety trials and studies—something that these authors are now finally acknowledging. See https://thehighwire.com/ark-videos/stanley-plotkin-deposition/.

Following the release of this deposition, Dr. Plotkin launches into a tirade, demanding that the CDC remove harms from its Vaccine Information Sheets, that the FDA add “missing information on safety and efficacy” to vaccine package inserts, that AAP, IDSA, and PIDS “support training of witnesses” to support vaccine safety, and that the Gates Foundation “lobby the Gates Foundation to support pro-vaccine organizations.” See https://icandecide.org/article/dr-stanley-plotkin-the-godfather-of-vaccines-reaction-to-being-questioned/.

The issue is that it is ineffective. In the end, it fails because appropriate safety studies are lacking. Consequently, there is no safety information to add to the FDA package inserts, and eliminating risks from CDC inserts does not make them disappear. Because organizations like the CDC, WHO, Gates Foundations, etc. refuse to accept or, worse, criticize what they have witnessed with their own eyes, parents and other adults do not just cease believing what they have seen.

This brings us to the present, when Plotkin and his followers understand they are unable to use voodoo on the general populace. The truth cannot be concealed. Their only remaining choice is to attempt to co-opt the truth, which they have been lying about for decades, by acknowledging that there are no studies proving vaccines are safe. However, in doing so, they conveniently omit the fact that for decades they misled, gaslighted, and defrauded the public by asserting that vaccines are arguably the most thoroughly safety tested products ever created and that they should feel confident that every precaution was taken to ensure vaccine safety.

Therefore, they pretend they never misled about the safety of vaccines in their just published article. They act as though they were unaware of the fact that vaccine safety has never truly been studied previously when they make this claim.

Be not deceived. Their true goal is to validate their own beliefs rather than conducting research on the safety of vaccines. This is made abundantly evident by the fact that, despite acknowledging that no research has been done, the authors of the paper still state that major vaccination side effects are “rare.” How can they know that, though, since the research haven’t been conducted? They don’t, and they don’t care to know the truth, is the answer. Their objective is to safeguard the goods that have made them famous and wealthy and that they have devoted their entire professional lives to safeguarding and worshiping.

They also disregard the abundance of prior research and evidence that unequivocally demonstrate the grave risks associated with vaccinations. Just take a moment to read through the extensive research on one vaccination adjuvant that has been shown in numerous studies to have the potential to be seriously harmful. See https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38788092/.

Just have a look at their suggested fix at the end. These people have the audacity to want to raid the federal vaccine injury compensation fund in order to presumably pay themselves and their compatriots hundreds of millions of dollars to conduct the studies that would, no doubt, seek to confirm their prior conclusion that vaccine harms are “rare,” while ignoring the studies that already show serious harm. This is after they made the a priori conclusion that harms are “rare,” ignoring all the existing studies showing harm.

So, with that in mind, and sorry for the long wind-up, here are the things they admit in this article for maybe the very first time:

“[T]he widespread vaccine hesitancy observed during the Covid-19 pandemic suggests that the public is no longer satisfied with the traditional safety goal of simply detecting and quantifying the associated risks after a vaccine has been authorized for use.”

Comment: The parents of vaccine injured children, vaccine injured adults, and others were never “satisfied” with seeking to assess “risks after a vaccine has been authorized.”

“Postauthorization studies are needed to fully characterize the safety profile of a new vaccine, since prelicensure clinical trials have limited sample sizes, follow up durations, and population heterogeneity.”

Comment: Let me translate: the clinical trials relied upon to license childhood vaccines are useless with regard to safety since they virtually never have a placebo control, typically review safety for days or weeks after injection, and often have far too few participants to measure anything of value, just see www.icandecide.org/no-placebo; amazingly, I just had a dispute with a Plotkin disciple not long ago in which they were clearly still not ready to admit the above truth https://x.com/AaronSiriSG/status/1673483027618623489.

“It is critical to examine adverse events following immunization (AEFIs) that have not been detected in clinical trials, to ascertain whether they are causally or coincidentally related to vaccination.”

Comment: No shit and you have been claiming for decades this was being done!

“When they are caused by vaccines (vaccine adverse reactions), the risk attributable to vaccination and the biologic mechanism must be ascertained. That science becomes the basis for developing safer vaccines, if possible, and for determining contraindications to vaccination and the compensation that should be offered for AEFIs.”

Comment: Again, no shit, and you have also been claiming for decades this was being done!

“Currently in the United States, when the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommends a new routine vaccine, the only automatic statutory resource allocations that follow are for vaccine procurement by Vaccines for Children (VFC) and for the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP). Although the ACIP acknowledges the need, there are currently no resources earmarked for postauthorization safety studies beyond annual appropriations, which must be approved by Congress each year.”

Comment: Again, no shit! But nice of you to finally admit it after decades of gaslighting.

“Progress in vaccine-safety science has understandably been slow — often depending on epidemiologic evidence that is delayed or is inadequate to support causal conclusions and on an understanding of biologic mechanisms that is incomplete — which has adversely affected vaccine acceptance.”

Comment: More gaslighting because had a proper clinical trial been conducted pre-licensure, we would know the safety before it is unleashed on babies and we wouldn’t need to rely on confounded-biased-conflicted-post-authorization “epidemiological” studies you now want to conduct which you make clear you only suggest because you want to avoid “public concern and consequent decreases in immunization coverage,” not because you actually care about safety.

“In 234 reviews of various vaccines and health outcomes conducted from 1991 to 2012, the IOM found inadequate evidence to prove or disprove causation in 179 (76%) of the relationships it explored, illustrating the need for more rigorous science.”

Comment: Again, no shit, and I would appreciate if you would please properly cite to the ICAN white paper from 2017 from which you have plainly lifted this point https://icandecide.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/VaccineSafety-Version-1.0-October-2-2017-1.pdf.

“Identifying the biologic mechanisms of adverse reactions — how and in whom they occur — is critical for developing safer vaccines, preventing adverse reactions by expanding contraindications, and equitably compensating vaccinees for true adverse reactions.”

Comment: Shameless to pretend you have not for decades ignored or attacked those calling for these studies while pretending a mountain of such studies showing the foregoing don’t already exist.

“[T]he budget for vaccine-safety monitoring at the CDC (which is responsible for the majority of U.S. federal efforts) has remained stagnant … at about $20 million per year” which they write is an “inadequate level of funding.”

Comment: Again, shameless to pretend parent groups have not been yelling about this issue for decades only to be ignored and attacked.

“The public [now] also wants public health authorities to mitigate and prevent rare but serious adverse events – which no longer seem rare when vaccines are given to millions or billions of people.”

Comment: They have always been given to millions or billions of people, and the studies showing the harms they cause are not rare and they already exist, but you don’t really care about that reality as vaccine safety is not really the goal.

If they are really interested in the truth about what injuries vaccines cause and the rate at which these injuries occur, then they should welcome convening a bipartisan panel which could first review all the very concerning studies and hard data that already exists on this topic (often by scientists not on pharma’s dole) and we could design additional studies together and have them run in the open so everybody has to live with the result.

(Among other reasons to demand the study be conducted in the open is that I have witnessed firsthand what happens when a study comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated children in large multi-million person datasets, using historical insurance data, showed vaccinated children had multiple times the rate of numerous chronic diseases – the study gets buried hence the need to do it in the open.)  

Plotkin and company should welcome studies which can show vaccines have not contributed to the rise in chronic childhood disease (many of which are immune mediated diseases) from 12% of children in the early 1980s (when CDC recommended 7 routine childhood injections) to over 50% of children now (when CDC recommends over 90 routine childhood injections).

And I think they do welcome such studies if they can assure that the outcome would show vaccines do not cause these harms. Alas, the reality is that (as they know) studies showing vaccines contribute to this rise already exist. But their goal, in any event, is not to really study safety. Rather it is to prove their prior assumption that vaccines are safe and harms are “rare.” This approach is how they designed VAERS, V-SAFE, VSD, and every other “safety” system.

As is transparent from their article, the only reason they even pretend to care about vaccine safety is that they want to avoid reduction in vaccine uptake – not actually assure safety.

That all said, if they are really well-meaning, I would welcome collaborating. To be fair, I will email all four of them to request a meeting to review existing science and design studies mutually agreed upon. If they are really interested in vaccine safety, they should welcome that (I have no hard feelings despite their attacks on me and I hope they can rise above any hard feelings they have for the sake of protecting children). Most importantly, I’m willing to live with the results of those studies. Are they?

HTML Hyperlinks

Company

RSS Feed