For decades, parents of vaccine-injured children, vaccine-injured adults and others contested the claims that vaccines are the world’s most thoroughly safety-tested products in the world only to be shunned and attacked by the medical community and health agencies.
Now a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine in the first week of July admits vaccines are not properly studied. “But let me provide context so nobody is fooled by what they are clearly up to,” Aaron Siri writes.
And Like That, The Claim Vaccines Are The World’s Best Studied Product Dies
By Aaron Siri
Wow. After decades of Dr. Stanley Plotkin and his vaccinologist disciples insisting vaccines are the most well-studied products on the planet, they just penned an article admitting precisely the opposite.
They just admitted vaccines are not properly studied – neither pre-licensure nor post-licensure. They admitted, for example, “prelicensure clinical trials have limited sample sizes [and] follow-up durations” and that “there are not resources earmarked for post-authorisation safety studies.”
N Engl J Med 2024;391:102-105 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMp2402379 VOL. 391 NO. 2
That is an incredible reversal. But let me provide context so nobody is fooled by what they are clearly up to.
For decades, the medical community insisted vaccines are the most thoroughly studied product ever; for example, Dr. Paul Offit said, “I think we should be proud of vaccines as arguably the safest, best-tested things we put in our body.”
For decades, parents of vaccine-injured children, vaccine-injured adults, and other stakeholders contested these claims only to be shunned and attacked by the medical community and health agencies.
In 2018, I had the unprecedented opportunity to depose the architect of our vaccination programme and the Godfather of Vaccinology, Dr. Plotkin, and lay bare the evidence that showed what these authors are now finally admitting about the utter lack of vaccine safety trials and studies. See ‘The Deposition Of Stanley Plotkin’.
After this deposition is made public, Dr. Plotkin goes on a tirade, making demands that FDA add “missing information on safety and efficacy” in vaccine package inserts and that CDC excludes harms from its vaccine information sheets, “lobbying the Gates Foundation to support pro-vaccine organisations,” working to have WHO list vaccine hesitancy as a global threat, lobbying AAP, IDSA and PIDS to “support training of witnesses” to support vaccine safety, etc. See ‘Dr. Stanley Plotkin, The “Godfather Of Vaccines,” Reaction To Being Questioned’.
The problem is, it doesn’t work. It doesn’t work because, at the bottom, there are no proper safety studies. So, there is no safety data to add to the FDA package inserts, and hiding harms by removing them from CDC inserts doesn’t make them go away. Parents and other adults don’t simply stop believing what they have seen with their own eyes because the CDC, WHO, the Gates Foundation, etc., won’t acknowledge them, or worse, they attack them.
That brings us to the present in which Plotkin and his disciples realise they can’t cast voodoo on the public. They can’t hide the truth. So, their only option is to try and co-op the truth they have lied about for decades by now admitting that the studies to show vaccines are safe do not exist. But in making that admission, they conveniently fail to admit that for decades they lied, gaslit, defrauded (and I don’t use that word lightly) the public by claiming that vaccines are probably the most thoroughly safety tested products on the planet and that people should rest assured, no stone on vaccine safety was left unturned.
Thus, in their article just published, they pretend they never lied about vaccine safety. They pretend they are now just pointing out that vaccine safety has never really been conducted, as if that was not known to them before.
Don’t be fooled. Their real agenda is plain, and it is not to study vaccine safety but rather to confirm that which they already believe. This is crystal clear from the fact that while their article admits the studies have not been done, they write in the same breath that serious vaccine harms are “rare.” But if the studies have not been done, how do they know that? The answer is, they don’t, and they don’t care to know the truth. Their goal is to protect the products they have spent their careers defending and worshipping and that have brought them fame and riches.
They also ignore the mountain of studies and data that already exist which clearly show serious vaccine harms. Just take a moment to review the large body of science around one of the adjuvants used in vaccines which multiple studies show can cause serious harm. See ‘A reactogenic “placebo” and the ethics of informed consent in Gardasil HPV vaccine clinical trials: A case study from Denmark’.
Finally, just look at their proposed solution. After making the a priori conclusion that harms are “rare,” ignoring all the existing studies showing harm, these folk have the audacity to want to raid the federal vaccine injury compensation fund 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.
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 authorised for use.”
Comment: The parents of vaccine-injured children, vaccine-injured adults, and others were never “satisfied” with seeking to assess “risks aftera vaccine has been authorised.”
“Post-authorisation studies are needed to fully characterise 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 ‘None of the vaccine doses the CDC recommends for routine injection into children were licensed by the FDA based on a long-term placebo-controlled trial’; 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:
Dr. Offit, your revised definition of “placebo” as “immunologically inert” would focus on testing efficacy, not safety, which is precisely the substantive concern raised by @RobertKennedyJr and others when explaining that childhood vaccines are virtually never licensed based on… https://t.co/6b8Bu7F6R4
— Aaron Siri (@AaronSiriSG) June 27, 2023
“It is critical to examine adverse events following immunisation (“AEFIs”) that have not been detected in clinical trials, to ascertain whether they are causally or coincidentally related to vaccination.”
Comment: No sh** 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 sh**, and you have also been claiming for decades this was being done!
“Currently in the United States, when the Advisory Committee on Immunisation 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 post-authorisation safety studies beyond annual appropriations, which must be approved by Congress each year.”
Comment: Again, no sh**! 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-authorisation “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 immunisation 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 sh**, 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 ‘VACCINE SAFETY: Introduction to Vaccine Safety Science & Policy in the United States’.
“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 US 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 that could first review all the very concerning studies and hard data that already exist 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 that 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 a 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?
Source: https://expose-news.com/2024/07/15/after-decades-of-gaslighting-the-public/
Bitchute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/YBM3rvf5ydDM/
Telegram: https://t.me/Hopegirl587
EMF Protection Products: www.ftwproject.com
QEG Clean Energy Academy: www.cleanenergyacademy.com
Forbidden Tech Book: www.forbiddentech.website
