 |
Scientific research into the mechanisms underlying side effects of vaccines should investigate, among other things, (1) the effects that vaccine ingredients (like aluminum adjuvants) have on the body; (2) the biochemical interactions between vaccine components; (3) the biochemical interactions among multiple vaccines administered at the same time; (4) genetic characteristics that may increase vulnerability to vaccine injury; and (5) permanent or transient health conditions that may increase susceptibility to injury. In addition, investigation of potentially susceptible subpopulations, such as infants and pregnant women, should be made a priority. The absence of basic research in this field is particularly alarming because current medical science cannot even identify the source of most of the serious diseases and syndromes reported post-vaccination, much less cure them. Such is the case for ADEM,20 optic neuritis,21 Guillain-Barré syndrome,22 transverse myelitis,23 lupus,24 vasculits,25 juvenile diabetes (type 1),26 autism, ADHD, and many other conditions. The shortage of applicable scientific research on adverse events documented in its own report should have prompted the IOM committee to sound a long and loud alarm. The report’s finding that biomedical aspects of post-vaccination conditions are rarely investigated contrasts starkly with the constant assurances from medical authorities that vaccine safety is thoroughly investigated. Yet, instead of sounding the warranted alarm, the committee chose to give the “all-clear”.
No government or formal medical body challenges these offhand dismissals of possible associations between the test vaccine and subsequent adverse events.
Once the vaccine is on the market and widely used, the absence of any documented causal link on the package insert allows healthcare professionals – doctors, nurses, and officials – to categorically dismiss any link between vaccines and most reported serious side effects.
US pediatricians who routinely administer vaccines have no financial motivation to report potential vaccine adverse events. Detailed and accurate reporting can take a significant amount of work, and medical personnel are not compensated for that time. Furthermore, if doctors reported adverse events of vaccines they administered, that could be construed by others as an implicit admission, however informal, of responsibility for any resulting harm. Obviously, neither doctors in private practice nor those working in clinic or hospital settings would have any interest in paving the way for patients or their parents to sue for damages. In addition, doctors, like the rest of us humans, may not be too keen to admit, even to themselves, that medical procedures they recommended and performed might have caused serious harm to their patients.
Their strategy to shore up trust in the vaccine program, then, is to convince the public that “the science on vaccines is settled” and that laypeople should accept the “scientific consensus” of “vaccine experts”.
The truth of the matter, however, is that vaccine science isn’t even remotely objective. The medical establishment conceals from a credulous public the grim reality that vaccine science is largely funded by interested parties which produce studies that advance the funder’s agenda, not the public’s.
Most people are unaware that the institutions funding vaccine science are not objective, their motives are not pure, and the science they fund is neither impartial nor objective.
Health authorities, along with pharmaceutical companies, control most of the vaccine safety research budget. Thus, authorities and vaccine makers fund research projects which are likely to support their agenda…Since securing research funds is so fundamental to a scientist’s career, there is never a shortage of researchers willing to adjust their results to align with the funding institution’s agenda.
“Peer review sometimes picks up fraud by chance,” remarks Richard Smith, “but generally it is not a reliable method for detecting fraud because it works on trust.”
The peer-review process has many other disadvantages, as Smith aptly notes: “In addition to being poor at detecting gross defects and almost useless for detecting fraud, it is slow, expensive, profligate of academic time, highly subjective, something of a lottery, prone to bias, and easily abused.”
John Ioannidis, a renowned researcher at Stanford University who specializes in analyzing the scientific method, explains that scientists have no motivation to critically examine the work of their peers: “There’s no incentive for scientists or other stakeholders to make a very thorough and critical review of a study, to try to reproduce it, or to probe systematically and spend real effort on re-analysis.”
…researchers typically have even less incentive to perform “a very thorough and critical review” of a vaccine safety study. Publicly challenging institutional vaccination policies could severely impair their chances of receiving future research grants and would likely provoke harsh criticism from supervisors and peers.
There is no law or regulation compelling researchers to provide the original data they used to other researchers.
It is also important to remember that medical journals are an integral part of the medical-academic world. They maintain close working relationships withpharmaceutical companies, researchers and academics, and official health bodies. Because this world is united by its unreserved support for vaccines, journal editors have nothing to gain by swimming against the current, even if that means tolerating the occasional breach of scientific ethics.[eeee] Just as researchers and doctors who produce purposely biased vaccine safety research are not chastised or even reprimanded, medical journals rarely, if ever, pay any price for the publication of these studies.
In practice, however, encouraging criticism of your own published research is a double-edged sword. Too much of it could seriously, and possibly irrevocably, damage a medical journal’s reputation.
…publication in a medical journal is not a reliable indicator of study quality or veracity. In the words of Richard Smith, former editor of the British Medical Journal : “We have little evidence on the effectiveness of peer review, but we have considerable evidence on its defects. In addition to being poor at detecting gross defects and almost useless for detecting fraud, it is slow, expensive, profligate of academic time, highly subjective, something of a lottery, prone to bias, and easily abused.”
On the childhood vaccine schedule: …key elements of the entire schedule – the number, frequency, timing, order, and age at administration of vaccines – have not been systematically examined in research studies.”33 Furthermore, when a new vaccine is added to the vaccine schedule, no studies are done to examine its effect on the other vaccines on the schedule. Research to evaluate different variations of the schedule, to ensure it is still “optimal” is also never done..
On vaccinating children with mild illness: Thus, a search of the medical literature reveals that the institutional recommendation of vaccinating infants with a mild illness, whether with a specific vaccine or a combination of vaccines, is not evidence-based. With the exception of one weak study of the MMR vaccine, no studies have investigated whether vaccinating mildly ill infants increases the risk of serious side effects, exacerbates the severity of the illness, or prolongs its duration.
On cocooning (requires that members of an infant’s immediate family (including parents, grandparents, and siblings) be vaccinated shortly before the infant’s birth, assuming they will then serve as a protective shield against infection with the pertussis bacterium): This guideline, which is currently practiced in many industrialized countries, was established despite the absence of solid evidence that the vaccine provided such protection. In addition, it is one of the guidelines that the Warfel 2014 study clearly negates. As the researchers point out, “Our data […] suggest that cocooning is unlikely to be an effective strategy to reduce the burden of pertussis in infants.” In fact, the study results suggest that vaccinating family members for pertussis just might increase the risk of infants’ infection, instead of lowering it.
…The clinical trials are “cooked”; adverse event reporting systems are rudimentary by design; biomedical research into vaccine injury is virtually nonexistent; health authorities sponsor biased epidemiological studies, conducted by researchers with huge conflicts of interest; studies evaluating the true benefit of the vaccination program are never done and neither are studies comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated populations; and key vaccination guidelines are not based on sound science. Each item on this list, as well as the totality of the list, testifies to the inconceivable chasm between institutional claims of safety and the reality of vaccine science…
We scrutinized the field from various angles, and from each of those a similar view emerged: Adequate scientific evidence for the safety of vaccines is severely lacking, and health agencies and pharmaceutical companies are deliberately concealing their true harms from the public. This grim reality cannot be attributed to some local failure, a one-time random deviation from proper procedure, or a “standard” bureaucratic failure of some government entity. The individual parts seem to mesh so perfectly that it is very difficult to view them as coincidental and unrelated mishaps. Thus, one must inevitably conclude that all parties involved are engaged in deliberate and systematic efforts to hide the painful, astonishing, and earth-shattering truth regarding the “safety” of vaccines from the public.