Part 2 on the evaluation of vaccine safety: Heavyweight Vaccine Pushers Demand Studies of Vaccine Safety "Postauthorization"
I decode a sneaky opinion article by top vaccine scientists in the NEJM
This is a “Perspective” article in the NEJM that was going to attract a lot of attention, based on its 4 prominent authors. You can download it below—it is only 4 pages long.
Stanley Plotkin at 92 is the living dean of vaccinology. Walter Orenstein, in his late 70s and retired, is another well known vaccinologist who has been around the field forever. Both have authored and edited seminal articles and chapters in the most-read vaccine textbooks.
Robert Chen used to be the head of vaccine safety studies at CDC, and currently works many gigs for CEPI, the Brighton Collaboration and others. Daniel Salmon heads the “Institute for Vaccine Safety" at Johns Hopkins. Of the 5 “Select Publications on Salmon’s JHU website (https://publichealth.jhu.edu/faculty/1015/daniel-salmon) 3 are about vaccine hesitancy.
When these men speak, especially in the NEJM, the field listens.
The article starts out by making 2 strange claims: that traditionally vaccine safety is not being studied after vaccines are authorized, and that when an adverse event is due to a vaccine, “the biological mechanism must be ascertained.” Here is how they phrase this:
Let me break this down.
…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. The public also wants public health authorities to mitigate and prevent rare but serious adverse reactions — which no longer seem rare when vaccines are given to millions or billions of people.
Has the public, prior to COVID, been satisfied with its regulatory agencies failing to mitigate or prevent (or detect) serious adverse reactions? Or was the public snowed by narratives that claimed all vaccines were safe and effective? Surely the public was never okay about serious vaccine adverse events, though the vaccinologists may have been.
The authors use the term “authorized” rather than approved or licensed. This requires that you know the FDA lexicon. An authorized vaccine is experimental, or EUA. Why are these vaccine experts only discussing EUA (Emergency Use Authorized) vaccines in their article? Most of us never want to see another EUA vaccine again, since there are no specific safety requirements they must meet. Do these authors know something we don’t? Is the US government planning to roll out more unlicensed vaccines soon?
When they are caused by vaccines (vaccine adverse reactions), the risk attributable to vaccination and the biologic mechanism must be ascertained.
Of course, we always want to know the reason why an adverse reaction occurs, but usually the actual biologic mechanism cannot be identified. In fact, the first author (Salmon) posted his own chart demonstrating this, on page 2:
He listed 9 of the best-known adverse reactions to vaccines, and only one of them (11%) has a mechanism that is understood.
Clearly, the the mechanism underlying adverse effects is rarely able to be ascertained. Therefore, while it is worthwhile to seek out the mechanism causing an adverse effect, scientists are only able to determine one occasionally. So isn’t the demand that mechanisms “must be ascertained” some kind of red herring? Are they throwing up another roadblock before causation can be established?
The only authorized vaccines given to many millions of Americans recently are the COVID vaccines. Of course they have been studied post-authorization. There are probably hundreds of papers evaluating them, both positively and negatively. And the authors mention some of the approximately 20 databases studied by CDC and FDA to continuously evaluate vaccine safety post-authorization. FDA’s Office of Biostatistics and Pharmacovigilance is tasked with this job. So is CDC’s Immunization Safety Office. Here are the other agencies tasked with this:
Then another insupportable claim is made: “progress in vaccine safety science has understandably been slow,” because the epidemiological data do not support causal conclusions and the biological mechanism is not understood. That is total nonsense. Epidemiologic data can support causality determinations, especially when other information, such as the temporal relationship between vaccination and adverse event is fairly uniform. See Austin Bradford Hill’s list of factors that support causality decisions below:
When the epidemiologic data show that a particular adverse event occurs soon after a vaccination, at a rate, for example, ten or more times more often than it should, and is plausible, consistent, and there is no evidence suggesting another cause, it should be considered a vaccine adverse effect. But so-called vaccine safety experts usually demand much more evidence than is required to identify an adverse reaction to other products, like drugs or foods or toys.
Even after demonstrating that underlying biologic mechanisms are rarely identified, the authors keep mentioning them, as if they are a necessary component of a vaccine safety assessment. Finally, as we come to the end of the article, we discover why.
The VICP (Vaccine Injury Compensation Program) was established by Congress over 30 years ago. Seventy-five cents from every vaccine antigen administered in the US is transferred to a VICP fund, to pay for the US’ “Vaccine Court,” its 8 judges, termed Special Masters, and to pay compensation to injured claimants.
This fund has run a surplus every year, spending only about 1/3 of the monies accrued, according to the authors. By my accounting it has spent about 50%. As of April 2023, the funds in the VICP kitty totaled $4.3 billion dollars.
The NEJM authors established 2 straw men: that vaccine safety is not being studied post-authorization of vaccines, and that establishing biological mechanisms of vaccine injuries is crucial in the evaluation of potential vaccine injuries.
Their suggestion for solving the straw man problems is to transfer funds from the VICP that were intended to compensate the vaccine injured, and use them to research vaccine safety. This would save industry a lot of money, because currently FDA can require vaccine manufacturers to conduct post-licensure studies of their products. In the authors’ proposal, such studies would become a federal responsibility. The authors further suggest that the money could be used for “capacity building” as well as research, with the potential to expand their fiefdoms.
Are these authors trying to transfer $billions out of the VICP before it might become available to help pay for COVID vaccine injuries—which they surely know will cost the federal government a fortune? Or is this simply a play to rain money on their field? Either way, it is a shameless scam from the “vaccine mafia” who want to snatch a huge pot of money set aside for vaccine victims, for themselves. Are these really the people we want studying vaccine safety?
I saw first hand what vaccines did to my son. I nearly lost him. I have spoken to many other parents who had serious events with their children. I got into health/nutrition studies in 1961, when I was given some health books...and on opening the first book read information that made me put things together. I saw that the pediatrician's information was responsible for my sickly child. I was at the time a naive, trusting and ignorant young mother who thought doctors knew everything about health. After almost 64 years of research, I am aware that there is a major gap in medical doctor's education, they know little about nutrition and how the wrong foods create 95 % of the health problems people face. They also have no idea how the immune system works or they would not promote vaccines.
The Immune System needs nutrients from wholesome food to strengthen it; not foreign matter, which should never be injected into the human bloodstream. The bloodstream carries nutrients to every organ in the body to nourish it. It is not nourished with any of the matter that doctors have used since these "vaccines' came into being. The true history of vaccines showed that it was responsible for events like Leicester in England. 90% of the population died, before the vaccine program stopped. Many are aware that better nutrition and sanitation methods were responsible for stopping diseases, before the vaccine promotion started. Vaccine manufacturers honed in to take credit and promote their products. People need to read information about what occurred, before our Congress took away all their liability for injuries and deaths, in The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986. The industry would have been forced out of business, because of all the multi-million dollar lawsuits against it for their defective and dangerous products.
Thank you Dr. Nass for your dedication & commitment to Truth. I don't have any letters after my name, however, my 'still small voice' from within tells me that ALL vaccines are unsafe. Democide = death by gov't makes my heart ache. Justice will be served, either in this lifetime or the next for our Lord lives in the TRUTH ...