Chossidmom's thread about childhood vaccines

↑ ChossidMom ↓

Wed, May 22 2024, 2:30 am

STORY AT-A-GLANCE
A U.S. Senate roundtable discussion, hosted by Sen. Ron Johnson, tackled a taboo topic — why public health agencies have not studied the health outcomes of vaccinated versus unvaccinated children
In 1962, children received just five vaccine doses. As of 2023, children up to age 18 receive 73 doses of 16 different vaccines; the cumulative effects of this childhood vaccine schedule have never been tested
Research shows vaccinated children experienced significantly higher instances of various health issues, including allergies, asthma, behavioral issues and gastroenteritis
The 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act requires the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to report on vaccine safety every two years, but the agency has “never submitted a vaccine safety report to Congress”
Health agencies have data on health outcomes for vaccinated and unvaccinated children, but they refuse to make it public, likely due to financial conflicts of interest.

A U.S. Senate roundtable discussion, hosted by Sen. Ron Johnson, tackled a taboo topic — why public health agencies have not studied the health outcomes of vaccinated versus unvaccinated children — and have refused to make data on the topic available to the public.1

“They do not publish the results [or] let any independent scientist in to look at that information,” Brian Hooker, chief scientific officer for Children’s Health Defense, said. “They refuse to publish the results and they really know why. It’s because the bloated vaccination schedule is responsible and is, I would say, in part responsible for the epidemic of chronic disorders that we see in children in the U.S.”2

In 1962, children received just five vaccine doses. As of 2023, children up to age 18 receive 73 doses of 16 different vaccines. The cumulative effects of this childhood vaccine schedule have never been tested.

Explosion of Childhood Vaccines Led to ‘Greatest Decline in Public Health in Human History’
Del Bigtree, CEO of the Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN), referenced the significant increase in chronic illnesses that’s risen along with the number of childhood vaccines.

“In the 1980s, when we were giving 11 doses of about three vaccines, the chronic illness rate, which includes neurological and autoimmune disease, was 12.8%. Once we passed the 1986 [National Childhood Vaccine Injury] Act and we had the gold rush of vaccines explode ... the chronic illness rate, neurological and autoimmune disease, skyrocket[ed] to 54%,” he said.3

However, that was in 2011 to 2012 — and might be even worse today. “We have no idea since then how bad this has gotten. But what you were looking at right there is the greatest decline in public health in human history,” Bigtree noted.4 He added:5

“None of the 14 routine vaccines on the CDC’s recommended schedule ... was ever put through long-term double-blind placebo-based safety trials prior to licensure. Since this type of trial is really the only way to establish that a pharmaceutical product is safe, it is misinformation to state that the vaccines are safe.”

On the contrary, a number of studies suggest that unvaccinated children may be healthier than those who are vaxxed.

Vaccinated Children Have Higher Rates of Asthma, Neurodevelopmental Disorders and More
Dr. Paul Thomas, whose medical license was suspended due to his advocacy for informed consent regarding vaccinations, along with James Lyons-Weiler from the Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge (IPAK), conducted a study comparing the health of vaccinated and unvaccinated children.6

Their findings revealed that vaccinated children experienced significantly higher instances of various health issues, including:7

Asthma

Allergies

Eczema

Sinusitis

Gastroenteritis

Respiratory infections

Middle ear infection

Conjunctivitis

Breathing issues

Behavioral issues

Notably, among the 561 unvaccinated children, none were diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), whereas 0.063% of children who had received some or all recommended vaccinations were diagnosed with ADHD.

“The implications of these results for the net public health effects of whole-population vaccination and with respect for informed consent on human health are compelling,” they wrote.8 The study also points out that the rate of autism spectrum disorder in their practice was half that of the U.S. national average (0.84% versus 1.69%). The rate of ADHD in the practice was also about half the national rate.

According to the authors, “The data indicate that unvaccinated children in the practice are not unhealthier than the vaccinated and indeed the overall results may indicate that the unvaccinated pediatric patients in this practice are healthier overall than the vaccinated.”9

At the roundtable, Hooker added, “‘When you look at developmental delays, when you look at asthma, when you look at ear infections, when you look at allergies, when you look at ADD [attention deficit disorder], ADHD, autism,’ unvaccinated children fare ‘way better.’”10

Save This Article for Later - Get the PDF Now
Download PDF
Aluminum Toxicity Alone Is a Problem
There are multiple mechanisms of potential harm when it comes to vaccination. One of them involves aluminum, the most commonly used vaccine adjuvant.11 A demonstrated neurotoxin, aluminum is added to certain vaccines to increase the immune response and, with that, theoretically generate a higher response of protective antibodies.

However, repeated exposure to vaccine components such as aluminum could be harming children. As Hooker shared, “28 vaccines are given in the first year of life, one vaccine on the first day of life and upwards to eight vaccines when an infant is just 2 months old. If you look at the aluminum toxicity alone, it far surpasses the single-day toxicity limit for aluminum exposure in newborns.”12

A study funded by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that, among children with and without eczema, exposure to vaccine-associated aluminum was positively associated with persistent asthma. There was a 1.26- and 1.19-times higher risk of persistent asthma for each additional milligram of vaccine-related aluminum exposure, respectively, for children with and without eczema.13

Children who received all or most of the recommended childhood vaccines that contain aluminum received a cumulative aluminum exposure dose of more than 3 milligrams (mg). This group had, at least, a 36% higher risk of developing persistent asthma than children who received fewer vaccines, and therefore had a less than 3-mg exposure to aluminum.14

The study was observational in nature and stopped short of saying that it proves a link between aluminum-containing vaccines and asthma. The CDC also stated that it has no intention of altering its vaccine recommendations based on this study alone.15 However, the researchers pointed out that rates of asthma in U.S. children steadily increased in the 1980s and 1990s, then remained steady since 2001.

The 2001 date is significant, as most aluminum-containing vaccines were added to the childhood vaccine schedule before 2001. This includes, for example, diphtheria, tetanus, and acellular pertussis (DTaP), hepatitis B, some formulations of Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) and pneumococcal conjugate vaccines. According to the study:16

“There are many environmental and genetic risk factors for asthma, and any contribution from vaccine-associated aluminum has not been proven or supported through replication. However, because most aluminum-containing vaccines were added to the routine schedule prior to 2001 ... observed national trends in asthma prevalence during childhood are not incongruous with the effect estimates observed here.”

COVID Shots Caused 30 Child Deaths for Every One Saved
COVID-19 shots were added to the U.S. childhood, adolescent and adult vaccine schedules after a unanimous (15-0) vote by the U.S. CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). By adding the shots to the vaccine schedule, it paves the way for U.S. schools to require them for attendance.

Pfizer and Moderna, the shots’ makers, were also granted permanent legal indemnity, which otherwise would have disappeared once COVID-19 shots were no longer protected under emergency use authorization (EUA).17 Yet the shots have proven disastrous for children.

Hooker told the roundtable research shows “that for every one child that is saved from death from COVID-19, there are 30 child deaths associated with the COVID-19 vaccine. So, the risk-to-benefit ratio in terms of mortality is 30 to 1.”18

A now-retracted narrative review published in the journal Cureus called for a global moratorium on mRNA COVID-19 shots,19 citing significant increases in serious adverse events among those who received the injections, along with an “unacceptably high harm-to-reward ratio.”20

When factoring in absolute risk and the “number needed to vaccinate” (NNV), a metric used to quantify how many people need to be vaccinated to prevent one additional case of a specific disease, the review found “for every life saved, there were nearly 14 times more deaths caused by the modified mRNA injections.”21

The authors of the paper also said the shots should be immediately removed from the childhood vaccine schedule, while boosters should also be suspended. “It is unethical and unconscionable to administer an experimental vaccine to a child who has a near-zero risk of dying from COVID-19 but a well-established 2.2 percent risk of permanent heart damage based on the best prospective data available,” the paper notes.22

Heart damage from the shots includes myocarditis, which is inflammation of the heart muscle that can cause heart failure, abnormal heartbeat and sudden death. “Myocarditis is a serious disorder and 76% of all cases following COVID-19 vaccination, as reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System [VAERS], required emergency care and/or hospitalization,” Hooker said. However, the “CDC significantly downplays myocarditis as a side effect of the vaccine.”23

Health Agency ‘Never Submitted’ Required Vaccine Safety Reports to Congress
The roundtable discussion occurred as part of a larger discussion on “Federal Health Agencies and the COVID Cartel.” The group included medical experts, political figures, journalists and whistleblowers who accused government, media and Big Pharma of censorship and coverups related to COVID-19 jab injuries.24

Hooker testified that the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act requires the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to “report to Congress on the state of vaccine safety in the U.S. every two years.” However, he said HHS has “never submitted a vaccine safety report to Congress.”25

Hooker also reported that health agencies have data on health outcomes for vaccinated and unvaccinated children, but they refuse to make it public. The data, which includes close to 30 years’ worth of information on more than 10 million people, is housed in a database called Vaccine Safety Datalink.

Despite Hooker making more than 120 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, and going through “congressional representatives to get the Vaccine Safety Datalink itself,” he says, “It is simply something that they will not do.”26 He believes financial conflicts of interest are the reason why:27

“CDC buys and sells $5 billion worth of vaccines a year through the Vaccines for Children program. They also spend half a billion dollars a year ... advertising and through public relationship campaigns for vaccinations in general, as compared to a woeful budget of $50 million that is being used for vaccine safety every year.”

In a discussion on Steve Bannon’s “War Room,” Hooker added that, as it stands, public health agencies are not protecting the public from vaccine injuries — something to carefully consider in your own medical decisions regarding vaccinations:28

“The CDC, FDA and NIH (National Institutes of Health) are derelict in their duty ... to protect children and adults against vaccine injury in order to report to Congress the state of vaccine safety science, and their responsibility to the American public and to public health in order to protect the American public.”

May 22, by Dr. Joseph Mercola

↑ ChossidMom ↓

Wed, May 22 2024, 2:47 pm

New FDA Study Reports Elevated Post-Vaccination Seizure Risk In Toddlers
I got the chance to ask the FDA how it can still recommend COVID vaccination in children despite the newly emerging risks. Their response was all-too-revealing.

By Rav Arora
•
May 21, 2024 DailyWire.com

https://www.dailywire.com/news.....f8H30

On April 24th, a team of FDA-supported scientists published a new study in JAMA Pediatrics investigating serious adverse events associated with mRNA vaccines in children.

This comprehensive and well-constructed cohort study focused on post-market surveillance of the COVID vaccines in over 4 million children, confirming the well-documented risk of myocarditis — inflammation of the heart muscle — in adolescents 12-17 who take the mRNA COVID vaccines.

However, the most shocking finding was the discovery of a new safety signal which hadn’t been reported before:

“In the primary analysis, seizure met the statistical threshold for a signal in children aged 2 to 4 years after BNT162b2 vaccination in all 3 databases and in children aged 2 to 5 years after mRNA-1273 vaccination in 2 of the 3 databases.”

In other words, the study authors found a statistically significant signal of seizures in children aged 2 to 4 years after the Pfizer vaccine and children 2 to 5 years after the Moderna vaccine.

“The statistical signal for seizure in children aged 2 to 4 or 5 years has not been previously reported for this age group in active surveillance studies of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines,” the study states.

More specifically, the study finds a significantly elevated risk of seizures after doses one and two of the Pfizer vaccine in kids ages 2 to 4 and dose two of the Moderna vaccine for kids ages 2 to 5. It’s worth noting, if this finding was merely incidental and unrelated, it wouldn’t have been found for both mRNA vaccines. Moreover, the scientists note they couldn’t identify any “data quality concerns” that would compromise or bias the results.

The true scale of seizures caused by mRNA vaccines in kids across the United States (and other countries) is unclear, but it is likely quite concerning.

1 In 5,000 Risk Of Seizures In Kids Following Vaccination
To be clear, the absolute number of seizures caused is not alarmingly high. According to the limited data, the rate of vaccine-related seizures in young kids is approximately 1 in 5,000. Put differently, .02% of mRNA-injected kids developed seizures in the first couple of weeks following vaccination.

While it is true this is an extremely small absolute figure, critics are wrong to view such risks as “rare” and trivial because the vaccine does not confer any significant benefit in young kids to outweigh such risks. In other words, compared to the extremely low risk of COVID in young children, even a very small number of seizures would sway the risk-benefit analysis towards not getting vaccinated.

The study identifies 72 seizures in kids following vaccination. What benefit did those kids seek to attain? They had a survival rate of more than 99.9997% (this statistic is for ages 0 to 19, not 2 to 5 which the seizure signal has appeared in. The survival rate in younger groups would be far higher.)

As my colleague Jay Bhattacharya elaborated, “the benefits are likely to be small in these groups since nearly 100% of individuals in these groups have already had covid and recovered.” “Such recovered immunity provides stronger protection against severe disease on reinfection than the vaccine,” he added.

“Even for the first infection, the risk of death from covid infection for adolescents and toddlers is incredibly low,” he explained.

Yet, the study bizarrely states that “The US Food and Drug Administration concludes that the known and potential benefits of COVID-19 vaccination outweigh the known and potential risks of COVID-19 infection.”

How does that make sense when the study itself does not conduct any assessment of the health benefits and harms of the COVID vaccine for toddlers or adolescents?

My Correspondence With The FDA
Stunned by the incongruous conclusion of the study, I decided to contact the FDA to ask them how they continue to support COVID vaccination in children absent any supportive risk-reward analyses. I ended up getting in touch with an FDA spokesperson.

To their credit, they decided to engage with me on this contentious topic. I did not expect that. Here was their response to my question on unproven COVID vaccine safety in children:

“The focus of this manuscript was the safety of the Ancestral Monovalent BNT162b2, mRNA-1273, and NVX-CoV2373 COVID-19 vaccines in U.S. children aged 6 Months to 17 years, so we focused on the fact that the vaccine was safe.”

Wait, what?

I had to read this over a couple of times because I was so perplexed by this sentence.

The explicitly stated objective of the study was “To conduct near-real-time monitoring of health outcomes after COVID-19 vaccination in the US pediatric population.”

As a result, they decided to focus on the opinion, not “fact,” that “the vaccine was safe”?

This is essentially like saying, “The focus of our work was to clean the house so we focused on the fact that the house was clean.” Unless I’m tripping, my BS meter was already ringing. Only to make matters worse, they went on to say:

“The benefits of the vaccine have been reported elsewhere, which include, but are not limited to the reduced incidence of medically diagnosed and hospital and emergency department diagnosed COVID-19, as reported here: Effectiveness of BNT162b2 COVID-19 primary series vaccination in children aged 5–17 years in the United States: a cohort study – PMC (nih.gov).”

This cited study has numerous issues. For one, the study population is 5 to 17-year-olds, not 2 to 5-year-olds which is the cohort for whom the risk of seizures was found. So how can the FDA use this as their primary evidentiary source to support vaccination in young kids?

Moreover, the cited study on vaccine effectiveness in children aged 5 – 17 may be severely compromised by incidental COVID cases. A number of estimates have shown that 40 – 60% of COVID hospitalizations are incidental (the cause of the hospitalization was unrelated to the positive COVID test result).

Dr. Tracy Beth Hoeg, epidemiologist and vaccine myocarditis researcher, stated, “Even for that tiny numerical difference in rates most of those are probably incidental hospitalizations and so the chance to benefit is so small and could easily all be explained by transient healthy vaccine effect mostly attributable to hospitalization with and not for covid.”

“We would have needed a very large randomized study among children to know what the real effect, if any, of the vaccine was. I would not rely on the results of this study,” she added.

I emailed back the FDA, highlighting these concerns, and they took a few days because the spokesperson was working on the response (I followed up a couple of times). I thought they were going to address my concerns point by point with honest transparency.

Well, they fooled me.

I got an email back from the FDA with the most frustratingly cookie-cutter, generic response possible:

“The FDA is confident in the safety and effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccines approved or authorized for use in the U.S. The vaccines’ benefit-risk profiles are well understood and demonstrate that the known and potential benefits for individuals 6 months of age and older outweigh their risks.

With over a billion doses administered, we have data from real-world use of these vaccines demonstrating that the benefits of getting vaccinated, which include a clear reduction in hospitalization and death, outweigh potential risks.

Further information related to the FDA’s conclusions regarding benefit-risk assessment can be found within the respective decision and review memoranda available on FDA’s website here.”

And that’s that.

This is an illustrative, real-time example of what I told Russell Brand once “when the narrative trumps the facts.” They initially engaged with me, seemingly in earnest, but we came to a point where I was questioning the unquestionable. I collided with the sacred orthodoxy of “vaccines are safe and effective for kids” driven by a toxic cocktail of political, financial, pharmaceutical, and quasi-scientific institutional interests.

The plain reality is COVID vaccines were never necessary or proven to be safe and effective to administer in children on a mass scale.

Even the most zealous mRNA advocates admitted, when faced with pediatric vaccine hesitancy, that the primary purpose of vaccinating young kids was to protect adults and the elderly.

This was a fundamental error from the start because dosing kids with the mRNAs was nothing as safe as dosing them with apple sauce or vitamin D. There were serious safety concerns from the start, some substantiated by the data and others unclear, but the FDA and the CDC should have never mass-recommended the COVID vaccines as an urgent, essential intervention for children who had a near-zero infection fatality rate.

The true scale of harm from seizures and other serious adverse events is unknown. As Johns Hopkins researcher Dr. Marty Makary once said, “A baby can’t tell you they have myocarditis” (let alone subclinical myocarditis which does not produce any symptoms).

“Child Sacrifice”
Coincidentally, Joe Rogan recently brought up the travesty of mass mRNA child vaccination in a conversation with comedian Deric Poston, and referred to it as a “child sacrifice.”

Provocative but far from hyperbolic, that is exactly how public health treated children. In the name of “protecting the elderly” or “herd immunity,” they neglected and sacrificed the health of young children, who had the least to gain and most to suffer, with the experimental mRNA shots.

As we are finding out now, the potentiality of harm that was feared by the unhinged “conspiracy theorists” (which is what I thought), is coming to bear as more and more serious side effects emerge and indict the corrupt regulatory agencies and public health authorities who pushed the shots with unwavering religious zeal.

* * *

Rav Arora is a 22-year-old journalist based in Vancouver covering free speech, Big Pharma, Covid mandates, and totalitarianism. His work has appeared on The Joe Rogan Experience, The Jordan B. Peterson Podcast, and The Ben Shapiro Show, among other major platforms. Follow his Substack newsletter with Dr. Jay Bhattacharya: The Illusion Of Consensus.

This article originally appeared on Substack on “Illusion of Consensus.”

The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

↑ ChossidMom ↓

Thu, Jul 11 2024, 5:58 am

Aaron Siri
https://x.com/AaronSiriSG/stat.....email

Dr. Stanley Plotkin, the world’s leading vaccinologist, and his disciples, have just capitulated. After decades of claiming vaccine safety is robustly studied, they just admitted it is not, neither before nor after licensure. But don’t be fooled – read my stack or this long tweet for details!

Plotkin Article: https://nejm.org/doi/full/10.1.....02379

It is amazing that 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 postauthorization safety studies.”

That is an incredible reversal. But let me provide context so nobody is fooled at 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 program 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 https://thehighwire.com/ark-vi.....kin/.

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 exclude harms from its Vaccine Information Sheets, “lobbying the Gates Foundation to support pro-vaccine organizations,” 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 https://icandecide.org/article.....ned/.

The problem is, it doesn't work. It doesn’t work because, at 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 CDC, WHO, the Gates Foundations, etc., won’t acknowledge them, or worse, they attack them.

That brings us to the present in which Plotkin and his disciples realize 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 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 which already exist that 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 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38788092/.

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 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 http://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/stat.....3489.

“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 **** 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 ****, 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 ****! 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 ****, 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-cont......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?

2:50 AM · Jul 11, 2024