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. That is an incredible reversal.<\/h5>\n\n\n\n![\"Featured](\"https:\/\/www.lifesitenews.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/shutterstock_1868399098-e1714661444748-810x500.jpg\")
<\/figure>\n\n\n\n(Injecting Freedom<\/a>) \u2014 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<\/a> admitting precisely the opposite.<\/p>\n\n\n\nThey just admitted vaccines are not properly studied \u2013 neither pre-licensure nor post-licensure. They admitted, for example, \u201cprelicensure clinical trials have limited sample sizes [and] follow-up durations\u201d and that \u201cthere are not resources earmarked for postauthorization safety studies.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
That is an incredible reversal. But let me provide context so nobody is fooled at what they are clearly up to:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
For decades, the medical community insisted vaccines are the most thoroughly studied product ever; for example, Dr. Paul Offit said, \u201cI think we should be proud of vaccines as arguably the safest, best tested things we put in our body.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
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 here<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\nAfter this deposition is made public, Dr. Plotkin goes on a tirade, making demands that FDA add \u201cmissing information on safety and efficacy\u201d in vaccine package inserts and that CDC exclude harms from its Vaccine Information Sheets, \u201clobbying the Gates Foundation to support pro-vaccine organizations,\u201d working to have WHO list vaccine hesitancy as a global threat, lobbying AAP, IDSA and PIDS to \u201csupport training of witnesses\u201d to support vaccine safety, etc. See here<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\nThe problem is, it doesn\u2019t work. It doesn\u2019t 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\u2019t make them go away. Parents and other adults don\u2019t simply stop believing what they have seen with their own eyes because CDC, WHO, the Gates Foundations, etc., won\u2019t acknowledge them, or worse, they attack them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
That brings us to the present in which Plotkin and his disciples realize they can\u2019t cast voodoo on the public. They can\u2019t 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\u2019t 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Don\u2019t 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 \u201crare.\u201d But if the studies have not been done, how do they know that? The answer is, they don\u2019t, and they don\u2019t care to know the truth. Their goal is to protect the products they have spent their careers defending and worshiping and that have brought them fame and riches.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
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 here<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\nFinally, just look at their proposed solution. After making the a priori conclusion that harms are \u201crare,\u201d 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 \u201crare,\u201d while ignoring the studies that already show serious harm.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
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:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n[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.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
Comment: The parents of vaccine injured children, vaccine injured adults, and others were never \u201csatisfied\u201d with seeking to assess \u201crisks after <\/em>a vaccine has been authorized.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n\nPostauthorization 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.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
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<\/a>; amazingly, I just had a dispute with a Plotkin disciple<\/a> not long ago in which they were clearly still not ready to admit the above truth.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\nIt 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.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
Comment: No **** and you have been claiming for decades this was being done!<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\nWhen 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.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
Comment: Again, no ****, and you have also been claiming for decades this was being done!<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\nCurrently 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.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
Comment: Again, no ****! But nice of you to finally admit it after decades of gaslighting.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\nProgress in vaccine-safety science has understandably been slow \u2013 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 \u2013 which has adversely affected vaccine acceptance.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
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\u2019t need to rely on confounded-biased-conflicted-post-authorization \u201cepidemiological\u201d studies you now want to conduct which you make clear you only suggest because you want to avoid \u201cpublic concern and consequent decreases in immunization coverage,\u201d not because you actually care about safety.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\nIn 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.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
<\/figure>\n\n\n\n(Injecting Freedom<\/a>) \u2014 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<\/a> admitting precisely the opposite.<\/p>\n\n\n\n They just admitted vaccines are not properly studied \u2013 neither pre-licensure nor post-licensure. They admitted, for example, \u201cprelicensure clinical trials have limited sample sizes [and] follow-up durations\u201d and that \u201cthere are not resources earmarked for postauthorization safety studies.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n That is an incredible reversal. But let me provide context so nobody is fooled at what they are clearly up to:<\/p>\n\n\n\n For decades, the medical community insisted vaccines are the most thoroughly studied product ever; for example, Dr. Paul Offit said, \u201cI think we should be proud of vaccines as arguably the safest, best tested things we put in our body.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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 here<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n After this deposition is made public, Dr. Plotkin goes on a tirade, making demands that FDA add \u201cmissing information on safety and efficacy\u201d in vaccine package inserts and that CDC exclude harms from its Vaccine Information Sheets, \u201clobbying the Gates Foundation to support pro-vaccine organizations,\u201d working to have WHO list vaccine hesitancy as a global threat, lobbying AAP, IDSA and PIDS to \u201csupport training of witnesses\u201d to support vaccine safety, etc. See here<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The problem is, it doesn\u2019t work. It doesn\u2019t 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\u2019t make them go away. Parents and other adults don\u2019t simply stop believing what they have seen with their own eyes because CDC, WHO, the Gates Foundations, etc., won\u2019t acknowledge them, or worse, they attack them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n That brings us to the present in which Plotkin and his disciples realize they can\u2019t cast voodoo on the public. They can\u2019t 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\u2019t 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Don\u2019t 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 \u201crare.\u201d But if the studies have not been done, how do they know that? The answer is, they don\u2019t, and they don\u2019t care to know the truth. Their goal is to protect the products they have spent their careers defending and worshiping and that have brought them fame and riches.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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 here<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Finally, just look at their proposed solution. After making the a priori conclusion that harms are \u201crare,\u201d 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 \u201crare,\u201d while ignoring the studies that already show serious harm.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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:<\/p>\n\n\n\n [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.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Comment: The parents of vaccine injured children, vaccine injured adults, and others were never \u201csatisfied\u201d with seeking to assess \u201crisks after <\/em>a vaccine has been authorized.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n 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<\/a>; amazingly, I just had a dispute with a Plotkin disciple<\/a> not long ago in which they were clearly still not ready to admit the above truth.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Comment: No **** and you have been claiming for decades this was being done!<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Comment: Again, no ****, and you have also been claiming for decades this was being done!<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Comment: Again, no ****! But nice of you to finally admit it after decades of gaslighting.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Progress in vaccine-safety science has understandably been slow \u2013 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 \u2013 which has adversely affected vaccine acceptance.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n 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\u2019t need to rely on confounded-biased-conflicted-post-authorization \u201cepidemiological\u201d studies you now want to conduct which you make clear you only suggest because you want to avoid \u201cpublic concern and consequent decreases in immunization coverage,\u201d not because you actually care about safety.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n