Yes, the editorial (that you never read) was linked in my post, 🤡.
Plotkin, et al: “…prelicensure clinical trials have limited sample sizes [and] follow-up durations,” and “there are not resources earmarked for postauthorization safety studies.”
Close friend pleading with me to not vaccinate our baby
- Thread starter HawkeyesAndCubs1023
- Start date
Plotkin, et al: “…prelicensure clinical trials have limited sample sizes [and] follow-up durations,” and “there are not resources earmarked for postauthorization safety studies.”
This is because, in the entirety of the history of vaccines, complications show up within weeks.
That was posted for you long ago.
There is not any necessity in multi-year followup for them.
Nope
Flu and Covid and RSV can wreak far worse effects on the fetus than the vaccines ever will.
Idk, @naturalbornhawk , what do you think? Should we listen to the ‘Godfather of vaccines’ on this one or should we listen to some pharma shill like Joes Piss?
Does the "Godfather of vaccines" claim there are problems with the existing testing for vaccines?
NOPE
Further, a table in the editorial shows the ‘biological mechanism’ for most vaccine injuries is not understood -- from the 1976 Swine flu vaccine to the 1988 Rotavirus vaccine to the current day covid-19 vaccines.
Adapted from DOI: 10.1056/NEJMp2402379
Adapted from DOI: 10.1056/NEJMp2402379
It was kind of the ENTIRE point of the article he co-wrote, no?
Surprised a scientist like Joe missed that. 🤭
The biological mechanisms for those viruses and the injuries they cause are also "not understood". But the vaccines all protect against them...
No. He does not.
He refers to public sentiment and increasing surveillance & $$ to address that.
If you bothered to read it, the focus is using resources to analyze the RARE occurrences of vaccine injury (even though they are small). Because the available technology to do that rapidly did not exist when the original laws were passed >40 yrs ago.
The opinion piece makes NO MENTION of any changes to current vaccine testing and safety profiling - it is all about using the databases and technology today to focus on the outlier injuries.
If you'd like to quote where it says we should not vaccinate people any more, do it. (because that is simply not in the publication, anywhere)
From NEJM article. Welcome to the party, Stan. Intelligent people have been saying this stuff for decades.
“The 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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“The 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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
Nothing there makes a single claim about vaccines not being safe, or that we should not be vaccinating people.
Not ONE comment.
In fact, this one is rather illuminating that you'd use it:
the IOM found inadequate evidence to prove or disprove causation
Which means NO actual relation of injury to vaccination, because the cases are so rare.
"No longer seem rare"
But they ARE rare.
The ENTIRE editorial is referring to public perceptions.
I'm pretty sure somewhere it the mess of pages he says that he was planning to vax the baby according to the schedule.
What a f***ing clown.
“It would be unethical to withhold vaccines from children even though long-term safety studies are inadequate to determine whether they do - or do not - cause neurological damage.”
In other words: ZERO evidence they cause any "neurological damage".
And what is being referred to are the unfounded "autism" claims, now fully debunked.
It is now well-established that early childhood infections - typically with fevers - are linked as an autism trigger NOT vaccines.
No; he does not.
He's giving you the "science" wording, which is there is not sufficient evidence, either way, to establish "rare" examples of possible reactions. And there may never be for those.
No, it has not been fully debunked, as is clearly spelled out in this interview. Your well-established scapegoat is nothing more than tobacco science.
You're putting words in his mouth. The available science does NOT say that vaccines do not cause autism. Pure and simple.
Yes; it absolutely does.
Multiple studies have found NO correlation.
A separate study found CLEAR correlation to childhood infections.
Do you need that linked for you a sixth time?
Not interested in "interviews"; I'm interested in DATA.
And there IS NO SUCH DATA.
He wasn't able to say they weren't "unsafe" either. That's the problem. Especially when the CDC page says "Vaccines do not cause autism" as if it's a matter of fact, and feed you empty links that lead to nowhere. On the contrary, that's clearly not what the science says.
Thx for admitting he did not label them as "unsafe". Because he did not.
He is pointing out that we have new ways to dig into the alleged rare cases of adverse events today, and we need to do that.
You will not find many scientists who disagree on that point.
Vaccines are safe; if we work at it, we may be able to make them safer
No, we've discussed so many times here the issues with the studies you cite. That's why the CDC and HHS doesn't cite them when asked to provide the studies they rely upon to say that vaccines don't cause autism.
Yeah, you aren't interested in interviews of top experts telling you the science is inadequate because it doesn't play well with your narrative.
Who ya gonna believe: the Godfather of the vaccine or one of its (many) ret@rded stepsons?
🥴
The studies have found NO correlation.
the original article your one buddy published has been retracted as FALSE
Did "the Godfather of the vaccine" claim kids should not be vaccinated?
Can you link that quote in its entirety?
Nope
I'm interested in the data and publications.
"Gotcha" interviews are not compelling to me, in the least.
I never made that claim; you’re trying too hard.
There’s been a wholesale shift in the public’s perception to vaccines being ‘safe and effective, most likely due to the covid vaccine fiasco.
So now (all of a sudden) a prominent vaccinologist, after profiting handsomely off the industry for 50+ years, has decided the science is sorely lacking in the necessary pre/post-marketing data collection. We need to ‘do more’.
Criminal malfeasance.
You tried to pin a false statement on me in your post #534 - “If you'd like to quote where it says we should not vaccinate people any more, do it. (because that is simply not in the publication, anywhere)”
I actually read the article. If Plotkin had said we should drop all vaccines you can be damn sure I would have quoted it.
The things he DID say - which I DID quote - are damning enough.
Piss off, liar.
