This is an experts understanding of the state of vaccine science. It is no prettier than that of any so called vaccine denier. It remains judged by the standards of the nineteenth century and any system so completely captured by commercial interests can never be safe if that is inconvenient.
What is not funny is that it all now looks like a NAZI project.
What are their motives?
A Second Look at Vaccination – Answers that Cannot be Questioned
By Dr. Malcolm Kendrick
September 5, 2019
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2019/09/no_author/a-second-look-at-vaccination-answers-that-cannot-be-questioned/
‘No
man can be forced to be healthful, whether he will or not. In a free
society, individuals must judge for themselves what information they
choose to heed and what they ignore.’ John Locke. ‘A letter concerning Toleration’
Here, I am going have another look at vaccination, before scurrying
away from the subject for a bit, and getting back to the safe ground of
cardiovascular disease. Much to the relief of some of the regular
readers of this blog, no doubt.
I have to say that I thought long and hard about blogging on vaccination. It is the most
brutal area for discussion that I have ever seen, and a reputation
shredder. If you even dare to hint that there may just be the slightest
issue with any vaccine, people come down upon you like a ton of bricks.
I also know that by daring to write on this subject, there will
inevitably be people moving behind the scenes to have my blog taken
down. I cannot imagine WordPress management going to the wire to protect
my right to free speech. A little flick of a switch, and I will be gone
from the airwaves.
However, as we move towards a world where it seems that all
Governments around the world are going to pass laws mandating
vaccination for everyone, and people are fined, or lose their jobs, for
speaking out, or refusing to be vaccinated, then I feel that some
attempt to discuss the area is
Because, once something becomes mandatory, and any research into
possible harms moves strictly off limits, we really need to be
absolutely one hundred per-cent certain that there is no possibility
that we may be doing harm. Or, that we are reducing any potential harm
to the lowest level possible.
Can vaccines do harm?
‘Prof Martin Gore, 67, one of the UK’s leading cancer scientists,
has died, the Royal Marsden NHS foundation trust has said. His death
was following a yellow fever vaccination.’ 1
A tragedy for a brilliant medical researcher and his family. It was brought to my attention by my wife, who knew him quite well.
However, even here, we can see any criticism of vaccines being toned down and deflected. The words ‘caused by’ were carefully avoided. It was reported that he died following a
yellow fever vaccination – which could mean he was vaccinated, then got
hit by a bus. In fact, if you read a little more deeply, it becomes
inarguable that the yellow fever vaccine was the direct cause of his
death.
Yes, such an event is rare, but such events do occur. People can die
following vaccinations, as a direct cause of that vaccination, although
the information can be very difficult to find. In Germany, the
Paul-Erlich Institute [PEI] is the organisation responsible for the
reporting of vaccine security/safety.
‘Between 1978 and 1993 approximately 13,500 cases of undesired
effects resulting from medications for vaccinations was reported to the
Paul Erlich Institute (PEI) which is the institute which is responsible
for vaccine security; the majority was reported by the pharmaceutical
industry. In 40% of cases the complications were severe, 10% pertained
to fatalities on account of the effects.’ 2
Yes, the numbers are relatively small – although by no means
vanishingly small. In a fifteen-year period that is 1,350 deaths. If the
Germans are preventing tens of thousands of deaths a year through
vaccination, then a thousand severe complications and a hundred deaths
or so, per year, may be a price worth paying? Discuss.
Primum non nocere
My own view is that you should never compel people to undergo a
medical procedure that could result in severe damage – or death. But my
philosophy is very much on the radical libertarian end of the spectrum.
Others feel that personal liberties should be restricted for the overall
good of society. A central philosophical divide, I suppose.
One of the other interesting facts from the Paul-Erlich Institute is
that ‘severe cases’ of vaccine damage, that occur, that must be
reported, include:
- Encephalopathia: Encephalopathia is frequently overlooked as it does not always entail severe symptoms. However, there can later be developmental retardation. Encephalopathia can also trigger cri encéphalique
- Seizures
- Epilepsy
- Autism
- Sleeping sickness 2
These are not my words; these are the words of the PEI.
This list obviously raises the issue of potential brain damage
following vaccination. Something that was seen with Pandemrix, used to
protect against Swine Flu (HIN1).
‘An increased risk of narcolepsy was found following vaccination
with Pandemrix, a monovalent 2009 HIN1 influenza vaccine that was used
in several European countries during the HIN1 influenza pandemic.
Narcolepsy is a chronic neurological caused by the brain’s inability to
regulate the sleep-wake cycles normally. This risk was initially found
in Finland, and then some other European countries also detected an
association. Most recently, scientists at the United Kingdom’s Health
Protection Agency (HPA) have found evidence of an association between
Pandemrix and narcolepsy in children in England. The findings are
consistent with studies from Finland and other countries.’ 2
[A finding not seen in any safety testing carried out prior to the launch of Pandemrix]
Thus, not only can vaccines cause severe reactions up to, and
including, death. They can also lead to neurological damage such as
narcolepsy. Is this all specifically to do with the vaccine itself, or
the preservative it is carried in, or something else? Who knows?
Yet, and yet, despite the apparently indisputable evidence that
vaccines can, and do, cause neurological damage we can find articles
such as this below. Chosen pretty much at random, but it sums up the
current mainstream thinking.
The “urban myth” of the association between neurological disorders and vaccinations
‘In modern society, a potentially serious adverse event
attributed to a vaccination is likely to be snapped up by the media,
particularly newspapers and television, as it appeals to the emotions of
the public. The widespread news of the alleged adverse events of
vaccination has helped to create the “urban myth” that vaccines cause
serious neurological disorders and has boosted antivaccination
associations. This speculation is linked to the fact that the true
causes of many neurological diseases are largely unknown. The
relationship between vaccinations and the onset of serious
neuropsychiatric diseases is certainly one of coincidence rather than
causality. This claim results from controlled studies that have
excluded the association between vaccines and severe neurological
diseases, therefore it can be said, with little risk of error, that the association between modern vaccinations and serious neurological disorders is a true “urban myth”. 3
What is being stated here, very forcefully indeed, is that there is
no causal relationship between vaccination and neurological damage. It
is simply a myth. I find the two bodies of evidence here impossible to
reconcile.
Just to give two examples, the Paul Erlich Institute records
encephalopathia, seizures, epilepsy, deaths and suchlike, following
vaccination. The Pandemrix vaccine, in turn, has been proven to cause
narcolepsy. Even the manufacturers, GSK, admitted that it did.
‘The 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic left a troubling legacy in
Europe: More than 1300 people who received a vaccine to prevent the flu
developed narcolepsy, an incurable, debilitating condition that causes
overpowering daytime sleepiness, sometimes accompanied by a sudden
muscle weakness in response to strong emotions such as laughter or
anger. The manufacturer, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), has acknowledged the link, and
some patients and their families have already been awarded
compensation. But how the vaccine might have triggered the condition has
been unclear.4’
This is… I am not sure what it is. The evidence clearly says one
thing, yet we are told we must believe that this evidence is simply an ‘urban myth.’ I feel as though I have been transported to Wonderland, or some scary totalitarian state, where the truth cannot be spoken.
Even when it comes to the most contentious area of all, vaccines and
autism, it appears to have been accepted – at least in one case in the
US – that vaccination lead to autism, with a girl called Hannah Polling.
‘Officials at the US Department of Health and Human Services
investigating Hannah’s medical history said that vaccine had
‘significantly aggravated an underlying mitochondrial disorder, which
predisposed her to deficits in energy metabolism’, causing damage ‘with
features of autism spectrum disorder’. 2
The final part of the statement was very difficult to understand. ‘The officials said that the vaccine didn’t cause her autism, but ‘resulted’ in it.’ The vaccine resulted in her autism. Or, her autism resulted in her vaccination?
I have tried that statement a few different ways around, and I have
no idea what that means. A lead to B, but A did not cause B. Because B
resulted in A…
“Then you should say what you mean,” the March Hare went on.
“I do, “ Alice hastily replied; “at least I mean what I say, that’s the same thing, you know.”
“Not the same thing a bit!” said the Hatter. “Why, you might just as well say that “I see what I eat” is the same thing as “I eat what I see!” Alice in Wonderland.
However, the Polling case does raise a further potentially important
issue. Namely, that it seems possible that some people have underlying ‘mitochondrial dysfunction,’ and that vaccination may aggravate this problem, with potentially serious consequences.
Narcolepsy, for example, is believed by some researchers to be a
problem with energy production in the mitochondria. Others feel that
ME/CFS (myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome) could be the
result of a mitochondrial dysfunction triggered by various viral
infections and, therefore, possibly vaccination?
All of which means that the possibility exists that vaccination could
trigger, or exacerbate, significant mitochondrial dysfunction in
susceptible individuals. This may or may not be true, but it must surely
be an area for research?
To my mind it would be extremely important to establish if
mitochondrial dysfunction represents a ‘risk’ for vaccination. We could
then identify, using some genetic/epigenetic test, those individuals who
are more likely to be damaged by vaccination. At which point we could
look at ways to prevent the risk of damage – however small that risk may
– be in a susceptible population.
For example, it could be possible to space out the vaccines, or only
give separate vaccinations to these individuals. Maybe we could avoid
vaccinating against relatively mild conditions e.g. chicken pox, or
rubella (in boys) in these individuals. To me, these things seem
eminently sensible areas for study.
However, it seems that we are trapped within a paradigm where it is
impossible to suggest that any vaccine, for any disease, may be
associated with/cause any degree of harm. In such an environment,
objective scientific research becomes impossible. ‘As vaccine can harm no-one, we cannot try to find out who may be harmed. Thank you, comrade.’
As you can probably tell, I find this all very worrying and deeply,
deeply, disturbing. If science has any purpose it is to seek the truth –
however much that upsets the current status quo. When I see, what I
believe to be important and valid questioning being crushed, I find it
almost physically painful.
If that questioning results in the finding that vaccines truly do not
cause any adverse effects, then that is fine. I would be more than
happy with that outcome, although it currently seems inarguable that
vaccines do cause adverse effects. However, as I see it, we currently
have a situation whereby:
- Pharmaceutical companies do their own safety testing on vaccines (somewhat like Boeing did on the 737 Max 8). The regulatory authorities have been, effectively, side-lined.
- Many safety studies have only lasted days, with little or no research on any long-term effects. In fact, as far as I can establish, there has been no long-term safety research [see under Pandemrix]
- Some vaccines have been proven to cause neurological damage
- The preservatives and adjuvants in vaccines have not been studied for safety
- There has never been a randomised controlled clinical study on the efficacy of any vaccine – beyond looking for a raised level of antibodies
- Some/many people can suffer from the diseases they have been vaccinated against – and this is not monitored in any way.
Any of these things should be a very large red flag.
Looking specifically at efficacy, on that list, it is usually stated
that vaccines are rigorously tested for efficacy. Here is what the
University of Oxford has to say in its site ‘Vaccine Knowledge Project.’
‘Phase III trials gather statistically significant data on the
vaccine’s safety and efficacy (how well it works). This means looking at
whether the vaccine generates a level of immunity that would prevent
disease, and provides evidence that the vaccine can actually reduce the
number of cases.’ 5
However, this does not actually test whether a vaccine really does
reduce the number of cases of a disease. As I wrote in the previous
blog, even in population with a 98% vaccination rate against measles, a
school population still suffered a measles outbreak, and many of those
previously vaccinated suffered from measles.
Which means that the statement from the Vaccine Knowledge Project…. and provides evidence that the vaccine can actually reduce the number of cases’ needs to be read very carefully. It could be taken to mean ‘provides all the evidence needed.’ Which is what it has been crafted to imply. However, it actually means ‘provides evidence regarding a ‘surrogate end-point’ which suggests that vaccines may reduce the number of cases.’
If you want to know if a vaccine really works, vaccinate a hundred
thousand people against a disease. Do not vaccinate another hundred
thousand people (matched and randomised) – and then see what happens.
Then you will know how well your vaccine works.
This is a requirement of all other forms of medical intervention
(with provisos), but it is not a requirement for vaccines. A true
efficacy study does not simply look at a ‘surrogate’ marker. It needs to
study hard endpoints e.g. how many people are truly protected against
the disease. Also, what the rate of adverse events may be.
Of course, there are those who think that such a trial would be ridiculous and unethical. Here, I quote from a website KevinMD:
‘….as some have actually demanded, we must have a randomized
controlled trial (RCT), the gold standard of clinical research. RCTs use
random assignment of subjects to one group or the other, in this case
vaccine or a placebo (fake vaccine), and ensure both the subjects and
evaluation team be blinded to who got what.
Think about this for a minute. They are demanding parents agree
to subject their child to a trial in which they have a 50/50 chance of
getting a fake vaccine. All this to satisfy the concerns of vaccine
deniers.
It would be incredibly unethical to do such a study, and no
institutional review board (aka human studies committee) would ever
approve such a thing. For such trials, there must be reasonable
uncertainty about which group is getting the better treatment, and in
this case, there is none. The bottom line is any vaccine skeptic who
demands proof like this is being massively disingenuous. It’s akin to
demanding a randomized controlled trial of parachutes.’ 6
What is being said here is that there is no uncertainty that vaccines
work, so there is no need for a randomised controlled trial. The
counter argument to this is simply to turn the argument inside out.
Without an RCT, how do you know that vaccines work? Where is your
evidence? Or does ‘just knowing that it works’, count?
Medicine is littered with examples of interventions that were
considered so inarguably beneficial that no trials were ever done.
Strict bed rest following an MI, the radical mastectomy, x-ray screening
for lung cancer, PCI in the non-acute setting.
Bernard Lown was a man who dared challenge the ‘unquestionable’
benefits of coronary artery bypass surgery. He had a long and arduous
battle to publish his evidence that CABG may cause more harm than
benefit. His blog on this, ‘A Maverick’s Lonely Path in Cardiology
(Essay 28)’, is well worth a read. As he concludes:
‘A new treatment, whether involving drugs or procedures, is
improper without indubitable supporting evidence of benefit. The
patients’ well-being must not be compromised by imagined good when
countervailing interests are at the same time being served. Our
forty-year struggle essentially concerned medicine’s first and inviolate
principle, primum non nocere. “First do no harm” is the litmus test
sanctioning the privilege to practice medicine.’ 7
Bernard Lown is one hundred per cent correct, and I find it difficult
to conceive that anyone who has the slightest understanding of science
could write the words ‘The bottom line is any vaccine skeptic who demands proof like this [an RCT] is being massively disingenuous.’
Disingenuous… Personally, I demand proof like this for all medical
interventions, wherever possible, and so should everyone else. The
reason why, is because evidence from controlled clinical trials (with
all their inherent flaws) is the only tool that we possess to properly
assess benefit vs. harm. Without such evidence we are simply hoping and
praying that benefits truly outweigh any downsides.
For example, with the Pandemrix vaccine. Had an RCT been done, it is
possible, even probable, that the adverse impact on Narcolepsy would
have been picked up. Therefore, it would not have been used, therefore
many thousands of people would not have been harmed – above and beyond
narcolepsy. Some of the key issues around Pandemrix were discussed in
the BMJ article ‘Pandermix vaccine: why was the public not told of early warning signs?’
‘Eight years after the pandemic influenza outbreak, a lawsuit
alleging that GlaxoSmithKline’s Pandemrix vaccine caused narcolepsy has
unearthed internal reports suggesting problems with the vaccine’s
safety.
‘…the raw numbers of adverse events were not small. Although it
is often said that perhaps only up to 10% of adverse events are reported
to national reporting systems, by late November, GSK had received 1138
serious adverse event reports for Pandemrix—a rate of 76 per million
doses administered. By mid-December, there had been 3280 serious adverse
event reports (68/million doses). The last report seen by the BMJ,
dated 31 March 2010, shows 5069 serious adverse events for Pandemrix
(72/million doses).’ 8
As the article goes on to say:
“What is the purpose of pharmacovigilance if nobody is acting on
the information? This information took eight years to come to light
through academic work and litigation. Is this acceptable? If the
information at our disposal is partial, that is the direct consequence
of secrecy, which should not surround any public health intervention.”
Pandemrix and Arepanrix were designed for a pandemic and were
removed from global markets after the pandemic. Whatever adverse events
they may have caused, they are vaccines of the past. But the events of
2009-10 raise fundamental questions about the transparency of
information. When do public health officials have a duty to warn the
public over possible harms of vaccines detected through
pharmacovigilance? How much detail should the public be provided with,
who should provide it, and should the provision of such information be
proactive or passive?’
Had Pandemrix not caused narcolepsy in large numbers, litigation
against GSK would not have taken place – in Ireland. Had this not
happened, data about the high rate of other adverse effect would never
have seen the light of day. It seems that the European Medicines Agency
had little interest in the matter.
‘What EMA knew—or could have known—about the comparative safety
of GSK’s pandemic vaccines is hard to discern. It told The BMJ that “EMA
does not perform comparative benefit and risk evaluations between
products approved in the EU, or between EU products and products
approved or used outside the EU.”
So, if monitoring product safety is not of interest to them, what
exactly do the EMA do? Central here, however, is the fact that we had a
vaccine causing a high number of serious adverse events and no-one did,
or said, anything. Had there not been a lawsuit, we would still have
been unaware of any problems. At least that is my understanding of what
happened here.
Does anyone care? Well, in many countries you cannot even sue the
manufacturer if a vaccine damages you – as also mentioned in the BMJ
article.
‘Another element, adopted by countries such as Canada, the US,
UK, France, and Germany, was to provide vaccine manufacturers indemnity
from liability for wrongdoing, thereby reducing the risk of a lawsuit
stemming from vaccine related injury.’ Quite extraordinary. In my view, beyond extraordinary.
A manufacturer makes a product that you believe may have damaged or
killed a loved one, and you cannot do anything about it. Or, those who
made the product cannot be sued. In banking they have a phrase for this.
They call it moral hazard.
‘lack of incentive to guard against risk where one is protected from its consequences, e.g. by insurance.’
In this case no insurance is required. Governments have given
pharmaceutical companies a free pass. Depending on your belief in the
inherent ethical standards of pharmaceutical companies you may – or may
not – find this reassuring.
Personally, I find it extremely worrying that people, and the entire
medical profession, appear willing to accept that all vaccines, for all
conditions, are entirely effective and have no adverse effects…. Even
when it has been demonstrated, beyond doubt, that they do.
Anyway, I feel I should probably stop here. Others have gone much
further than me, others have been braver. But there should be nothing
‘brave’ about asking legitimate scientific questions. As Richard Feynman
said. ‘I would rather have questions that can’t be answered than answers that can’t be questioned.’
—
2: Doctoring Data pp 228 – 9 ISBN 978-1-907797-46-0
Reprinted from DrMalcolmKendrick.org.
No comments:
Post a Comment