Chapter 5: Article 5
We're told vaccine side effects are extremely rare, 1 in a million. We’re told that it’s a myth that vaccines cause SIDS. Are you aware that the US government acknowledge in Vaccine Court that an infant’s SIDS death was likely the result of the vaccines received? Are you aware that several vaccine package inserts list a SIDS outcome, because they recognize there is the potential the vaccine is responsible for such an outcome?
FDA drug labelling laws require manufacturers to NOT list every side effect that was reported during the trial, but ONLY those side effects where there is basis to believe the vaccine caused the event.
The manufacturers list numerous concerning side effects, things like auto-immune diseases, SIDS, death, and they minimize those events, stating the event was only "temporally" associated. The inserts say, researchers, "assessed" the event as unrelated, that side effects were comparable across all groups. But remember, an unvaccinated control group was never included in the testing, and so they are assuming that those events occur at the same rate in the unvaccinated population. They have no data to verify this assumption. The inserts repeatedly state that "causation has not been established" and remember, they cannot establish causation if they never compare to to a never vaccinated control group.
Through carefully constructed wording, the manufacturers minimize, deflect, and deny that the outcomes listed on the inserts are connected to the vaccine. BUT, the important thing to remember is that IF the event is listed on the insert, it's because there is BASIS to believe the vaccine caused the event. It couldn't be listed on the insert if that wasn't the case.
The next article is a summary of the safety testing data provided by each manufacturer, in their vaccine package inserts, for the approved Canadian childhood vaccines (Link Here).
What's Critically Important
What you must remember as you read the safety summaries is this: the package inserts are prepared by the manufacturer.
Why is this critical to remember?
The manufacturer has the most to gain in convincing the public to use their product. Lets say there was no debate on this topic, that would mean the public truly does gain from vaccines, with improved public health. In that light, it could then be said that the manufacturer gains from that improved health + they gain status for being the creator and provider of that improved health + they gain profit for selling a product that improves health.
Because the manufacturer has the most to gain, they also have the greatest motivation to show the strongest evidence available, in an effort to promote their product. Of course the manufacturers aren't going to list mediocre evidence "to prove" safety, if stronger evidence exists. That would make no sense. So, when you review the package insert summaries remember the obvious, this is the strongest evidence available to "prove" safety, for this specific vaccine. When viewed in that light, the studies that the manufacturers point to become absolutely shocking.
Summary Details
I focused only on the clinical trial data where infants, children and adolescentsparticipated, because they are the population that receives the bulk of vaccines and we know that the different age populations respond differently to drugs. For the Government approved Canadian vaccines, I summarize BOTH the Canadian inserts and American inserts (if available).
The summary lists how each vaccine was tested, noting:
the controls used within the various studies (showing no saline placebo)
the number of participants who received each test vaccine (showing small populations - 100s to 1000s of people)
the additional vaccines administered simultaneously during testing (showing these trials cannot determine which vaccine caused which side effects)
examples of the information and warnings that the manufacturers provide to give themselves legal protection (its listing shows there is basis to believe that those outcomes were caused by the vaccine)
the minor, short term side effects called "solicited events" - this is what the researchers are watching for (showing the studies are not designed to pick up serious long term health outcomes, like chronic diseases, autoimmune diseases)
the length of time that participants were monitored, for solicited events (showing the time period is very brief, usually only 1-15 days)
the length of time parents or participants were able to report unsolicited events, (showing this time period is also brief, usually 28 days, and this un-queried type of voluntary reporting is flawed, recognizing that it relies upon a lay person to promptly recognize symptoms indicative of chronic disease)
the few trials which have actively followed participants over a longer term for serious adverse events (showing even with this "long term" monitoring participants are usually followed for only one to six months, with the rare trial following participants for up to one year)
Dry Reading
And note, the next article isn't really an article you sit and read fully in one sitting, though you can if you want to. I'd encourage you to read the first few summaries at least, to get a feel for what the manufacturer details, and skim the rest, reading a summary from each heading. The summary is more of a document that you refer to when researching a specific illness, and I'd definitely encourage you to look directly at the package inserts themselves.
CONTINUE to the next article Ch5: Article 6
CONTINUE to the article following: Ch6: Article 1
Article Sources Here
Comments