Shocking Admission!

https://thepeoplesvoice.tv/worlds-top-vaccinologist-comes-clean-we-lied-about-vaccines-being-safe/

This article you've come across presents several serious claims about vaccine safety, specifically targeting Dr. Stanley Plotkin and the broader vaccination field. Here's a breakdown of the key issues and context to consider:

1. Source Credibility: The article is published by The People's Voice Community, a site known for promoting conspiracy theories and pseudoscience. The credibility of the information should be critically assessed, especially given the history of such sources spreading misinformation.

2. Claims About Plotkin: Dr. Stanley Plotkin is indeed a prominent figure in vaccinology, known for his work on vaccines. However, the specific claims in this article about him "coming clean" and admitting that vaccines are unsafe should be scrutinized carefully. The article cites a paper published in the NEJM, but the NEJM is a highly respected journal. If such significant claims were true, they would likely be covered by mainstream scientific and news outlets.

3. Safety Studies and Vaccine Approval: Vaccines undergo rigorous testing in clinical trials before they are approved. These trials are designed to assess both efficacy and safety, though, as the article mentions, they do have limitations such as sample size and duration. Post-marketing surveillance continues to monitor vaccine safety once they are in use. This ongoing monitoring helps ensure that any issues are identified and addressed.

4. Historical Context: The article suggests a dramatic shift in vaccine safety perception, particularly related to COVID-19 vaccines. It's important to note that all vaccines, including those for COVID-19, are subject to extensive safety reviews by regulatory bodies like the FDA and WHO. The development of COVID-19 vaccines was expedited due to the global health crisis, but this did not bypass safety protocols.

5. Controversy and Debate: Vaccine safety is a topic of considerable debate, and skepticism about vaccines is not uncommon. However, the scientific consensus overwhelmingly supports the safety and efficacy of vaccines. Claims of widespread fraud or deception should be weighed against the broad body of evidence supporting vaccine safety.

6. Fact-Checking and Independent Verification: For a more balanced view, consult reputable sources and independent fact-checkers. Look for information from established health organizations, peer-reviewed studies, and expert reviews.

In summary, while it's crucial to be cautious about vaccine safety and ensure transparency, claims made in sources with questionable credibility should be carefully evaluated. The broader scientific and medical consensus supports the safety and effectiveness of vaccines, including those developed for COVID-19.

STANLEY PLOTKIN, WORLD’S LEADING VACCINOLOGIST, AND HIS COMPATRIOTS, HAVE JUST CAPITULATED REGARDING THE LACK OF VACCINE SAFETY! We are winning! 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. They are now admitting what ICAN has, with your support, been pounding the ground for years, in courthouses, legislative houses, national news, etc. saying. But let’s not be fooled! They are not saying this because they care about vaccine safety. They are saying it because they need to try and control the narrative. Let’s take a quick walk through this background and then go through some of the quotes from the article. Background 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, our lead attorney, Aaron Siri, 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-videos/the-deposition-of-stanley-plotkin/. After this deposition is made public, Dr. Plotkin went 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/dr-stanley-plotkin-the-godfather-of-vaccines-reaction-to-being-questioned/. 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. The Article 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 that ICAN and others have tirelessly made very public. 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. Admissions from the Article So, with that in mind, 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.” Just watch almost any Highwire episode! “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 www.icandecide.org/no-placebo; amazingly, our lead attorney, Aaron Siri, 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/status/1673483027618623489. “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: Duh 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, duh, 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, duh! 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, duh, and it would be appreciated if these authors would please properly cite to the ICAN white paper from 2017 from which they have plainly lifted this point https://icandecide.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/VaccineSafety-Version-1.0-October-2-2017-1.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 they did not for decades ignore or attack 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. 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 we 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, we would welcome collaborating. This is why our lead attorney, Siri, is reaching out to all four of them to request a meeting to review existing science and to design studies mutually agreed upon. If they are really interested in vaccine safety, they should welcome that. Most importantly, ICAN is more than willing to live with the results of those studies. Are they?

ChatGPT

The article you're referring to is presenting a highly critical perspective on the safety and efficacy of vaccines, particularly focusing on claims made by Dr. Stanley Plotkin and other prominent figures in the field of vaccinology. Here’s a detailed response to the main points raised:

Key Points of Criticism and Context

1. Source Credibility and Bias

   • The article is from ICAN (Informed Consent Action Network), an organization known for its strong anti-vaccine stance. It’s crucial to assess such sources critically, especially given their history of promoting controversial and often debunked claims.

2. Claims of a Major Admission

   • The article claims that Dr. Plotkin and others have admitted that vaccines were not thoroughly studied. It cites an NEJM article, but the claim seems to be taken out of context. Scientific discourse often includes acknowledging the limitations of current studies and suggesting improvements, but this does not necessarily mean a complete reversal of previous statements or beliefs.

3. Safety and Efficacy of Vaccines

   • Prelicensure Trials: It is true that prelicensure trials have limitations, including sample size and follow-up duration. However, vaccines undergo rigorous testing before approval. Post-marketing surveillance continues to monitor safety, and the scientific consensus remains that vaccines are among the most thoroughly studied medical products.

   • Postauthorization Studies: These are indeed important and are conducted continuously. The suggestion that these studies are insufficient or that they are designed to conceal harm is a serious accusation that requires substantial evidence.

4. Historical Context

   • The criticism regarding historical vaccine safety studies is not new. Vaccine safety has always been a topic of ongoing research and scrutiny. The fact that improvements are needed does not negate the extensive body of evidence supporting vaccine safety.

5. Reactions to Vaccine Criticisms

   • The article suggests that previous criticisms of vaccine safety were dismissed or attacked. It’s important to recognize that scientific and medical communities engage in rigorous debate, and while some criticisms are valid, others may be based on misunderstandings or misinformation.

6. Financial and Structural Motivations

   • Claims of financial motivations or systemic bias should be approached with caution. While funding and research biases are real concerns, they should be supported by evidence and not assumed as a default explanation for disagreements.

7. Proposed Solutions

   • The call for more studies and better safety monitoring aligns with ongoing efforts to improve vaccine safety. Collaboration and open research are essential for advancing public health, but they should be based on credible science rather than pre-existing biases.

8. Addressing Specific Claims

   • VAERS and Other Systems: Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) and similar systems are designed to detect safety signals, not to provide comprehensive safety assessments on their own. They are one part of a larger safety monitoring system.

   • Chronic Childhood Diseases: The rise in chronic diseases is a complex issue influenced by many factors beyond vaccination. Correlating these trends directly with vaccination schedules requires careful and nuanced analysis.

Summary

The criticisms raised in the article reflect broader debates within the scientific and medical communities about vaccine safety and efficacy. While there is always room for improvement in how vaccines are studied and monitored, the overwhelming consensus in the scientific community supports the safety and efficacy of vaccines based on extensive research.

If you’re concerned about vaccine safety, it’s crucial to consult a range of reputable sources and experts. Independent, peer-reviewed studies and recommendations from well-established health organizations provide a more comprehensive view of vaccine safety than any single source or perspective.