Recently, top-tier autoimmunity researchers described vaccine safety science as a “hazardous occupation.” In their view, this is because uncompromising vaccine proponents are instantly ready to mount vociferous personal attacks on anyone who raises questions about any aspect of vaccine safety, even if the questions are buttressed by impeccable, high-quality science. Vaccine safety was not always such a taboo topic. In 1961, a leading polio researcher put forth the view in Science that “even after licensing, a new vaccine product must be considered to be on trial” because of the many “new variables” that accompany large-scale vaccine production and rollout. A leading Food and Drug Administration (FDA) official contended in 1999 that modern advances in vaccine technology were rapidly “outpacing researchers” ability to predict potential vaccine-related adverse events” and argued for closer attention to safety issues from the earliest stages of vaccine development. “One of the important things is that the technology used to make these vaccines actually exceeds the science and technology to understand how these vaccines work and to predict how they will work,” stated Dr. Peter Patriarca, MD, Director of the Viral Products Division of the FDA Center for Biological Evaluation and Research (CBER). “So this has the potential for ending up in a situation which I call a 'black box' vaccine referring to a situation of unforeseen and unpredictable vaccine outcomes.” Dr. Patriarca also voiced concerns that with live attenuated vaccines “there is the potential for these vaccines, many of which have been poorly characterized, to recombine with viruses that may be present in the vaccine. Some of these viruses are latent and persist for a while, so it is very important to assure that these things are safe before they are given to people.” In the two decades since the FDA official’s prescient words of warning, numerous published studies have highlighted vaccine safety concerns that were either unexplored or neglected prior to the introduction of the vaccines in question.
Our UK correspondent Christina England brings us this report regarding a vaccine injury case recently ruled on by a European Union court. The ruling is significant, because the court looked at the evidence of the particular case, and ruled that the evidence showed that the hepatitis B vaccine caused multiple sclerosis. This greatly upset pro-vaccine extremists who boldly declare that the "science is settled" on vaccines, and that there is no scientific proof that they cause injuries like this. The court was not swayed by this position, however, and ruled on the evidence presented in the case, not "scientific" opinion. The corporate sponsored mainstream media spun the story from the vaccine extremist position, of course, with headlines such as: "EU court: Vaccines can be blamed for illnesses without proof." (CBS News) They define "proof" according to their own standards, declaring that anyone who disagrees with them has no "proof." "Scientific proof" is, of course, almost a contradiction in terms, since science cannot technically "prove" anything. Scientific studies and their outcomes are only as good as the data examined, and as new data becomes available, scientific theories are revised. The other problem with relying on "science" is that most scientific studies today are heavily biased, producing the outcomes desired regardless of the data. Corruption and conflict of interest are common, as one CDC whistle-blower has revealed regarding data withheld from CDC studies supposedly proving vaccines do not cause autism.
Have you ever wondered why so many people, in particular those over the age of 65, react adversely to the flu vaccination? How many times have you heard that, after receiving the flu vaccine, a friend or loved one has developed flu-like symptoms? At last, after many years of speculation, scientists in London believe they have the answer to our questions.