In essence, society’s attention has become focused on vaccination, focused solely on this health treatment. But TREATMENT is not what creates health, treatment is what changes or manages a persons’ symptoms of poor health. Instead of focusing solely on the treatment, there needs to be a shift. We need to evaluate the treatment in the context of the whole - what is working about the treatment? What needs improving? What is failing completely? How does the treatment affect evolution of the species? And how can health be supported moving forward so that the treatment is no longer needed?
Canada
United States

May 18, 2018

March 30, 2017

Please reload

Recent Posts

Table of Contents

May 18, 2018

1/1
Please reload

Featured Posts

How Safety Research is Presented

March 22, 2017

On February 15, 2017, Robert F Kennedy Jr held a press conference. In it, he presented a challenge and offered a reward to journalists (or anyone for that matter), challenging them to find a single scientific paper which PROVES that thimerosal is completely safe in the amounts administered within vaccines. An independent scientific panel was established to review all the submissions. The first person who found a paper showing thimerosal was scientifically tested and scientifically proven safe, would be given a $100,000 reward. This challenge should have gripped the world's attention. IF the science is so settled, then this should have been a simple challenge to win, and someone would now be $100,000 richer.

 

At this point, it’s relevant to quote what the different Governements have had to say about thimerosal:

 

According to British Columbia, Canada, on their Immunize BC website:

A large number of scientific studies have shown that thimerosal at the level contained in vaccines is safe.

 

That statement sounds very reassuring.

 

The CDC’s website states:

There is no evidence of harm caused by the low doses of thimerosal in vaccines, except for minor reactions like redness and swelling at the injection site. However, in July 1999, the Public Health Service agencies, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and vaccine manufacturers agreed that thimerosal should be reduced or eliminated in vaccines as a precautionary measure.

 

A different statement on that same CDC page references “many studies” where no evidence of harm was found. Again, that seems like strong evidence to support safety.

 

BUT if you really reflect on the statements presented on both of those Government websites, you realize something extremely important. That is, IF there was definitive scientific PROOF demonstrating that thimerosal was tested against placebo, that the health effects of thimerosal were no different than those following receipt of placebo, then there would have been no need to remove thimerosal from most vaccines as a "precautionary measure." 

 

An important point to emphasize is that the absence of testing, the absences of evidence, does not equate with scientific PROOF of safety.

 

In vaccine messaging, the statements “no evidence of harm” and  “proven safe,” are often used interchangeably, as if those statement mean the same thing. They don't. Messaging like this is misrepresentation of the scientific data. 

 

An article I once read presented this reality in a different way, it said, “If you do not find kangaroos in Alabama, it does not mean that kangaroos do not exist. Perhaps it is a matter of looking in the right place.

 

The Institute of Medicine (IOM), a highly respected American agency that advises US Government on various medical practices, research, and policies, reiterates the "kangaroo analogy" completely. In their report titled: Adverse Effects of Vaccines, Evidence and Causality, this report states:

...“the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”
 

Later, when discussing "absence of evidence," the IOM provides the following information (underline emphasis mine):

...The vast majority of causality conclusions in the report are that the evidence was inadequate to accept or reject a causal relationship [between a vaccine and subsequent medical condition]. Some might interpret that to mean either of the following statements:

 

  1. Because the committee did not find convincing evidence that the vaccine does cause the adverse event, the vaccine is safe.
     

  2. Because the committee did not find convincing evidence that the vaccine does not cause the adverse event, the vaccine is unsafe.

 

Neither of these interpretations is correct. “Inadequate to accept or reject” means just that—inadequate.

 

The IOM has made it clear that an absence of evidence does not prove safety, and thus, safety should not be implied. Unfortunately, in vaccine reporting, a lack of evidence is regularly emphasized as proof of safety. Vaccine messaging is thoughtfully constructed; the Health Authorities, CDC, Health Canada, the pharmaceutical companies, the media all regularly state that “no evidence of harm exists.” It would be more accurate for them to state, “no evidence of safety or harm exists.” But they never say that. WHY? Really think about that.

 

Why has the word “safety” been intentionally and repeatedly left out of those types of statements?

 

Recognizing that the word "safety" has been purposefully left out, Kennedy's challenge to the public became extremely relevant and important. He offered $100,000 to the first person who could point out an existing scientific paper that proves that the amount of thimerosal used within vaccines is safe. If safety safety profile of thimerosal has been tested and proven, this would be an easy $100,000. The Children's Health Defence hired an independent scientific panel to review the submissions, and that scientific panel concluded that no one won the award.

 

So from here on out, pay attention to every vaccine statement made by media. Whenever you hear, “There’s no evidence of harm…” implying that to mean this is "proof of safety," remind yourself that in 1984 the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) instructed that concerns about vaccine safety "cannot be allowed to exist."

 

If objectivity and truthful reporting was allowed on this topic, if the Government hadn't decided that propaganda and censorship must be used to "educate" the public, then media and the Health Authority would be reporting that, “There is no evidence of SAFETY OR HARM.” There would be no need to intentionally and repeatedly leave out the word "safety" from those sentences.

 

Article Sources

  • World Mercury Project’s $100,000 Challenge: Here and Here

  • Samples of Government Statements on Thimerosal: Here and Here

  • Article where the kangaroo analogy came Here

  • The IOM's report - Adverse Effects of Vaccines: Evidence and Causality Here

 

CONTINUE to the next post here: Safety & Efficacy - Part 13

 

Last updated May 23, 2018

 

 

 

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Please reload

Follow Us
Please reload

Search By Tags
Please reload

Archive
  • Facebook Basic Square
  • Twitter Basic Square
  • Google+ Basic Square