Note: in the last 24 hours I have received a lot of requests to comment on the recent assassination attempt. Shortly after the events, I did my best to provide a few unique perspectives on the events which can be viewed here, and presently has received over 300k views.
I believe the most effective marketing slogan in history was “Vaccines are safe and effective.” This is because it implies 100% safety and 100% efficacy (which is impossible regardless of the therapy) but simultaneously avoids explicitly committing to that claim. Thus, the product is zealously promoted by its supporters but simultaneously escapes accountability for its continual failures (as no concrete promise is ever broken each time the vaccine is shown to be unsafe or ineffective).
One of the less appreciated consequences of this slogan (“safe and effective”) is that it causes most people to view all vaccines as being equivalent to each other, when in reality they are very different. For example, there have now been multiple high profile admissions that if the mRNA injections had been marketed as “gene therapies” almost no one would have taken them, but since they were instead presented to the public as “vaccines” they were exuberantly taken up across the globe.
In my eyes, one of the few upsides to the COVID-19 vaccine tragedy has been that the scale of harm the vaccines have caused has made the public begin questioning many of the lies that have been used to sell the vaccines to us for decades. For example, at a recent Congressional, in an attempt to escape culpability for a previous lie he’d made, Fauci stated that “I don’t believe any vaccine is 100% effective” and hence dispelled the cloak of ambiguity which has always been used to market these products.
Likewise, as more and more new investigations of the vaccine program emerged around the globe, Stanley Plotkin, who many consider to be the father of vaccinology, made a startling admission:
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.
Which dispels another one of the common lies we hear—that vaccines are the most rigorously tested products on the market (something I would argue is irreconcilable).
Note: in the first half of this series, I discussed a recurring issue with vaccines—their manufacturing process inevitably leading to hot (toxic) lots being produced and injuring many as nothing is done to catch the (“safe and effective”) lots before they hit the market or withdraw them once the injuries emerge. In that article, I showed how this tragedy has repeated itself again and again for over a century and since the medical profession is largely unaware of it, during the COVID-19 vaccine campaign again and again we watched large groups of people be injured by these lots but have few if any doctors sound the alarm about those hot lots.
The Risks and Benefits of Each Vaccine
While I am not the biggest fan of vaccination, I also believe that it is a mistake to be a zealot on either side of the issue i.e., “all vaccines are safe and effective” or “all vaccines are poison you should never touch”. Rather, I believe that the risks and benefits of each one must be understood as some are much more dangerous or unjustifiable than others.
Unfortunately, due to the success of the “safe and effective” mantra, whenever a legitimate criticism is brought up against a specific vaccine, it inevitably is greeted with the blanket faith that applies to all vaccines assuming they are the same (e.g., when many people complained about what the spike protein gene therapies were doing to them rather than being listened to, they simply were dismissed as “antivaxxers”).
Because the safety and efficacy of vaccines vary greatly, and parents frequently contact me asking which vaccines they should give their children, I wrote a popular article (e.g., it’s gotten a few million views on Twitter) attempting to address this question.
Unfortunately, that article had to be on the long end, the question itself is quite complicated as a lot goes into calculating the risks and benefits of each vaccine. Much of this comes from the fact you are giving yourself a known risk (as no vaccine is 100%) in return for a possible benefit (preventing you from possibly suffering a disastrous but unlikely complication of a disease you might never catch) and the fact that most of the data which would be necessary to accurately make that calculation being unavailable to the public.
Nonetheless, even with a significant amount of missing information, it is still often possible to determine if the risks outweigh the benefits.
For example, it’s well-known that children have close to a 0% chance of dying from COVID-19 (with the extremely rare cases that do happen typically occurring in severely immunocompromised children) and that they have a very real risk of suffering a significant, severe or fatal complication from the vaccine.
Likewise, the risk a girl has of developing cervical cancer from an untreated HPV infection is fairly low to begin with (especially since the existing screening methods for preventing cervical cancer have fairly effective at eliminating it) and it is actually fairly unclear to what degree the HPV vaccine prevents cervical cancer.
If we take America for instance, each year, 0.0024% of women are killed by cervical cancer (a rate which was steadily dropping prior to the HPV vaccine hitting the market), and in the first 12 years Gardasil was on the market, it dropped to 0.0022%, meaning at best, it saved 0.0002% of women. Furthermore, the rate at which the cervical cancer rates were dropping significantly slowed after the HPV vaccine hit the market (suggesting it caused rather than prevented cervical cancer—especially given that the trials for the vaccine found those with a pre-existing infection at the time of vaccination were much more likely to get cervical cancer).
Conversely, the Gardasil HPV vaccine trials showed that 0.133% of the adolescent girls who received the vaccine died (compared to an expected death rate of 0.0437%), indicating that Gardasil killed 0.089% of recipients in return for potentially saving around 0.0002% of them, and hence in the best case scenario killed over 400 times as many people as it saved. Worse still, somewhere between 2.3% to 49% of the individuals who received Gardasil developed a new autoimmune condition, many of which were extremely debilitating (with the exact amount being unknown since Gardasil’s manufacturer deliberately hid it). Worse still, beyond Gardasil being worse than nothing if you already had an existing HPV infection, its “protection” is only temporary and hence requires you to expose yourself to the same risk each time you want to be shielded from catching an HPV infection which could give way to cancer.
Thus, I believe it is fair to argue that the existing evidence and logic should make it very clear that these two vaccines should never be given to our children. Unfortunately, one of the most common tricks in marketing is to narrow our focus to a very specific point and become unable to see the rest of the picture. For example, the COVID vaccines were marketed on the basis of the disastrous COVID complications which sometimes befall children and their risk of passing the virus to their relatives, while the HPV vaccine was marketed on the basis of creating hysteria about cervical cancer and using all the fears surrounding cancer to paint that vaccine a miraculous cure for the condition we desperately needed.
Note: Merck’s One Less Campaign won awards for its effectiness.
As a result, despite the FDA and CDC being deluged with complaints about injuries from each of these vaccines, they kept on insisting the benefits greatly outweighed the risks of the vaccines, did everything they could to bury the injuries from those vaccines, and by and large (at least until recently) got the entire public to adopt the “safe and effective” narrative.
While the other vaccines on the current CDC childhood vaccine schedule aren’t quite as egregious as the COVID-19 and HPV vaccines, there are still many cases where the risks clearly outweigh their benefits (e.g., in the previous article I discussed some of the clear risks with the polio vaccine—something we still give all our children despite polio not existing within America). Conversely, others are much more ambiguous, as some degree of benefit exists from the vaccine which has to be counterbalanced against its harms (all of which is discussed in the longer article which explores the risks and benefits of each of those vaccines).
Note: while specific issues can be traced to specific vaccines, the broader problem is the chronic immune dysfunction most vaccines create (especially as more of them are given) that leads to a myriad of chronic and debilitating autoimmune or neurologic disorders that are now far more frequent than the diseases we vaccinate against. For instance, while research in this area is generally prohibited all the existing studies that have been conducted have found that vaccination vastly increases the risk of common chronic childhood illnesses (e.g., asthma or ADHD) by 2 to 10 times—and sometimes more, and there is also evidence suggesting it affects even more people with a variety of subtle illnesses that are difficult to diagnose (all of which is described in detail here). As a result, I believe if vaccines are to be taken, a good justification is needed for each one under consideration, and only the ones with the best reward to risk ratio should be taken.
Types of Vaccines
One consequence of decades of marketing around vaccines has been people assuming they have comparable risks and benefits. Another has been that they all work in a similar way (hence why experimental gene therapies could be pitched as “just another vaccine”). In reality, there are many important differences between their designs, which makes it possible to predict much of what a vaccine will actually do once it hits the marketplace.
For example, most vaccines are injected into the body (as this makes them much more feasible to deploy). However, most infections (besides exceptions like those from a mosquito or a tick) aren’t. In turn, the body has a series of immunological responses to each stage of an infection, and a very different response is provoked by vaccination that would result from the body simply being exposed to an infectious organism that passed into the respiratory tract.
Because of this, injected vaccines rarely prevent one from getting infected and colonized by a respiratory virus—rather, if they work, they typically just reduce the symptoms of a later infection by mitigating what it can do within the body. This is a very important point because whenever it becomes hard to make the case that the benefits of a vaccine outweigh its risks, the standard fallback position is that the public health benefit of preventing the disease from spreading in the population outweighs the risks one personally entails from the vaccine.
To illustrate, with COVID-19, we were initially told COVID-19 was a lethal threat and that we were incredibly lucky to be one of those who was fortunate enough to get one of the extremely limited vaccines. Then once the initial enthusiasm wore out and the vaccines were everywhere, we were given prizes and gift cards to vaccinate (many of which were absurd such as CNN promoting daily free donuts and drugs, alcohol or a free brothel session being given out for vaccinating) under the justification we were doing a civil service and helping the country by ending COVID-19.
Note: many more of absurd marketing campaigns we saw for the COVID-19 vaccines are detailed here. If you know of any truly obscene ones I didn’t include, please send them to me (e.g., in a comment) so I can add them here. I believe it’s important that the madness we went through during this time is well documented so the generations that follow us can learn from it and not repeat the same mistakes.
Finally, once the bribes stopped working, harsher and harsher mandates were instituted under the justification that they would stop the spread of COVID-19 and it was morally repugnant to put your fellow countrymen at risk of dying.
However, if you take a step back, it should be clear all of that was based on a few false premises.
One of them was that the vaccines would prevent transmission of COVID-19, something injectable vaccines rarely do (rather if anything, they increase transmission by reducing symptoms and hence making individuals silent spreaders of the disease). Furthermore, when the clinical trials for the vaccines were being conducted, outside experts pointed out they were not designed to assess if the vaccines would reduce transmission, and likewise when the pivotal vaccine clinical trials were published, they did not state that the vaccines reduced transmission (rather they simply studied if symptoms of a COVID-19 infection were reduced). Nonetheless, our public health authorities continually insisted they did (as they pushed for more mandates)—even as more and more evidence accumulated showing they did not.
Note: what I found remarkable about this was not that our public health authorities lied, but rather that few if any doctors I spoke to recognized this lie—including holistically minded ones to whom I clearly explained the science (rather they kept saying “if it reduces your chance of getting COVID-19, that means it reduces your chance of transmitting COVID-19”—which likewise demonstrated that they didn’t understand what was actually tested for). This I would argue is similar to how many doctors insisted on wearing masks even after it was shown COVID-19 had an aerosol rather than droplet spread which hence made masking completely pointless (as virus aerosols easily pass through the gaps in masks), and still continued to wear them after large studies showed masking offered no benefit.
In short, I would argue those events highlight the importance of understanding the different types of vaccines. Had this been common knowledge, the public would have refused to follow any mandate of the COVID-19 vaccine that was not designed to create immunity within the nasal mucosa (which remarkably prominent voices in the industry like Bill Gates have now started advocating for since the injected ones failed to prevent transmission).
Note: this article discusses why vaccines consistently fail to prevent disease transmission and the types of vaccines that create mucosal (IgA) immunity (e.g., intranasal sprays, and certain live virus preparations).
The post What Are the Pros and Cons of Each Type of Vaccine? appeared first on LewRockwell.
0 comments on “What Are the Pros and Cons of Each Type of Vaccine?” Add yours →