I was recently interviewed by Wayne Rohde about the problems with the FDA vaccine approval process and public vaccine policy. He gave me the high compliment of describing me as “one of the most brilliant people I’ve ever known”, and we had an in-depth discussion illuminating how the public is being lied to about the safety and effectiveness of these pharmaceutical products, including discussion about what we know and don’t know from the preliminary data from phase three prelicensure trials for rolled-out COVID-19 vaccines. We also discussed how truthful information is being censored while blatant falsehoods about vaccines are deemed permissible by the so-called “fact checkers”.
As a taste of what you’ll hear in the interview, here was my reply to a question about how the CDC explained away its own researchers finding flu shots during pregnancy to be associated with an increased risk of miscarriage:
Well the way they explained it away is simply this: they say that, “Well, this is just observational data, it’s just an observational study so it does not—you know, just because there’s an association does not mean that the vaccine is the cause.” Which is true. But, by the same standard—this is the thing, there’s a double standard. This is another example of the cognitive dissonance, the institutionalized cognitive bias that exists, of where, if any observational studies find an association between vaccination and some harm, they always remind us, “Well, association doesn’t necessarily mean causation.” Which is true. And yet they’re always telling us that these observational studies that don’t find an association between vaccines and harms prove that vaccines don’t cause harms.
I’m sorry, but you can’t have it both ways. Observational studies are insufficient to demonstrate causality; they’re insufficient to disprove causality for precisely the same reason: because they’re not randomized, they’re not—there’s always the risk of selection biases, [due to] which you can falsely find no association just as you can falsely find an association.
So this is one of the problems: we’re relying on observational data, and they’re saying, “Those don’t prove that vaccines cause harm”, and it’s real easy to say that. And they say, “To show that vaccines have caused this outcome, you’d have to have randomized, placebo-controlled trials.”
So we as parents across the country are saying, “Okay, well, do that study! Do the RCT. Do the randomized controlled trials.”
And they say, “Oh! Well, we can’t do that, that would be unethical! Because we’d be depriving people of the benefits of the vaccine.” Which of course is the fallacy of begging the question.
So they’re supporting the entire vaccination schedule based on this circular reasoning.
Topics we covered include:
- Why it’s a logical fallacy to conclude that since a vaccine is FDA-approved, therefore it’s been scientifically proven to be safe and effective
- How prelicensure clinical trials are not designed to detect long-term harms from vaccination
- How vaccines can have detrimental “non-specific effects”
- How studies show the DTP vaccine to be associated with an increased rate of childhood mortality
- How the WHO accepts the findings of observational studies showing beneficial non-specific effects of measles vaccine but rejects the findings of studies showing detrimental non-specific effects of DTP vaccine on the grounds that it is observational data that cannot prove causality
- How the WHO committee that reviewed the studies included members with financial ties to Glaxo-Smith Kline (GSK), one of the manufacturers of DTP vaccines
- How becoming a father caused me to shift the focus of my work from foreign policy to public vaccine policy
- How what the government and the media say science says about vaccines and what science actually tells us are two completely different things
- How the government of my home state of Michigan is lying to the public that the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines have been “approved” through the same process by which every other licensed vaccine was approved, and how health care providers like McLaren are mindlessly repeating that lie to encourage vaccination
- How the trial data with which Pfizer and Moderna obtained emergency use authorization (not approval) does not show that the vaccines are effective for reducing the risk of severe disease, hospitalization, or death from COVID-19; nor does it show that vaccination prevents transmission
- Why it is scientifically meaningless to declare that a vaccine is “safe and effective” in the absence of data from randomized placebo-controlled trials comparing long-term health outcomes, including all-cause mortality, between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals
- How policymakers are assuming that the COVID-19 vaccines will prevent transmission of SARS-CoV-2, but how if they are wrong, the consequence will likely be a prolonging of the pandemic and worsening of outcomes
- How policymakers’ cultish faith in vaccine technology as the solution reflects how vaccination has become a religion (which is why daring to question, dissent from, or criticize public vaccine policies renders one a heretic “anti-vaxxer”)
- How the vaccine religion is also evident in the cognitive dissonance displayed by vaccine advocates declaring, on one hand, that the vaccine will confer herd immunity while, on the other, telling people that they still need to wear a mask after they are vaccinated
- Why antibodies do not equal immunity and the importance of cellular immunity with SARS-CoV-2
- Why vaccines do not confer an immunity equivalent to that conferred by infection
- Why the CDC’s estimated infection fatality rates for COVID-19, which show that the risk of someone under 50 years old dying from infection is 0.05% or less, is still inherently overestimated
- How Washington Post reporter Lena Sun lies that no vaccine is added to the CDC schedule until it’s been studied for safety both alone and in combination with every other vaccine on the schedule, and how she and the editorial board refused to issue a correction after I pointed out to them that the Institute of Medicine itself acknowledges that studies designed to determine the cumulative effects of the CDC’s schedule have not been done
- How the CDC selected Lena Sun to help it publicly downplay the findings of a CDC study finding flu shots during pregnancy to be associated with an increased risk of miscarriage, which she did, including by choosing not to report the key finding of that study, which was that getting a flu shot two years in a row was associated with sevenfold greater risk of miscarriage
- How the CDC explained that finding away as not showing a causal relationship because it was just an observational study, which is true; but how this once again illustrates the double standard of how they also cite observational studies to support definitive statements about absence of causal relationships between vaccines and harms—and how they refuse to do the randomized controlled trials that would be necessary to answer the question
- How the Institute of Medicine acknowledges that the mercury formerly contained in numerous childhood vaccines and still contained in multi-dose vials of flu shots is “a known neurotoxin” that “accumulates in the brain”
- How Lena Sun has also falsely reported that pertussis outbreaks were being caused by parents refusing to vaccinate their children and did not occur in highly vaccinated populations, and how when her error was pointed out to her, she refused to issue a correction
- Why the pertussis vaccine is a great example of precisely why it’s a mistake to trust public health officials who think that they are so smart but really are absolutely clueless (You do not want to miss this discussion! I dive deep into the details of the problems with this vaccine.)
- How Facebook has updated its policy so that now if you tell the truth that the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines are not FDA-approved, your post will be removed and you will risk having your account removed—but it’s okay for government officials, the media, and health care providers to lie to the public that they are “approved” in order to achieve the policy goal of high vaccination rates
- How there are institutionalized biases favoring misattribution of deaths to COVID-19 based either on presumptive SARS-CoV-2 infection or having received a positive PCR test
- How if a death occurs after a positive PCR test, which doesn’t even necessarily mean that the person has an infection, the cause is assumed to be COVID-19; whereas if a death occurs after COVID-19 vaccination, it is assumed to be a coincidence
- How “misinformation” is used as a euphemism meaning any information, no matter how factual, that doesn’t align with the adopted political agenda, and how this euphemism is being used to censor truthful information about COVID-19 and vaccines
Scroll up and click the play button in the embedded player to listen to the full interview now!
