I generally seek hard evidence-based substantiation of claims, with a lengthy background in science and engineering....
Needless to say, MY MIND WAS BLOWN at what is going on with regard to establishing and understanding of the safety profile of these substances...or should I say, the LACK OF!!
Shocked and appalled.
Detailed, referenced, well-written, comprehensive. Has really opened my eyes. Thanks for sharing. I certainly will. People need to understand this stuff. Concerns on this topic typically seem to easily get brushed aside because "the experts say it's fine".... based on WHAT?!?!?!
A must-read; all of it. And dig deeper into the references too.
Without knowing the safety profile, it is impossible for any of us to properly establish the risk-reward balance, and therefore we simply CANNOT make an informed decision. Of course, having adverse effects does not automatically mean that a vacc is not useful, but how can the pro's and con's be weighed if the information is unknown, being withheld, or shonky? Among many other things, the points made towards the end about the HHS refusing to complete or release findings of a transparent and valid vacc vs. unvacc study using the VSD, as well as failing to meet their key obligations under the Act, raise serious red flags IMO. The very short monitoring timeframes and major differences between testing requirements for licensing of drugs vs. vacc were also eye-openers. Unbelievable.
Appalling. IMO most people would reasonably and naturally expect that more thorough and complete "evidence" would be inherent to the process, yet I'm sure most people are blissfully unaware of the issues and conflicts presented and discussed.
Seriously appalling, considering the scale and relevance of this issue to almost everyone.
I (and I'm sure many others?!) just want complete and accurate information on which to base an informed decision, rather than relying on clearly conflicted and biased claims and "findings". How frikken hard is it?! Talk about gaps!
