In a press release published on June 22, two doctors said the “excessive clustering” of side effects following COVID vaccines was “partial”, and the “silence around potential signals. to the detriment of the politics surrounding COVID-19 vaccines. “
Defender experienced censorship on many social channels. Be sure to keep in touch with news that matters subscribe to our top news of the day. It’s free.
Kudos to the editors of the Wall Street Journal, which on Tuesday published one op-ed of the two doctors who said politics – not science – was behind the failure of health officials and the media to fully inform the public about the potential dangers associated with COVID vaccines.
In “Are Covid Vaccines More Dangerous Than Advertised ?,” Joseph A. Ladapo, MD, Ph.D., associate professor of medicine at the David Geffen School of Medicine, and Harvey A. Risch, MD, Ph.D. D., professor of The Epidemiology at the Yale School of Public Health writes while “some scientists have expressed concern that the safety risks of Covid-19 vaccines have been minimized… vaccination policy has shifted their concerns to outside of scientific thinking. “
Ladapo and Risch emphasize the fact that clinical studies do not always tell the whole story about the safety of medications, and that health effects often remain undetected until the drug is largely transferred.
“Historically, the safety of medications – including vaccines – has often not been understood until they are deployed in large populations. Examples include rofecoxib (Vioxx), a pain reliever that increases the risk of heart attack and stroke ; antidepressants that have been shown to increase suicide attempts among young adults; and a flu vaccine used in the 2009-10 swine epidemic that is suspected to cause febrile convulsions and narcolepsy in children. Evidence from the real world is important, because clinical trials often enroll patients who are not representative of the majority population. We know more about drug safety from real-world evidence and can adjust clinical recommendations to balance risk and benefits. ”
The authors state that the “large clustering” of side effects following COVID vaccines is “partial”, and the “silence of potential harm signals it reflects the policy around COVID vaccines- 19. “
They wrote: “Arousing those concerns is bad for the integrity of science and is detrimental to patients.”
The serious bad events reported by Adverse Vaccine Reporting System, including low platelets, inflammation of the heart, deep-vein thrombosis and death, is likely to be “just a fraction” of the total number of adverse events, they say.
“The actual number of cases is almost certainly higher,” Ladapo and Risch said. “This bias in underreporting consistent with our clinical experience. ”
The authors blamed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for ignoring the reported serious side effects of the COVID vaccine, and said more research was needed to understand the risks.
“Analyzes to substantiate or disprove these findings must be done by using multiple data sets from health insurance companies and health organizations. The CDC and FDA are certainly aware of this. data standards, although no agency has recognized the trend. “
The authors identified the risks of the COVID vaccine to specific populations that may outweigh the benefits. They also noted that no studies have shown people who have recovered from the virus have benefited from vaccination.
“The implication is that the risks of the COVID-19 vaccine may outweigh the benefits for specific at-risk populations, such as children, young adults and people recovering from COVID. -19 This is especially true in regions with low levels of community prevalence, as the likelihood of contracting the disease depends on the risk of exposure.
“And while you can’t tell this from listening to public health officials, not a single published study has shown that patients with pre-existing infections have benefited from the COVID-19 vaccination. That it doesn’t. easily identified by the CDC or Anthony Fauci an indication of how deeply pandemic science is involved. ”
Ladapo and Risch warn that prioritizing politics over science in the aftermath of a pandemic could result. widespread mistrust to public health officials.
Public health authorities have made a mistake and jeopardized public confidence by not coming forward about the possibility of harm from specific vaccine effects. There are lasting consequences from mixing political and scientific partisanship during the management of a public health crisis. “