HIDING VACCINE RELATED DEATHS WITH SEMANTIC SLEIGHT OF HAND

HIDING VACCINE-RELATED DEATHS WITH SEMANTIC SLEIGHT-OF-HAND
Please visit The World Mercury Project.
Vaccine scientists and the public health community cautiously and occasionally will admit that
vaccines can cause adverse reactions just like �any other medication or biological
product.� Although experts are less willing to openly disclose the fact that adverse reactions
can and do include death, one has only to look at reports to the U.S. Vaccine Adverse
Event Reporting System (VAERS) to see that mortality is a possible outcome.
From 1990 through 2010, for example, VAERS received 1,881 reports of infant deaths following
vaccination, representing a 4.8% of the adverse events reported for infants over the 20-year
period . Moreover, analysts acknowledge that VAERS, as a passive surveillance system, is
subject to substantial underreporting.
A federal government report from 2010 affirms that VAERS captures only about 1% of vaccine
adverse reports.
On the international frontier, the public health community�with the World Health Organization
(WHO) in the vanguard�previously used a six-category framework to investigate and
categorize serious adverse events following immunization (AEFI), including death.
Guided by this tool, public health teams examined temporal criteria and possible alternative
explanations to determine whether the relationship of an AEFI to vaccine administration was �very
likely/certain,� �probable,� �possible,� �unlikely,� �unrelated,� or �unclassifiable.�
In 2013, the WHO�s Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety discarded the prior tool,
ostensibly because users �sometimes [found it] difficult to differentiate between �probable,�
�possible,� and �unlikely� categories.� The WHO enlisted vaccine experts to develop
a �simpler� algorithm that would be more readily �applicable� to vaccines.
The resulting four-category system now invites public health teams to classify an AEFI as
either �consistent,� �inconsistent,� or �indeterminate� with a vaccine-related
causal association or as �unclassifiable.� Despite the patina of logic suggested by the
use of an algorithm, �the final outcome of the case investigation depends on the personal
judgment of the assessor� [emphasis added], especially (according to the tool�s proponents)
when the process �yields answers that are both consistent and inconsistent with a causal
association to immunization.�
In a 2017 letter in the Indian Journal of Medical Ethics, Drs. Jacob Puliyel (an India-based
pediatrician and member of India�s National Technical Advisory Group on Immunization)
and Anant Phadke (an executive member of the All India Drug Action Network) raise important
questions about the revised tool.
They describe an Orwellian Catch-22 situation wherein it is nearly impossible to categorize
post-vaccine deaths as vaccine-related.
This is because the revised algorithm does not allow users to classify an AEFI as �consistent
with causal association with vaccine� unless there is evidence showing that the vaccine
caused a statistically significant increase in deaths during Phase III clinical trials.
By definition, however, any vaccine not found to �retain safety� in Phase III trials
cannot proceed to Phase IV (licensure and post-marketing surveillance).
The result of the algorithm�s convoluted requirements is that any deaths that occur
post-licensure become �coincidental� or �unclassifiable.�
Drs. Puliyel and Phadke describe what happened in India when the country�s National AEFI
committee assessed 132 serious AEFI cases reported between 2012 and 2016, including
54 infant deaths that followed administration of a pentavalent all-in-one vaccine intended
to protect recipients against diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, hepatitis B, and Haemophilus
influenzae type b infections.
For babies who survived hospitalization, the committee classified three-fifths (47/78)
of the AEFI as causally related to vaccines (with 47% of the incidents viewed as �product-related�
and 13% as �error-related�), but they rated nearly all (52/54) of the deaths as
either coincidental (54%) or unclassifiable (43%) despite mounting evidence that pentavalent
and hexavalent vaccines are increasing the risk of sudden unexpected death in infants.
�doctors who �na�vely� accept biased reports on vaccine safety �are losing the
trust of the public and in the process�endangering public health.
The absurdity and negligence inherent in the ultimately subjective WHO checklist have not
escaped the attention of others in India and beyond.
In a series of comments published in the journal Vaccine in response to the 2013 publication
of the revised tool, commenters issued the following scathing remarks:
�Even if a healthy child dies within minutes following vaccination and there is no alternate
explanation for the AEFI, even then the powers that be could easily declare that death as
coincidental and not due to the vaccine, thanks to the new AEFI.
This is dangerous �science�.� �Amongst the 20 items of their checklist,
no less than 15 (75%) are devoted to refute a vaccine-induced causality [emphasis in original]�.
After all and as the authors confess with an astonishing ingenuousness, the main point
is to �maintain public confidence in immunization programs.��
�People understand that there are no true coincidences�only events that have been
made to appear to be coincidental by either a genuine lack of understand[ing] of the overall
facts leading to the �coincidence� reported or by the deliberate suppression of the facts,
including when�AEFIs that result in death are made to �disappear.��
�It seems that huge business in [the] vaccine industry is affecting [the] science of vaccines
and we are developing various ways to promote the business at the cost of human lives.
�Going for a less sensitive tool for safety concerns is not only illogical but risky for
the children of the world.� Unfortunately, many vaccine proponents appear
to be more concerned with forestalling �misconceptions� and �erroneous conclusions about cause and
effect� than they are about preventing and identifying adverse events following vaccination.
The result, as Dr. Puliyel argues, is that doctors who �na�vely� accept biased
reports on vaccine safety �are losing the trust of the public and in the process�endangering
public health.�
Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the World Mercury Project.
Your donation will help to support us
in our efforts.

HIDING VACCINE RELATED DEATHS WITH SEMANTIC SLEIGHT OF HAND

Latest Posts