The whole “vaccines are safe” narrative for the past 200 years is based on an assumption that all vaccines are safe. There is no credible large-scale post-marketing study that backs up this claim for any vaccine used in the US today. It’s all based on faith in seriously flawed studies.
There isn’t a credible post-marketing objective epidemiological study for any vaccine in the US. That’s right. Not a single one.
Why isn’t there a study? It’s not because it isn’t possible. In fact, every state in the US has the ability to do such a study. It is because the states have never done the necessary studies nor will they expose data needed to allow the public to do the studies.
Will keeping public health data “private” improve clinical outcomes? No, of course not! It’s all kept hidden from view because there is no upside for them in doing the study. It can only end badly, very badly.
Let’s not lose touch…Your Government and Big Tech are actively trying to censor the information reported by The Exposé to serve their own needs. Subscribe now to make sure you receive the latest uncensored news in your inbox…
Is there a credible large US-based post-marketing study showing that any US vaccine is safe? I couldn’t find one
By Steve Kirsch
The whole “vaccines are safe” narrative is built on belief and seriously flawed studies, and not on proper objective epidemiological studies that could have been easily done but were not.
Since we cannot prove safety at the level of less than 1 death per 10M doses in children, we should not be vaccinating more kids until we have done the proper post-marketing safety study on the kids we’ve already vaccinated. The fact that no state is willing to do the study but is at the same time still recommending that kids get vaccinated should be deeply troubling to everyone. It is a symptom of a seriously out-of-control medical community that cares more about following directives from the CDC than patient safety. The rationale for vaccinating kids is nonsensical.
The most important point is that a single honest state epidemiologist who is willing to do the right thing could change the world by setting the data free. The others who do nothing should be ashamed of themselves for allowing the truth to remain locked behind closed doors.
This is a long but very important article. It took me a long time to research and write. I hope you will find it valuable.
[Kirsch’s article is detailed and well worth reading in full. Below is the ‘Introduction’ section in full followed by selected extracts with some minor editing for readability purposes.]
Dorit Reiss is a well-known “debunker” of anti-vax so-called misinformation spreaders like me.
When I posted my plans to increase data transparency in California, she wrote a hit piece attacking me and my article. I was surprised by her reaction because data transparency always leads to superior health outcomes. Only pharma companies or their paid shills should be attacking me for wanting to expose the truth. Nobody else.
Science is about finding the truth, challenging assumptions, making hypotheses, gathering quality data, and figuring out which hypothesis best fits the observed data. No real scientist should be attacking me for asking for transparency of public health information; they should all be cheering me on. More data is always better. Anyone who attacks you for wanting to see the data is not a scientist.
So I decided to turn the tables on her in the comments section of her article by attacking her fundamental assumption of vaccine safety and showing it is all based on a belief or in believing deeply flawed studies rather than the proper studies (such as the UK has attempted to do).
I wanted to expose to the world that her belief in the safety of vaccines is not based on credible data, i.e., I wanted to show that the “vaccines are safe Emperor” has no clothes.
So I challenged her to show me any objective credible large-scale, post-marketing US study showing that any of the vaccines in the US are “safe” as defined by Paul Offit back in 2002 as fewer than 1 death per million doses.
At first, she directed me to a list of articles and none of them were responsive to my request. Next, she cited a deeply flawed study that she said was “just for fun.”
I repeated my request was serious and this was a serious issue, and she confirmed that her answers were serious.
She failed to respond with a document that met the objectives because the data simply isn’t there.
None of her readers could find a credible objective large epidemiological study done in the US showing that any US vaccine is safe either.
I just got off the phone with Dr. Peter McCullough who is a walking encyclopaedia of studies and he wasn’t aware of any credible study either for large-scale vaccine safety.
So, let’s see if any of my readers can find one!
An honest society would be able to produce these studies in every state in the US easily that meets all the conditions. The sad fact is that, as far as I know, this doesn’t exist for any state in the US, for any vaccine, ever.
The above is Steve Kirsch’s ‘Introduction’ word for word. From this point, we have summarised Kirsch’s article ‘Is there a credible large US-based post-marketing study showing that any US vaccine is safe? I couldn’t find one’. Remarks shown in [square brackets] are our additions.
[In his article, Steve Kirsch issued a challenge and offered US$1,000 to anyone who can provide a credible objective epidemiological post-marketing study showing any vaccine is “safe.” He’s called the challenge “The Kirsch Safety Study Challenge.” You can find more details in the section titled ‘My $1,000 challenge aka “The Kirsch Safety Study Challenge.”]
Covid Vaccines are unethical for children
For children, covid kills in the order of 1 child per million. So, a safe vaccine would kill fewer than 1 child per 10 million doses. The fact that there is no safety data at this level for children means that it is INSANE for the FDA and CDC to approve these vaccines without that safety data.
Should we “trust” their judgment on balancing the unknown risk vs. benefit? Absolutely not. Below are some of the reasons why.
[The DTP vaccine can prevent diphtheria, pertussis (whooping cough), and tetanus, the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) states.]
Four studies show that the DTP vaccine increased all-cause mortality for females by more than 2X. That’s stunning. A 2X mortality increase is a train wreck. That should have been spotted in the trials. But it took them nearly 50 years before that vaccine was pulled from the US market. That’s how bad the safety testing is for these vaccines. It’s a %$#$# shit show.
You may ask: How can a vaccine which doubles the risk of death not have been detected for 50 years?
The answer is simple. It’s because they used the same trick for the DTP vaccine in the clinical trials as they used for the covid vaccines: “Sure, there were excess deaths but none of them were judged by our investigators (who are paid by us) to be caused by the vaccine.”
In the case of the covid vaccines, data from Pfizer Phase 3 “gold standard” clinical trial showed that people in the vaccine group were 31% more likely to die than people in the placebo group. Pfizer said that none of the deaths were judged by their investigators to be caused by the vaccine. Histopathology, the microscopic examination of tissue, to investigate these deaths was never done so it was impossible to rule out the “vaccines” as the cause of death with any medical certainty. The FDA should have demanded this be done but looked the other way.
[The anti-inflammatory drug Rofecoxib was marketed by Merck as Vioxx to treat osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, juvenile rheumatoid arthritis, acute pain conditions, migraine and dysmenorrhea.]
Vioxx killed an estimated 50,000 Americans. The FDA never pulled it. Merck voluntarily withdrew it 5 years later due to all the lawsuits, not because of the FDA. The FDA was asleep at the wheel. That’s how safety-conscious they are.
[Further reading: Timeline: The Rise and Fall of Vioxx, NPR, 10 November 2007]
CDC doesn’t have vaccination data
The CDC doesn’t have the vaccination data of each person so the CDC has never been able to do a proper analysis to prove safety using their own data.
What is needed is an analysis like that described in the article ‘Is it safe?’ which goes into detail about how the data should be made public and analysed. Nobody in the US has ever done it this way. The best that researchers can do is use the VSD system but that is really flawed.
It is done in the UK to some extent. The UK Office for National Statistics (“ONS”) bucket analysis is decent, much better than anything in the US. In the UK they have the right methodology but they are deficient in the choice of buckets and the quality of the underlying data; they undercount the unvaccinated so that the vaccines look like they work.
Martin Neil, Norman Fenton, and others caught them red-handed and they were honest enough to admit their data was crap and should not be used to determine whether the vaccines are safe. This was a major embarrassment, but there’s a lot to be said for such honesty, especially during these times. Even though their data is flawed, they made a very credible attempt to do a proper epidemiological study and they made the full data summary public.
[Steve Kirsch’s article then details his communications with Dorit Reiss. He asked Reiss to show him a study similar to what the UK ONS did for covid, but for any US vaccine. He fact-checked her response and detailed the problems with the paper Reiss provided.
After investigating Reiss’ response, Kirsch concluded: “It appears to me that Dorit’s beliefs in the safety of vaccines were predicated on trust in authority rather than seeing the data. When I asked her to provide a compliant study, she failed. Shouldn’t she have known of one study? After she gave me a flawed paper that couldn’t possibly be accurate it made me wonder: is the type of quality study she uses to justify her position on vaccine safety?”
Kirsch noted highlights of the exchange between himself and Reiss in his article. You can read his full conversation with Reiss HERE.]
Post-market safety study for the covid vaccine was deeply flawed
The CDC did a post-marketing safety study for the covid vaccine using the secretive VSD database to prove that the vaccines are safe. The study was deeply flawed.
Read More: FDA discovers fountain of youth, Steve Kirsch, 12 November 2021
Does the lack of proof of safety mean all vaccines are not safe? No. It just means that nobody did the required studies to prove they are safe or not. Without those studies, we should not assume they are safe. That is the precautionary principle of medicine.
The authorities have the data. They can provide the needed data at any time. But they either:
- won’t make the data public or
- they won’t do the proper objective large-scale epidemiological studies to determine whether the vaccines are safe.
The lone exception is the UK where they did the correct type of study, but the underlying data is flawed and they refuse to make the underlying data public so that these flaws can be corrected or compensated for.
What the world needs now is just one honest epidemiologist in the right position.
Read Steve Kirsch’s full article HERE.
About the Author
Steve Kirsch is is a Silicon Valley entrepreneur and philanthropist who founded the COVID-19 Early Treatment Fund (“CETF”) at the beginning of the pandemic. He is also the founder of Vaccine Safety Research Foundation. He publishes articles and research on his website HERE and his Substack page HERE.
Subscribe now to make sure you receive the latest uncensored news in your inbox…
Your Government & Big Tech organisations
such as Google, Facebook, Twitter & PayPal
are trying to silence & shut down The Expose.
So we need your help to ensure
we can continue to bring you the
facts the mainstream refuse to…
We’re not funded by the Government
to publish lies & propaganda on their
behalf like the mainstream media.
Instead, we rely solely on our support. So
please support us in our efforts to bring you
honest, reliable, investigative journalism
today. It’s secure, quick and easy…