By Ted Kuntz
On December 3 & 4, 2019, the who’s who of the vaccine establishment attended the World Health Organization’s Global Vaccine Safety Summit in Geneva. Attendees included members of the Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety, regulatory authorities, representatives of UN agencies, academic institutions, industry representatives and funding agencies.
Those in attendance made some shocking admissions. These admissions included, among other things, significant gaps in vaccine safety testing, the risks of vaccine adjuvants, and the decline in trust of the global vaccine program.
We Have Developed a World that is Dependent on Vaccinations
Possibly the most startling admission came from Dr. Heidi Larson PhD, Director of the Vaccine Confidence Project. In her plenary lecture – Vaccine safety in the next decade: Why we need new modes of trust building? Dr. Larson stated: “We’re in a unique position in human history, where we’ve shifted the human population to dependency on vaccine-induced immunity.”
What Larson calmly acknowledges is that the vaccine industry has effectively eliminated natural lifetime immunity to infections and in its place, the industry has created lifetime dependency on vaccines to induce temporary immunity. What this means is that the human population is now drug dependent.
A second disclosure was that the vaccine program is based on “the great assumption that populations would cooperate.” She adds: “And for many years people lined up [for] the six vaccines. People were there. They saw the reason. But now things have changed. We’re in a very fragile state now.”
What is implied in Larsen’s commentary is that an increasing number of people are no longer cooperating willingly in vaccination, and that this is creating a problem because of the dependency of humanity on vaccine induced immunity. The outcome of this dependency combined with the increasing vaccine hesitancy was not made clear.
There were other starting admissions.
Dr. Swaminathan, Chief Scientist with WHO stated, “We cannot overemphasize the fact that that we really don’t have very good safety monitoring systems in many countries and this adds to the miss communication and the misapprehensions because we’re not able to give clear-cut answers when people ask questions about the deaths that have occurred due to a particular vaccine.”
Dr. Swaminathan is of the opinion that the vaccine community ought to be prepared to provide what she stated as “a very factual account of what exactly has happened and what the cause of the deaths are.” However, she added, “in most cases there is some obfuscation” with the result that “there’s less and less trust . . . in the system.”
Several speakers described the lack of good science and the inability of vaccine clinical trials to provide meaningful information about safety and risk. They agonized about the “tyranny of small numbers” and the “relatively small sample sizes” typical of vaccine clinical trials.
Dr. Marion Gruber, Director of the U.S. FDA’s Office of Vaccines Research and Review agreed that vaccine pre-licensure clinical trials “may not be powered enough”, meaning they are too small to detect statistically significant effects, and that the generally inadequate follow-up of trial participants “complicates safety evaluation.”
Dr. Bassey Okposen, a Program Manager for Nigeria’s vaccine program inquired whether vaccines containing “different antigens from different companies” and “different adjuvants and different preservatives” could be “cross-reacting amongst themselves.” The answer was not reassuring. What was offered was a suggestion that “if we get more national vaccine safety database linked together . . . . we could start to answer these types of questions.” (emphasis mine)
Dr. Stephen Evans, a professor of Pharmacoepidemiology, added to the concern about the safety of adjuvants by stating: “It seems to me they [adjuvants] multiply the reactogenicity in many instances, and therefore it seems to me that it is not unexpected if they multiply the incidence of adverse reactions.”
Professor Larson admitted that the crisis of confidence is now extending to “a very wobbly health professional front line that is [also] starting to question vaccines and the safety of vaccines.” Larson acknowledged that confidence in products, providers, policy makers and systems is diminishing.
All of this must come as a complete shock to those who have bought into the mantra that “the science is settled.” We have been inundated for decades with the unqualified messaging that all vaccines are safe and effective for all people, and that anyone who doesn’t accept this scientific consensus is irresponsible, anti-vaccine, anti-science and a believer in conspiracies. Then, in December 2019, in the midst of the World Health Organization’s Vaccine Safety Summit, there was a clear confession that the science has not been done.
Stop Using the Term Anti-Vaxx
Professor Larson then encouraged the medical industry to stop using the term “anti-vaxx”; a recommendation the vaccine risk aware movement has been making for years but to no avail. Larson stated: “One of our biggest challenges, I think now, is getting rid of the term anti-vax, getting rid of the hostile language, and starting to have more conversations, to be open to questions, to make people feel like they shouldn’t be judged when they’re asking questions. . . . We can’t risk losing another person’s confidence in safety right now.”
Wow!! Imagine that! Image the kind of health care system we’d have if medical professionals got rid of their “hostile language,” started to have conversations, and were open to questions. It’s shocking that our medical experts are only now realizing that having conversations with their patients and being open to questions is a responsible medical care.
It is highly irresponsible and unethical that these unabashed pro-vaccine advocates would only now think that maybe they ought to be researching whether vaccine ingredients are causing cross reactions.
Does anyone feel like the vaccine program is being run by incompetent fools and charlatans? I certainly do. It’s difficult to have confidence in these “professionals” who are only now recognizing the need to be reasonable and to stop judging those who ask questions and demand evidence of safety and effectiveness.
As I viewed these disclosures from the Global Safety Summit, I found myself with a mix of emotions. My first reaction was shock. Wow! They are telling the truth. That’s different. Then disbelief. OK, why are they telling the truth now? What is their agenda? Then, outrage at the realization of the dependency they’ve created and their admitted failure to conduct adequate scientific research to determine safety before injecting billions with their products. And finally hope. Hope, because the truth is finally being acknowledged.
But my hope is tempered. No mainstream media carried these shocking disclosures of the Global Vaccine Safety Summit. No reporters disseminated the confessions of the high priests of the vaccine religion. No police were called to hold those criminally responsible for creating a world-wide dependency on drugs. No announcements followed demanding that vaccine mandates must be suspended immediately until proper safety trials are conducted. No apologies were issued from those who have violated our bodies, our children and our rights and freedoms for decades.
What is affirmed in listening to the presentations is that people are questioning the claims of the vaccine industry in ever greater numbers. A significant proportion of the population is demanding evidence, evidence the vaccine industry doesn’t have. This awakening of the masses offers a glimmer of hope if only because more people are recognizing the vaccine paradigm for the fraud that it is. Maybe these medical professionals will finally do the right thing, if only because more and more people now see that the emperor has no clothes.