There are now thirty-five thousand comments. On the 26th of September this year, the Prime Minister posted on her Facebook page: “let’s talk about side effects” with a small preamble. The Otago Daily Times ran an article called “Safety, worth stressed” in which (specialist in public health medicine ) from Otago University, Professor Peter Crampton, claimed that, “ Because the vaccine has been used for only a relatively short period of time, it is not possible to determine with 100% certainty if there are any long-term effects.” To media and experts, lack of knowledge regarding long-term effects is equal to safety. How many adverse events are ignored or not reported simply because somebody’s doctor refuses to accept that a vaccine can do something harmful?ĭistortion of language can be seen. How many adverse events are missed because time passes between receiving a vaccine and the event, and neither recipient nor their doctor consider the possibility it may be less safe than advertised? This is what an expert panel can say when the IOM, “… prevented participation by anyone with financial ties to vaccine manufacturers or their parent companies…” “Thus the committee recognizes with some discomfort that this report addresses only part of the overall set of concerns of some who are most wary about the safety of childhood vaccines.” “The committee was unable to address the concern of some that repeated exposure of a susceptible or fragile child to multiple vaccines over the developmental period may also produce atypical or nonspecific immune or nervous system injury that could lead to severe disability or death.” “The committee concludes that the epidemiological and clinical evidence is inadequate to accept or reject a causal relationship between multiple immunizations and an increased risk of allergic disease, particularly asthma.” In 2002, the USA’s Institute of Medicine (IOM) wrote in a document titled Immunization Safety Review – Multiple Immunizations and Immune Dysfunction: The history of vaccination is not as glorious as the business of medicine would have us believe. We might recognise the adverse event victim as an old friend, a colleague, maybe even family.ĭid they lose their job, were they unable to work for a while, have they filed a claim with ACC? How long after injection did their problem appear? How did their doctor react? Have they been diagnosed? Has their reaction to injection cost them an ability, a hobby, a lover? It appears that the media don’t want to cast even the smallest shadow of doubt on the vaccine rollout – interviewing people with adverse events would only cause others to question the official narrative.
There are now just over eleven hundred serious events according to medsafe, from over six million doses given, approximately one in every six thousand injections.
One can look back to the beginning of the vaccine rollout, and see the media has kept these people and results as just numbers, by not having a single interview with a person who claims to have experienced a serious side effect. Regarding the data, the Herald quoted vaccinologist Helen Petousis-Harris: “people shouldn’t read anything into them as they are just numbers with no context.” A week ago the NZ Herald reported on the adverse events New Zealanders had from the Pfizer vaccine, using medsafe data.