Mainstream media Now Saying Covid Vaccines Riskier than Promoted by Advocates By Mrs Vera West

In another  blog piece I discussed the Canadian sacking case, where a doctor who said, much of what is now being said in the mainstream media, has sacked. Here is one mainstream media article which puts the case that Covid vaccines are riskier than advertised. So, what possible justification is there for sacking individuals?

https://www.wsj.com/articles/are-covid-vaccines-riskier-than-advertised-11624381749

“One remarkable aspect of the Covid-19 pandemic has been how often unpopular scientific ideas, from the lab-leak theory to the efficacy of masks, were initially dismissed, even ridiculed, only to resurface later in mainstream thinking. Differences of opinion have sometimes been rooted in disagreement over the underlying science. But the more common motivation has been political.

Another reversal in thinking may be imminent. Some scientists have raised concerns that the safety risks of Covid-19 vaccines have been underestimated. But the politics of vaccination has relegated their concerns to the outskirts of scientific thinking—for now.

Historically, the safety of medications—including vaccines—is often not fully understood until they are deployed in large populations. Examples include rofecoxib (Vioxx), a pain reliever that increased the risk of heart attack and stroke; antidepressants that appeared to increase suicide attempts among young adults; and an influenza vaccine used in the 2009-10 swine flu epidemic that was suspected of causing febrile convulsions and narcolepsy in children. Evidence from the real world is valuable, as clinical trials often enroll patients who aren’t representative of the general population. We learn more about drug safety from real-world evidence and can adjust clinical recommendations to balance risk and benefits.

The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, or Vaers, which is administered by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration, is a database that allows Americans to document adverse events that happen after receiving a vaccine. The FDA and CDC state that the database isn’t designed to determine whether the events were caused by a vaccine. This is true. But the data can nonetheless be evaluated, accounting for its strengths and weaknesses, and that is what the CDC and FDA say they do.

The Vaers data for Covid-19 vaccines show an interesting pattern. Among the 310 million Covid-19 vaccines given, several adverse events are reported at high rates in the days immediately after vaccination, and then fall precipitously afterward. Some of these adverse events might have occurred anyway. The pattern may be partly attributable to the tendency to report more events that happen soon after vaccination.”

That’s all the free stuff. Now to Natural news.com.

“In “Are Covid Vaccines Riskier Than Advertised?,” Joseph A. Ladapo, M.D., Ph.D., associate professor of medicine at the David Geffen School of Medicine, and Harvey A. Risch, M.D., Ph.D., professor of epidemiology at Yale School of Public Health wrote while “some scientists have raised concerns that the safety risks of Covid-19 vaccines have been underestimated … the politics of vaccination has relegated their concerns to the outskirts of scientific thinking.”

Ladapo and Risch highlighted the fact that clinical studies don’t always tell the full story about the safety of medications, and that the health effects often remain unknown until the medicine is rolled out to the general public.

They wrote:

“Historically, the safety of medications — including vaccines — is often not fully understood until they are deployed in large populations. Examples include rofecoxib (Vioxx), a pain reliever that increased the risk of heart attack and stroke; antidepressants that appeared to increase suicide attempts among young adults; and an influenza vaccine used in the 2009-10 swine flu epidemic that was suspected of causing febrile convulsions and narcolepsy in children. Evidence from the real world is valuable, as clinical trials often enroll patients who aren’t representative of the general population. We learn more about drug safety from real-world evidence and can adjust clinical recommendations to balance risk and benefits.”

The authors said the “large clustering” of side effects following COVID vaccines is “concerning,” and the “silence around these potential signals of harm reflects the politics surrounding COVID-19 vaccines.”

They wrote: “Stigmatizing such concerns is bad for scientific integrity and could harm patients.”

The serious adverse events reported by the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, including low platelets, heart inflammation, deep-vein thrombosis and death, is likely “only a fraction” of the total number of adverse events, they said.

“The true number of cases is almost certainly higher,” said Ladapo and Risch. “This tendency of underreporting is consistent with our clinical experience.”

The authors slammed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for ignoring the reported serious COVID vaccine side effects, and said more research is needed to understand the risks.

They wrote:

“Analyses to confirm or dismiss these findings should be performed using large data sets of health-insurance companies and healthcare organizations. The CDC and FDA are surely aware of these data patterns, yet neither agency has acknowledged the trend.”

The authors acknowledged the risks of COVID vaccines in certain populations may outweigh the benefits. They also noted that no studies show people who have recovered from the virus benefit from getting vaccinated.

They wrote:

“The implication is that the risks of a COVID-19 vaccine may outweigh the benefits for certain low-risk populations, such as children, young adults and people who have recovered from COVID-19. This is especially true in regions with low levels of community spread, since the likelihood of illness depends on exposure risk.

“And while you would never know it from listening to public health officials, not a single published study has demonstrated that patients with a prior infection benefit from COVID-19 vaccination. That this isn’t readily acknowledged by the CDC or Anthony Fauci is an indication of how deeply entangled pandemic politics is in science.”

Ladapo and Risch warned that prioritizing politics over science in the wake of a pandemic could result in widespread distrust in public health officials.

They said:

“Public health authorities are making a mistake and risking the public’s trust by not being forthcoming about the possibility of harm from certain vaccine side effects. There will be lasting consequences from mingling political partisanship and science during the management of a public-health crisis.”