Lately I haven't felt much like sharing! But I'm going to try to work through processing some emotions.
I'm super sad to see the social pressure that has come from the Covid vaccines. I'm glad that they are available and I'm happy for my friends who are feeling relieved after having it. But I'm also horrified by the idea that some people are okay with the vaccine passports. That they are inevitable and its just one more covid issue that we are going to be made to swallow. I love to travel but I really don't want to be a guinea pig. If it comes down to it, I guess I'll stop traveling for awhile. Still that feels really unjust to me.
I recently had a conversation where people are saying that they believe in community health and trust "science" and they believe "science." The community health aspect of vaccines really relies on good solid information. If I felt that central element to the vaccine programs were accurate, I would have a lot more confidence in it. The logic of vaccines and how they theoretically work makes sense to me. But the reporting of adverse events is dismal and that results in a cost that has yet to be determined.
I trust science. I love good science! I love well designed studies, best research methods, and removing and designing work that doesn't involve conflicts of interest.
The work of "science" includes humans and thus human error and bias. It has flaws. I learned this as a kid. I was taught as a kid that mother nature is pretty smart on her own. Medicine and nutrition are constantly evolving. We get information that often turns out to be incorrect. For instance, my mom was taught as a young mom that formula was superior to breastmilk. Obviously that was false information. The 4 food groups isn't a thing, and when I came home with those little worksheets, she corrected it and taught me to be wary of health messaging coming from the government. I remember watching a "nutrition" movie in my foods class that was all about how white bread is superior because it is enriched. The movie was produced by Wonderbread and shown in my junior high. Obviously we know better now.
Healthy food, water, a heating pad and some Vitamin C was our default and they served us pretty well. I have very few memories of being sick and the only time I got antibiotics as a kid was because I lost a fingernail. My mom is mid seventies and still super healthy and avoidant of prescriptions. She has zero chronic health issues. My mom loves doctors and does her research in selecting the best ones when needed. But in general we were extremely healthy and nonintervention was working for us. Overmedicating is a real thing.
I've used prescriptions here and there. I love having the option when it is needed. Like this summer when Soren got an outer ear infection in Lake Powell. But I know that in many instances, there are trade offs and we don't always know what those are. For instance, those antibiotics can compromise your gut health and lead to significant problems. So while they may be necessary, use with prudence. I knew my mom didn't like ibuprofen but I didn't know why. I didn't know until recently that ibuprofen can destroy the kidneys. I love having it as an option, but seeing people who have actual major health problems from its overuse is eye opening. I respect it, the good and bad, and love having it in some circumstances.
Years ago as part of my major I studied research methods and statistics. Well designed studies include strategies for assessing significance, mitigating false outcomes and bias. An absence of studies is also a form of bias. Because when no one benefits from a study or fear the outcome, it isn't funded. If we can't answer the question, its easier to ignore it.
Billions of dollars for the companies funding the research leads leads to an inherent bias. In fact its worse than that. People lie, bribe, steal and cheat in order to protect their money. This isn't conspiracy theory. This is well-documented history. Just look at a few of the big pharma scandals. They actually committed fraud and were ordered to pay billions of dollars in settlements and fines. Would you trust your investment advisor after he was found guilty of fraud? I wouldn't.
Here is a list of the largest payouts and why:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_pharmaceutical_settlements,
(large table copied at the end of this post).
More info:
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-largest-health-care-fraud-settlement-its-history
https://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-merck-gilead-20160608-snap-story.html
https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/lawrence-solomon/merck-whistleblowers_b_5881914.html
So do I trust pharmaceutical companies? Not inherently. They have a product to sell. They are going to use whatever persuasive means they can to get me to take their product. I don't have to trust them. They are for profit companies that care mainly about their bottom line. It is what it is. They make drugs, I can do my research and choose yes or no to their product. Sometimes I like their products, sometimes I don't.
So vaccine mandates are exceptionally disturbing to me. A vaccine passport has a similar endgame to the mandates. Your life is going to be incredibly difficult unless you do what they want you to do. We have no idea how many times we will be required to get more doses of the covid vaccines to update our passports or whether other vaccines will be added to the list once they figure out that coercion is an excellent way to make a lot of money. Covid efforts have been one long slippery slope and I imagine vaccine passports will likewise follow that same pattern of baiting us into new restrictions one little inch at a time.
The covid vaccines can't technically be mandated yet because they are still under Experimental Use Authorization. But the pressure to get people to take their product is mounting. I feel it is incredibly irresponsible to try to force or coerce anyone to take a vaccine that is still considered experimental. They have a product to SELL. And I don't have to be their guinea pig/customer. It is well within reason for me to decline.
The messaging is that if we don't all get our vaccines, life will never go back to normal. So basically we are all being held hostage until we agree to be the test subjects? That's not right.
First of all, I already had covid. There are over 32 million of us in that category, and many more that have antibodies but never had a covid test. There is not one shred of evidence in all my reading, that shows me that the vaccine can offer me anything I don't already have from natural infection. That is like telling someone who had the Pfizer vaccine that it isn't good enough, we don't know how long immunity lasts, so now you need the Moderna. I'm sure that in a few months, people will be encouraged to get a booster as they actually don't know whether the vaccine prevents transmission or if it is longer lasting than natural infection. They do know that it isn't as effective against the variants cropping up. For now I'm pretty sure most of the people getting it are seeing it as a checked box, one and done. That's not going to happen. There will be a lot of boosters, and added vaccines. Mark my words.
When Miles was a baby and got ITP from his MMR vaccine, the recommended protocol following his reaction was serological testing to determine if immunity had been reached for MMR so that a subsequent dose was deemed unnecessary. Miles had his titers tested for quite a few vaccines. Titer tests measure antibody levels. My dr explained to me that if the results came back negative, it did not mean he had lost his immunity. But that antibodies are naturally more short lived. We have memory cells that can create more antibodies if again faced with this same virus. And T-Cells that also play a major role in immunity. So sometimes the titer tests produce a false negative because we can't measure the memory cells and t-cells. So when last year the declining antibodies were used to scare people into thinking that immunity from natural infection is short lived. In reality, we don't know how long immunity will last with the vaccine or with natural infection. We have no way to assess that since covid is still pretty new. But we do know that reinfection is incredibly rare. Like .05%, and likely to be mild. If you compare the failure rates of natural infection by reinfection rates and compare those with the efficacy rates of vaccines (66%-95%) we know natural infection produces much better immunity. (.05% vs 5-34%) And based on recent studies is faring much better in response to variants as well. The Pfizer and Moderna trials were completed before the UK and South African variants became dominant. So their stats are probably showing more efficacy than is actually happening currently.
Natural immunity isn't ideal for a lot of people. They have risk factors that make them more susceptible to covid complications. But for someone who have already had covid, there is nothing that shows a vaccine can offer any benefit at all. So why is this being promoted to those with immunity? The people selling the vaccine claim that there is very little risk. But then why try to silence those telling their experiences that claim otherwise? If you research Shawn Skelton, she has a pretty harrowing reaction to her Moderna vaccine. But the way she's been treated after talking about her experience is what is most haunting to me. Her videos were flagged as vaccine misinformation even though she is just sharing exactly what happened to her days after her vaccine. And the medias resulting, "we haven't seen these reactions previously, so they must not be related" is bunk science. They acknowledge that their studies are limited in length and in the number of participants. But on one hand they are assuring people that they have a trusty reporting system to monitor vaccine reactions, and on the other are completely trying to discredit any claims made to induce people to continue to vaccinate. Is Shawn Skelton the nurse who signed up for the vaccine as soon as she could a hero for sacrificing her health for the vaccine experiment? She is being treated like a villain. It's so sad to me because she can't share her experience without making people question her as a person. And this echos the way I've seen most vaccine injured kids and parents of those kids treated. Sweep it under the rug. Don't talk about it. People don't believe you. It's so invalidating.
I know there are many that believe the vaccine reactions are so rare, that they should still get the vaccine. I am not saying if that is true or not. It might be. But the problem is we just don't know. I think people should be allowed to choose. According to a 2010 study performed by the Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare System and funded by the CDC, only 1% of people report adverse reactions to VAERS. Doctors routinely dismiss VAERS reports because it is a passive reporting system that anyone can make a report to. VAERS reports do not equal causation. But reporting is inherent to vaccine safety and it isn't getting done. Sadly with the covid vaccines, reporting is paramount because the data in the studies is pretty limited. Yes there were nearly 30,000 people in the study, but half received a saline placebo. Reporting in real life administration for people with autoimmune conditions, pregnancy, nursing etc (groups not included in the original studies) is important to see an overall pattern so more research can be done. And the reporting is the only way we will accurately assess how safe the vaccine is.
I have a family member who recently had a stroke shortly after getting the vaccine that resulted in loss of balance and vision. It wasn't reported. Even though the vaccines are associated with increased blood clots that lead to strokes. His doctor should have made the connection and advised him to report it because of the temporal association. But doctors don't want to introduce the idea that a vaccine might have caused their debilitating and potentially lethal reaction. And often patients don't even understand where or how to report. People have this idea that they have to prove something is causally associated in order to report an adverse event. That's not how it works. It is just data that can lead to correlation and eventually better studies and understanding. If that foundational problem of underreporting isn't corrected, we will never have valid safety data on vaccines. When I hear that only 6 of 6 million people got blood clots after the J & J vaccine, I know there is at least one more. What are the odd that our family member is the only other? Not good.
We know that vaccines can cause autoimmune reactions like ITP, Guillain-Barre, transverse myelitis, diabetes and arthritis. Vaccine trials are not long enough to determine other long term impact of vaccines on chronic health issues. And without an unvaccinated control group, there are so many variables with chronic conditions, it becomes impossible to identify the effect vaccines are having on longterm health. The covid vaccines were unblinded after only two months. That isn't long enough to study this new technology of mRNA vaccines that is being rolled out across the globe.
We do know that autoimmunity is increasing, particularly in teenagers. And environmental triggers are the main culprit because our genes don't change fast enough to see this kind of increase. So many vaccine skeptics would like to see a study that is more comprehensive on the long term effects. Where is the vaccinated vs unvaccinated study? They say it isn't ethical to do one, but is it ethical not to? In absence of intensive reporting and well-conducted long term research, a lot of questions are unanswered. But wouldn't it be sad if we were reducing mortality in HPV, chicken pox and hepatitis and paying for it in diabetes and arthritis? If aluminum is toxic to our bodies, is it okay to inject it into our tissues? If lead paint exposure can cause ADD and other behavioral disorders, why not adjuvants? Ingesting is different than injecting and shouldn't be treated as if the toxic load is the same. And why are we not looking into that?
https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/autoimmunity-may-be-rising-united-states
When I asked my dr to report Miles's reaction, she refused and said it wasn't causally associated. She clearly also did not know how the VAERS reporting is supposed to operate. I'd felt that reports are taken more seriously and considered more valid if a dr reports instead of a parent. It irked me that I had to even ask her to report it. She should have known what was in the package insert and independent of my influence reported it. I shouldn't have had to press the matter. I'm not the dr. I was just a mom trusting my dr, and sadly I learned the dr didn't know much about certain issues. I respect her vast knowledge in other areas, but she is very behind, and clearly very biased, in the science of vaccines.
And that eroded my trust in the system and let me know that I'm in this for myself. People (Including drs) have their own interests to protect. My interest is my kids. I am the only one who is going to care if they have a vaccine injury. No one called me and told me thank you for sacrificing my kids health to protect theirs. I did my service the the public health gods and I don't owe anyone anything.
When I've read about "vaccine hesitancy" in the news lately, it angers me. Because the conclusion lately is that we need to silence vaccine critics so they won't induce this major health threat of vaccine hesitancy. Censorship is their answer. But how about instead of taking away peoples voices and liberties, those who want to sell more of their product actually listen? Create an updated, better active reporting system. Educate doctors and patients. Treat those with reactions with respect and consideration. Do some long term safety studies on vaccinated vs unvaccinated populations. I think the reason they refuse is because they are afraid of what they might learn.
Anyway I feel that in a couple years, we will look back on this pandemic with new knowledge, and clarity that only hindsight brings. We will find the answers eventually. I hope we don't have major regrets. I for one will remain cautiously skeptical and will push back hard on any pressure I get to have this experimental injection.
Big Pharma largest settlements for fraud and other illegal activities. Do I have to put my blind trust in these guys? Nope. Not conspiracy. They have committed fraud many times to increase their profits:
| Violation(s) |
|---|
| 2012 | GlaxoSmithKline[1][6] | $3 billion ($1B criminal, $2B civil) | Criminal: Off-label promotion, failure to disclose safety data.
Civil: paying kickbacks to physicians, making false and misleading statements concerning the safety of Avandia, reporting false best prices and underpaying rebates owed under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program | Avandia (not providing safety data), Wellbutrin, Paxil (promotion of paediatric use), Advair, Lamictal, Zofran, Imitrex, Lotronex, Flovent, Valtrex | False Claims Act, FDCA |
| 2009 | Pfizer[2] | $2.3 billion | Off-label promotion, kickbacks | Bextra, Geodon, Zyvox, Lyrica | False Claims Act, FDCA |
| 2013 | Johnson & Johnson[7] | $2.2 billion | Off-label promotion, kickbacks | Risperdal, Invega, Nesiritide | False Claims Act, FDCA |
| 2012 | Abbott Laboratories[8] | $1.5 billion | Off-label promotion | Depakote | False Claims Act, FDCA |
| 2009 | Eli Lilly[9] | $1.4 billion | Off-label promotion | Zyprexa | False Claims Act, FDCA |
| 2001 | TAP Pharmaceutical Products[10] | $875 million | Medicare fraud, kickbacks | Lupron | False Claims Act, Prescription Drug Marketing Act |
| 2012 | Amgen[11] | $762 million | Off-label promotion, kickbacks | Aranesp | False Claims Act, FDCA |
| 2010 | GlaxoSmithKline[12] | $750 million | Poor manufacturing practices | Kytril, Bactroban, Paxil CR, Avandamet | False Claims Act, FDCA |
| 2005 | Serono[13] | $704 million | Off-label promotion, kickbacks, monopolistic practices | Serostim | False Claims Act |
| 2008 | Merck[14] | $650 million | Medicare fraud, kickbacks | Zocor, Vioxx, Pepsid | False Claims Act, Medicaid Rebate Statute |
| 2007 | Purdue Pharma[15] | $601 million | Off-label promotion | Oxycontin | False Claims Act |
| 2010 | Allergan[16] | $600 million | Off-label promotion | Botox | False Claims Act, FDCA |
| 2010 | AstraZeneca[17] | $520 million | Off-label promotion, kickbacks | Seroquel | False Claims Act |
| 2007 | Bristol-Myers Squibb[18] | $515 million | Off-label promotion, kickbacks, Medicare fraud | Abilify, Serzone | False Claims Act, FDCA |
| 2002 | Schering-Plough[19] | $500 million | Poor manufacturing practices | Claritin | FDA Current Good Manufacturing Practices |
| 2006 | Mylan[20] | $465 million | Misclassification under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program | EpiPen (epinephrine) | False Claims Act |
| 2006 | Schering-Plough[21] | $435 million | Off-label promotion, kickbacks, Medicare fraud | Temodar, Intron A, K-Dur, Claritin RediTabs | False Claims Act, FDCA |
| 2004[22] | Pfizer | $430 million | Off-label promotion | Neurontin | False Claims Act, FDCA |
| 2008 | Cephalon[23] | $425 million | Off-label promotion[23] | Actiq, Gabitril, Provigil | False Claims Act, FDCA |
| 2010 | Novartis[24] | $423 million | Off-label promotion, kickbacks | Trileptal | False Claims Act, FDCA |
| 2003 | AstraZeneca[25] | $355 million | Medicare fraud | Zoladex | Prescription Drug Marketing Act |
| 2004 | Schering-Plough[26] | $345 million | Medicare fraud, kickbacks | Claritin | False Claims Act, Anti-Kickback Statute |
