Audio and PDF Versions of This Article
🔒 The audio and PDF versions of this article are available to premium members.
Log in or
join today.
Introduction
The New York Times vs. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
Receive my email newsletters and download this FREE e-book revealing how the mainstream media spread vaccine misinformation.
Parents
concerned about the long-term health effects of vaccines are constantly
gaslit by the corrupt medical establishment, including doctors and
scientists. We’re told to trust the “experts”, but the problem is that
experts have consistently proven their untrustworthiness.
Take Jake Scott, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Stanford University School of Medicine.
As I noted in my December 8 article “Scientific Data Show Unvaccinated Children Are Healthier”,
Dr. Scott testified in defense of Big Pharma at Senator Ron Johnson’s
September 9 hearing on how the corruption of medical science has
impacted public perceptions about vaccine safety.
Introduced onto the record at that hearing was a study out of Henry
Ford Health that was never published because it produced the wrong
results—showing that unvaccinated children have far lower rates of
diagnoses for chronic health conditions.
Scott tried to dismiss the study on the grounds it was too fatally
flawed to take seriously, which is an argument too fatally flawed to
take seriously.
For the details, see my prior article.
The gist of it is that the “flaws” cited are typical limitations for
this type of observational study, and other studies with similar or even
worse flaws do not receive the same level of scrutiny as long as they
find no association between vaccines and chronic childhood illnesses.
The Henry Ford Health study was provided to the Senate by attorney
Aaron Siri, who has worked closely with the Informed Consent Action
Network (ICAN), which in 2017 approached the health care company’s head
of infectious diseases, Dr. Marcus Zervos, about doing the study.
Zervos agreed because, from his perspective, it could finally put to
rest widespread parental concerns about vaccine safety and boost
confidence in public vaccine policies. But when it produced the opposite
result, he refused to publish it, telling ICAN founder and The Highwire host Del Bigtree that it would risk his career to do so.
On December 18, Scott published a Substack article titled “The Myth of the Missing Study”, in which he takes issue with the following statement that he attributed to Bigtree:
There is not a single study in the entire world—not from a single
health department in any nation—that has compared vaccinated kids to
unvaccinated kids and shown that the vaccinated are the ones who have
better health outcomes.
What Bigtree means, as anyone familiar with the vaccine controversy knows, is that no studies have compared long-term health outcomes between children vaccinated according to schedule and completely unvaccinated children.
Scott claims that this is “false” because observational studies comparing “vaccinated and unvaccinated kids” have been done.
He also presents the usual argument
for why no randomized controlled trial has ever been done to determine
the safety of vaccinating children according to the recommendations of
the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
(To be clear, the CDC’s schedule is now being updated, but I’m referring in this context to the historic schedule involving upwards of 72 vaccine doses.)
The argument is that it would be “unethical” to withhold vaccines
from children because they could be exposed to diseases the vaccines are
designed to prevent.
That, of course, is the fallacy of begging the question (petitio principii,
formally). It presumes the very proposition to be proven as its
premise, which is that the benefits of vaccination outweigh any possible
risks and lead to better health outcomes.
After rolling out the usual circular argument for not safety testing
the CDC’s schedule with gold standard science, Scott proceeds to cite
studies he claims belie Bigtree’s assertion.
The problem with Scott’s argument is that none of the studies he cites actually support his counterclaim.
Bigtree is right. Scott is wrong. Let’s examine.
No comments:
Post a Comment