Dr Stanley Plotkin admitted that vaccines have not been adequately tested for safety. Bigtree reviewed a published paper authored by Dr Plotkin and others, which made stunning admissions about the lack of safety testing for vaccines that have been deemed “safe and effective” by the medical establishment for decades.
The paper acknowledges that the public is no longer satisfied with the traditional safety goal of detecting and quantifying risks after a vaccine is authorized for use. It admits that pre-licensure clinical trials are inadequate to determine safety and that there are no post-authorization studies to analyse the risks of vaccines after they are distributed to the public.
Bigtree argues that the clinical trials are useless because they have small sample sizes, lack placebo control groups, and only review safety for a short period of time. He also criticizes the medical establishment for falsely claiming that adverse events following immunization (AEFIs) have been thoroughly investigated and determined to be rare.
Bigtree accuses the authors of gaslighting and using this point as a barrier to vaccine acceptance rather than a genuine concern for safety.
The paper cites the need for more rigorous science in vaccine safety, contradicting claims by health authorities that vaccines already undergo rigorous testing. Bigtree points out that a “mountain” of studies already exists regarding adverse reactions to vaccines.
Bigtree and ICAN criticize Dr Plotkin and vaccine advocates for seeking studies that lead to predetermined conclusions of vaccine safety. They argue that the motive for more rigorous studies is to counter increasing vaccine hesitancy following the failed COVID-19 vaccination program.
Attorney Aaron Siri questions Dr Plotkin under oath in a clip included in the report, where Plotkin makes similar admissions about the lack of long-term safety studies for licensed vaccines.
Siri suggests that the motivation behind these admissions is to raid the federal vaccine injury compensation fund to conduct studies that confirm the prior conclusion that vaccine harms are rare, while ignoring existing studies that show serious harm.