It's simple! Surely? Either a vaccine is safe or it's not safe. And on the basis of the medical professions principle of "First do no harm" any vaccine that is not safe should not be used by patients, especially when the vaccine has been 'fast-tracked' into our arms.
It has been hard to keep track on which countries have had sufficient doubts about the safety of the Covid-19 vaccines, and have suspended their use; and which of these countries have suspended them but been quickly reassured, or pressured into reintroducing them. Certainly these countries have done one or the other.
- The Netherlands
However, most other countries appear to have no qualms about any of the vaccines. This is not an unusual phenomenon. I have often wondered why it is that pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines are considered 'safe' in some countries, but suspended or banned in others because they are unsafe. I have pondered on whether the citizens of some countries are less hardy than those of other countries; but this always seems unlikely.
A more likely explanation is that the history of every pharmaceutical drug and vaccine is a struggle: between a growing awareness of the serious adverse reactions they cause; and the denials of the conventional medical establishment that pharmaceutical drugs can cause patient harm.
For instance, it was reported yesterday (even by BBC News) that one drug, Mediator, banned in 2009 after 33 years of causing serious heart failure, and the death of over 2,000 people, has resulted in a court finding the French drug company guilty of aggravated deceit and involuntary manslaughter. The drug regulator was also fined for failing in its primary duty - to protect the public from dangerous drugs. (This website outlines several other similar histories of banned drugs).
So is this what is happening to the Covid-19 vaccines? Even though it is early in their use, vaccination did not start until the very end of December 2020, there appears to be a growing number of concerns about the vaccines, concerns that are being either ignored, denied or discounted by the conventional medical establishment. This fits into a pattern that I have described before when talking about "the Ages of Drugs". Here are some recent expressions of concern.
The European drug regulator, the EMA, has recently conceded that one vaccine "may" cause blood clots, but still insists that they are "still safe and effective", and countries should continue to use it. Such cases, they say, are 'very rare'. This response fits the time-honoured tradition in conventional medicine - a drug or vaccine is safe - until such time it has proven to be so harmful it cannot be defended any longer.
At the same time there was this EMA pronouncement, that new research from Norway and Germany linked one Covid-19 vaccine with blood clots. So the debate will continue is not resolved by denials.
Indeed, such official assertions will never end the debate. They will perhaps be sufficient for governments and the mainstream media (MSM). But if the past is anything to go by new evidence of patient harm will emerge as time passes, and is perhaps already emerging.
For example, one scientist has told the USA drug regulator, the FDA, that they are ignoring "clear and present dangers" associated with the Covid-19 vaccines, and warning that many will die needless "if we carelessly and indiscrinately" vaccinate people already infected with the virus. Is this true? We will probably not know for quite some time - as the drug regulator appears to be ignoring any such possibility!
Another headline I have seen recently is that the number of women losing their unborn child after have the Covid-=19 vaccine has increased by 366% in just six weeks. Is this true? I have no idea. This is not a source that I know, and it is likely to be dismissed as 'misinformation', or more likely just ignored, or if this is not possible, denied and/or discounted. But official denials, whether of 'coincidence', or 'the advantages outweighing the disadvantages', will not end the concern.
So will these Covid-19 vaccines be around in 5, 10, or even 33 years? The answer is uncertain, and is likely to remain uncertain. The history of pharmaceutical drugs suggests that there will be increasing evidence that they cause patient harm; and that this evidence will be refuted and denied. So this uncertainty will likely go on for many years to come.
But if past performance is a good indicator of future performance the evidence against these vaccines will build. Conventional medicine does not apply the precautionary principle, so the vaccines will be used until such time as they can no longer be defended. I hope I am wrong, but believing the official assurances of medical science about drug and vaccine safety is not a safe thing to do.
As in the case of Mediator, people will be assured about the safety of the vaccines; so many more people will accept the vaccines; but it could be decades before the harm they cause is fully accepted by the conventional medical establishment, and action taken.
Since conventional medicine has dominated medical provision it has always been thus!