All pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines have side effects, most of them have very serious, disease-creating side effects. Even doctors will sometimes admit this! It is a fact confirmed in conventional medical literature. We only have to take a look at the Patient Information Leaflets that accompanies every drug and vaccine to see some of the serious patient harm they can cause.
So how does the conventional medical establishment (CME) justify giving us 'medicines' that cause patient harm, and can make us seriously sick? They have several strategies.
The CME tells their patients that there is no other treatment (forgetting that natural medical therapies are treating patients diagnosed with every conceivable illness, every day, entirely safely, and usually quite effectively).
The CME denies that an adverse drug/vaccine reaction has anything to do with the drug/vaccine. "It's just a coincidence", they tell us, "what happened would have happened anyway". This is has been the main CME reaction to the reports that Covid-19 vaccines were causing blood clots.
The CME say that the drug is "well tolerated". This is an admission that there might be a few slight, non-serious side effects, but they not serious enough for the patient to worry about.
Yet perhaps the most important of all the CME justifications used to encourage patients to take harmful medicine is that "the advantages outweigh the disadvantages".
This phrase enables CME to hide serious and harmful drug/vaccine side effects. It states that they might indeed cause patient harm; but they do so much good it is worth taking the risk. This apparent 'cost-benefit' analysis allows doctors, when they can no longer hide the fact that a drug/vaccine is causing harm, to shift from “the drug is safe” position, to another apparent reason to take the drug.
Yet "the advantages outweigh the disadvantages" is essentially a meaningless phrase, empty words, just another ploy to justify giving patients dangerous medicine.
- Where can we find this calculation? I have never seen one, they are nowhere to be found! It is usually just a bald statement, completely unsubstantiated, without substance, but masquerading as science, and pretending to be fact.
- The Advantages. Invariably these are heavily exaggerated, usually taken from when it was first put through medical testing, with hopelessly optimistic projections, and prior to its introduction to real patients.
- The Disadvantages. These are usually heavily discounted. Only between 1% and 10% of side effects are ever reported; so CME is able to claim that even serious side effects are 'uncommon' or 'rare' when in fact they are not.
When I first wrote about "the ages of drugs" in 2007. I described the process that every pharmaceutical drug/vaccine has taken during its descent from "wonder drug" (Childhood) to "banned drug" (Old Age). Into the 'advantages' column the CME places all the original, inflated claims from the drug's 'childhood' period. In the 'disadvantages' column is placed the now known adverse drug reactions, seriously under-reported as they are, and always heavily discounted.
It is rather like buying a second hand car, when we are told about its benefits when it was new, but glossing over the years of wear-and-tear it has gone through since then.
This bogus 'cost-benefit analysis' is a deception, designed by the CME to encourage us to continue taking a drug or vaccine known to be harmful, and to hide the too-often obvious fact that conventional medicine has nothing better, nothing safer to offer its patients.
It has one further advantage. It means the CME does not have to investigate any further into the criticism of the drug/vaccine. "The advantages outweigh the disadvantages" seems to accept the criticism - but without actually doing anything about it, so not taking the issues seriously, ignoring the "first do no harm" principle it purports to follow, and giving the drug/vaccine a few more additional years it invariably does not deserve.
Beware doctors justifying the drugs and vaccines they want you to take!