The Under-Reporting of Adverse Drug and Vaccine Reactions. How is this achieved?

Only between 1% and 10% of the harm caused by pharmaceutical drugs/vaccines is ever reported. This blog, which I wrote in June 2019, outlines the studies that have ascertained this, and looked at some of the implications, principally that the drugs prescribed by conventional medical doctors are NOT as safe as they tell us. 

Indeed, the side effects and adverse reactions are under-reported to such extent that pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines can be up to 100 times more harmful than we are ever told.

This blog goes one stage further. 

It looks at why the vast majority of patient harm caused by the conventional medical establishment remains unreported. Why is it that drug regulators do not get to hear about it, it being so obviously important that adverse drug reactions are reported, recorded, and that national drug regulators take action to protect us from being harmed by them. 

This is why the reporting systems was set up, many following the Thalidomide scandal in the 1970's. Indeed, these reporting systems are considered so important that in most countries doctors are required by law to report them. So why is it not done?

There are three main problems, (i) the Patient, (ii) the Doctor, and (iii) the Pharmaceutical Medical Establishment.

The Patient

It is the patient who is given the pharmaceutical drug or vaccines, so it is only they who know whether they have suffered a side effect. Yet how does the patient know? They are already ill, so perhaps this new symptom is part of the same illness Perhaps it has nothing to do with the drug. Perhaps it is part of the healing process. Perhaps it will go away soon. Perhaps it is not worth reporting, especially as the doctor is so busy. And in any case it is so difficult to get a doctor's appointment.

Anyway, the doctor (and the NHS, the mainstream media (MSM), and the government) have all told us the drug/vaccine is 'entirely safe'. Take, for example, the new Covid-19 vaccines. We have been told (for many, many months) that they are safe, that there are only a few minor local side effects, immediately following vaccination. Everyone has been urged to get vaccinated. So the vaccine must be safe. Doctors would not peddle a drug/vaccine that was unsafe. Surely. So this cannot possibly be a side effect. 

And perhaps if we do mention it we will be accused of listening to too much 'misinformation' and 'fake news' on social media. There has been nothing reported on the MSM to suggest there might be serious side effects. They are the solution to the problems, not the cause of problems. So why should I be the only person to experience a side effect?

The Doctor

Yet sometimes the 'side effect' is just so serious it has to be reported. What happens then?

First, we need to remember that it was the doctor who has given us the drug or vaccine. When doing so (s)he has told the patient, or at least implied, that it is entirely safe. And now the patient is saying that it is not safe, that it has caused a serious problem. It is professionally embarrassing; and the doctor is busy.

Legally, the doctor is obliged to fill in a Yellow Form (in the UK - other countries have other systems but usually make it a requirement) but doctors often/usually fail to do so. Perhaps it is easier, or less embarrassing to deny the problem; or that the problem has anything to do with his/her prescription. Or perhaps the problem is discounted - it's not serious, it is temporary, it will soon go away. And perhaps another drug can be prescribed that will deal with it.

With the Covid-19 vaccines this must be a particularly difficult situation for doctors, such has been the amount of promotion and advertising provided by the NHS, the Government, and the MSM. How is it then possible to admit that the vaccine might not be as safe. Perhaps the doctor has assumed, along with the propaganda, that the vaccines are safe, and in denying/discounting any link between the vaccine and the patient's new problems there is genuine doubt. 

Whatever the situation is, the Yellow Card is not filled in and sent to the drug regulator.

To watch a discussion with three care workers who suffered severe side effects from the Covid-19 vaccines, click on this video link. It demonstrates the difficulty of reporting adverse drug/vaccine to the CHE. And the fact that none of these cases were reported to the drug regulatory agency.

The Conventional Medical Establishment (CHE)

The CHE has been developed, led, and is now dominated by the pharmaceutical industry, by far the most profitable, and now the wealthiest industry in the world. They have used their very considerable financial might to take almost total control of mainstream medical services, and all sources of health information available to the public. 

The mission of the CHE is to sell drugs and vaccines, especially through nationally funded or subsidised medical services like the NHS. Such is their wider influence they do not even need to advertise or promote their drugs, their control of the MSM means this is done for them, free of any cost. So they have a vested interest in telling us, through conventional medical authorities, government and the MSM that their drugs and vaccines are entirely safe.

So the fact that only a small percentage of drug/vaccine side effects are ever reported is not a problem; indeed it is a positive advantage. The primary objective of natural drug regulators is to safeguard patients; but drug regulators are controlled by the pharmaceutical industry, and they are interested more in selling drugs than safeguarding patients. Under-reporting is ignored; discounted; it is not seen to be a problem; it is rarely if ever mentioned.

What this means is that the CHE has a vested interest in reducing the number of reported adverse drug/vaccine reactions. They undermine the public perception of the safety and efficacy of their medicines. So even though governments around the world have legislated to control the drugs industry, everywhere the systems that have been put in place have been undermined and circumvented by the CHE.

It is not just patients and doctors not reporting adverse drug/vaccine reactions. It is the important drug regulatory agencies, controlled by CHE, who are hesitant to take any action against the drugs/vaccines that cause patient harm. They are obliged, by law, to publish the 1% of reports they do receive; but they won't act to ensure that more reports are submitted.

So what happens to Adverse Drug/Vaccine Reactions?

Drug and vaccine side effects are published regularly by governments, and government agencies. If we look for the reported adverse reactions to the Covid-19 vaccines, for instance, they can be found; like this government webpage in the UK, and via VAERS in the USA. It shows that the number of deaths, alongside other serious side effects, are increasing - even if only 1% are being reported. They stand at nearly 1,500 in the UK. Nearly 7,000 in the USA. And about 14,000 in the EU. 

But even this information, mentioned in obscure official government websites, is not mentioned by conventional medical authorities, or by governments, or by the MSM when it talks to the general public. As far as we are told, the vaccines continue to be safe. We are not told otherwise. Even death is not something the CME thinks we should know about; leave alone information about other serious, life-changing 'side effects'.

If patient harm does surface, as it has done with the blood clotting links and Covid-19 vaccines, we hear only CHE spokespersons (including MSM journalists, and government ministers) reassuring us that the numbers who have been affected are very low in comparison with the number of people who have been vaccinated. Patient harm is heavily discounted.

This is bad enough. But if we multiply the numbers harmed by pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines by 100 a very different, and far more serious picture emerges. 

The odds in the game of Russian Roulette patients are expected to play with pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines (will I get the side effect, or will I be lucky) immediately becomes less attractive to anyone who is paying attention, and has access to the full facts. So the CHE prefers that only 1% to 10% of adverse reactions are reported; and do what they can to ensure we do not begin to suspect that pharmaceutical medicine is too dangerous to risk. The more harm to which they have to admit, the less attractive their medicines become, the less they can sell, their profits  reduced, their financial ability to ensure that the CHE alliance is held together is compromised.

The Under-Reporting of Drug Side Effects. Doctors say they are 'rare' but only between 10% & 1% of adverse reactions are ever reported. So they are not as 'rare' as we are told.

The conventional medical establishment routinely ignores the harm caused to patients by pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines.

A study, reported in the Journal of the American Medical Association, (2006; 296: 1086-93), found that although prescribing doctors should report side effects and adverse reactions experienced by their patients many do not do so. In fact, the actual rate of reporting was found to be alarmingly low, about 10 times below the optimum level set by the World Health Organization. The study reported on procedures amongst doctors in Portugal, where 26 adverse reactions were reported per 1 million population, whereas WHO say that this should be closer to 300 report per million people.

The researchers said that this under-reporting was not restricted to Portugal, and that the USA, Canada, Italy, Sweden and the UK, also have very low reporting rates.

Commenting on this study, the magazine What Doctors Don't Tell You said that if the WHO targets were reached, the whole drug industry would 'grind to a halt'. In the Guardian, on 12th May 2006, Sarah Bosely wrote that the BMA had said the Yellow Card scheme (the UK system of reporting drug side effects) was not being used enough. The article quoted BMA figures that found at least 250,000 people went to hospital each year because of the damaging side-effects of medication, and that about 5,000 people die as a result. The BMA urged doctors to be 'more vigilant', and to report any and every suspected side-effects their patients experience. They said that only an estimated 10% of adverse drug reactions were reported through the "yellow card" scheme to the MHRA, and a BMA spokesperson commented:

          "Doctors have a professional duty to report all adverse drug reactions, especially if children or the elderly are involved. Unfortunately too many health professionals are confused about reporting procedures. Doctors must make sure they report any suspected [adverse drug reactions] and at the same time increase awareness among their patients about the reporting process."

Another BMA spokesman said that not all side-effects could be picked up in clinical trials before drugs are licensed and prescribed which meant that greater vigilance was needed by doctors, pharmacists and nurses. In the same article the MHRA (Britain's drug regulator urged healthcare professionals to use the yellow card scheme, stating:

          "There is no need to prove that the medicine caused the adverse reaction, just the suspicion is good enough." 

The article concludes by saying that it has long been known that doctors do not report all the suspected side-effects their patients tell them about, and that 10 years earlier (1996?) the BMA had issued similar guidance to doctors, but with little effect. Sadly, in the decade and more that has passed since this was written, nothing has changed!

So what does this under-reporting of drug side effects mean, in practical terms?

It means that if only 10% of known adverse reactions to pharmaceutical drugs and vaccine are reported they are all 10 times more dangerous than conventional medicine accepts or admits!

It means that there has been a circular argument going on for over 20 years, and no doubt much longer. The side effects of drugs are under-reported by doctors - which means in turn that the dangers of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines are not fully appreciated. This, in turn, means that drugs are being prescribed on the basis that they are safer than they are.

Yet the under-reporting of drug side effects may be worse than this, perhaps as low as 1%, particularly (but not exclusively) with regard to vaccine damage. This 1% figure comes from USA government reports. In 1986 the USA government relieved vaccine manufacturers of all liability for vaccine injury. They created the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) in 1990 which was supposed to collect and analyse the adverse effects of vaccines. The system has has been criticised every since. To address the weaknesses, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) gave Harvard Medical School $1 million dollars to track VAERS reporting, and create an automated reporting system overhaul the VAERS reporting system. It successfully transformed the system from a 'passive' to an 'active' one.

The report showed that vaccine injury reports through VAERS were less than 1% of the actual number, that whilst the CDC showed only about 30,000 adverse events in the USA annually, the Harvard study showed about 35,570 adverse events - just in the population of Massachusetts. It calculated that there was an adverse event in 2.6% of vaccinations - hardly the 'rare' event that we are told about by doctors. So, with typical honesty, the CDC buried the study!

               “Unfortunately, there was never an opportunity to perform system performance assessments because the necessary CDC contacts were no longer available and the CDC consultants responsible for receiving data were no longer responsive to our multiple requests to proceed with testing and evaluation.”

It is clear from this that whatever the conventional medical establishment tells us about the safety of vaccines, and pharmaceutical drugs generally, they are not telling us the whole truth. If only 1% of drug and vaccine damage is being reported it means that they are 100 times more dangerous than they admit.

Yet there is another issue - are doctors prepared to tell us the truth when it is they who have prescribed harmful and dangerous drugs to their patients.

In an Observer article, published on 20th January 2008, Dennis Campbell reported that Steve Walker, chief executive of the NHS Litigation Authority, said that doctors must own up to the mistakes they make in order to reduce compensation claims that were totalling £613 million annually at that time. He called for "a new culture of honesty and openness". We are no to this now then we were in 2008!

Cambell continued. Negligence lawyers said the main reason victims take legal action is to obtain more information, so what doctors had to do was simple, to report any error or mistake, more than this, doctors should feel under an obligation to tell patients, to apologise and explain.

          "The explanation bit is really important to many, many claimants. It doesn't matter if it heads off a claim or encourages a claim, people as human beings and patients are entitled to this and they should be getting it. Some patients are dissatisfied by not getting this information already. Some patients and patients' relatives feel short-changed by the system. They believe there's a lack of honesty, of frankness and of candour."

Walker wanted doctors to 'sympathise with the patient or the patient's relatives' and to 'express sorrow or regret' at any death or injury that followed 'substandard care' with pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines.

          "I feel ..... very strongly that people are entitled to know when something has gone wrong; entitled to an apology if something has gone wrong; entitled to an explanation of what went wrong and why, in words that they will understand; and entitled to the opportunity to ask questions about what happened and why," 

This kind of transparency is not a feature of the conventional medical establishment. Since 2008 medical negligence cases have dramatically increased. This is usually explained within the context of doctors, or some other medical staff, making a mistake or an error. This ignores the fact that every pharmaceutical drug and vaccine used by conventional doctors are inherently dangerous! Defending dangerous drugs and vaccines by blaming the resulting problems on the doctors who prescribe them is fundamentally wrong. The blame needs to be placed within a medical system that supports and encourages their use, and then denies the existance of problems until those problems can no longer be denied!

The article first appeared in my E-Book, "DIE's: the disease-inducing-effects of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines". This e-book shows that it is the dangerous pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines being prescribed, and their side effects, that are causing sickness and diseases at unprecedented levels. And that within the conventional medical establishment there is little honesty about the harm that is routinely caused by these drugs and vaccines.

Many people have read this book and found it hard to believe how common illnesses and diseases, many now at epidemic proportions, some never known before the present era, are known to be caused by pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines. There surprise is understandable.

No-one has ever told them before!

 

Postscript February 2022

A German health insurance company has recently discovered that the adverse reactions to the Covid-19 vaccines were seriously under-reported in official government data - an 'independent' corroboration of the above article.