Ethics in Science and Technology
pdfICON_edited.jpg

Wilyman, J. Misapplication of the Precautionary Principle has Misplaced the Burden of Proof of Vaccine Safety. Science, Public Health Policy & the Law Nov 2020 2:23-34.

 

Abstract
Vaccination is a medical intervention that comes with a risk for some people. In the expression of infectious diseases, it is known that the pathogen alone does not cause disease: it is a combination of the pathogen, environment, and genetic factors that determines expression and severity of the disease in individuals. In 1960 Macfarlane Burnet, Nobel Prize laureate for immunology, stated that genetics, nutrition, psychological and environmental factors may play a more important role in resistance to disease than the assumed benefits of artificial immunity induced by vaccination. He considered that genetic deterioration of the population may be a consequence of universal mass vaccination and he postulated that in the long-term vaccination may be against the best interests of the state. The current belief that much of the burden of infectious diseases can be alleviated if every child, in every geographical location, has access to multiple vaccines, does not consider the influence of genetics and environment on the health of populations. The historical record shows that deaths and illnesses to infectious diseases
fell due to public health reforms – and prior to the introduction of most vaccines. Since 1990 there has been a 5-fold increase in chronic illness in children in developed countries and an exponential increase in autism that correlates directly with the expansion of government vaccination programs. Many individuals are genetically predisposed to the chronic illnesses that are increasing in the population and since 1995 governments have not used mortality or morbidity to assess outcomes of vaccination programs. Human health can be protected in government policies if the precautionary principle is used in the correct format that puts the onus of proof of harmlessness on the government and pharmaceutical industry, and not the general public. This has not been done in current vaccination programs and we cannot rule out the possibility that the increased use of vaccines is destroying the genetic fabric of society as MacFarlane Burnet postulated.
Keywords
vaccine safety, comorbidity, fatality, impact, regulation

 

[Full Text]
Ealy, H, M McEvoy, D Chong, J Nowicki, M Sava, S Gupta, D White, J Jordan, D Simon and P Anderson. COVID-19 Data Collection, Comorbidity & Federal Law: A Historical Retrospective. Science, Public Health Policy & the Law Oct 2020 2:4-22. (Reviewing Editor: James Lyons-Weiler)  Corresponding Author Dr. Ealy,  COVIDResearchTeam@protonmail.com


​Abstract
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on August 23, 2020, “For 6% of the deaths, COVID-19 was the only cause mentioned. For deaths with conditions or causes in addition to COVID-19 , on average, there were 2.6 additional conditions or causes per death.”[1] For a nation tormented by restrictive public health policies mandated for healthy individuals and small businesses, this is the most important statistical revelation of this crisis. This revelation significantly impacts the published fatalities count due to COVID-19. More importantly, it exposes major problems with the process by which the CDC was able to generate inaccurate data during a crisis. The CDC has advocated for social isolation, social distancing, and personal protective equipment use as primary mitigation strategies in response to the COVID-19 crisis, while simultaneously refusing to acknowledge the promise of inexpensive pharmaceutical and natural treatments. These mitigation strategies were promoted largely in response to projection model fatality forecasts that have proven to be substantially inaccurate. Further investigation into the legality of the methods used to create these strategies raised additional concerns and questions. Why would the CDC decide against using a system of data collection and reporting they authored, and which has been in use nationwide for 17 years without incident, in favor of an untested & unproven system exclusively for COVID-19 without discussion and peer-review? Did the CDC’s decision to abandon a known and proven effective system also breach several federal laws that ensure data accuracy and integrity? Did the CDC knowingly alter rules for reporting cause of death in the presence of comorbidity exclusively for COVID-19? If so, why?

ERRATUM: On page 3 of the orginal distribution, a reference to SARS-COV was mistakenly referenced as "SARS-CoV-2".

Copyright:Articles are published under the Creative Commons License ShareAlike