Too Little, Too Late, Wrong Science: A Critique of Salmon et al. by James Lyons-Weiler

40 years of failed science is enough. I'm asking Siri, Kennedy and Bigtree to make the right science happen. They can do it.

In their recent publication in the New England Journal of Medicine, Salmon et al. finally acknowledge what many of us have known for years: the so-called comprehensive vaccine safety studies have been woefully inadequate. However, their proposed solution—relying on post-market surveillance—misses the mark entirely in a stunning manner that cannot stem from a lack of self-awareness - and raises more questions than it answers. This critique will expose the fundamental flaws in their approach and underscore the urgent need for long-term, randomized clinical trials.

Historical Context: Decades of Malfeasance and Fraud

For over three decades, the medical establishment, spearheaded by figures like Dr. Stanley Plotkin, has assured the public that vaccines are the most rigorously tested medical products using retrospective studies. Yet, Salmon et al. now concede that prelicensure clinical trials often have "limited sample sizes and follow-up durations" and that there are "no resources earmarked for post-authorization safety studies." This admission not only undermines the credibility of these long-standing claims but also highlights a systemic failure to prioritize safety.

They ignore, however, all of the work done over the years by critics like Brian Hooker, Mark Blaxill, myself, and many, many others that not only demonstrate the fatal flaws in reliance on retrospective studies, but their intentional and therefore criminal abuse in the hands of people working in and for the CDC bent on hiding vaccine risk.

The Mirage of Distorted Retrospective Studies

Retrospective observational studies, the cornerstone of Salmon et al.'s proposed solution, are a poor substitute for robust, prospective research. These studies are rife with potential biases, including selection bias, selective reporting, recall bias, and confounding variables. The findings of such studies are highly dependent on who conducts them, the study design, and adherence to the data analysis plan. Repeated analyses and adjustments for presumed confounders often lead to the convenient disappearance of associations with adverse events via p-hacking.

The Case of Aluminum and Asthma

Consider the association between aluminum exposure from vaccines and persistent asthma, as detected and reported by Daley et al. Despite identifying a positive association, the authors acknowledge the potential for residual confounding and the small effect sizes. This illustrates the inherent limitations of retrospective studies. Moreover, Frank DeStefano’s study on his way out of the CDC linked aluminum to asthma, raising serious questions about the integrity of the surveillance data. Denialists like Paul Offit tried to arm-wave away the result, preventing the next necessary steps, and 1) Finding safe ways to help patients remove aluminum, and 2) Removing aluminum from vaccines.

Ignored Historical Evidence

Before the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) was established in 1986, adverse events like eczema were recognized following vaccinations. Post-1986, it seems there was a collective amnesia within the medical community regarding these associations. Similarly, Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) was first noticed after the swine flu vaccination campaign in 1976. It took 30 years for HHS to put GBS on the table of vaccine injuries. This pattern of intentional lost knowledge is unforgivable. These historical data points should not be ignored or downplayed, yet they have been consistently overlooked in favor of maintaining the vaccination status quo.

The Mechanistic Black Box

One of the most glaring deficiencies in vaccine safety research is the lack of understanding of the biological mechanisms underlying vaccine-related adverse events. Salmon et al. admit this gap, yet they continue to rely on epidemiological data without pushing for mechanistic studies. Yet, in my experience, in reading the literature, these claims result in appeals to ignorance. It is almost certain that knowledge exists that can link vaccines to these conditions; the same authors use argumentation and influence to cast doubt on such studies, or, again, in my experience, they ignore them altogether.

This approach is akin to trying to solve a puzzle with half the pieces missing. Without a thorough understanding of the mechanisms at play, we cannot develop safer vaccines or provide accurate risk assessments. By arguing from ignorance, they reveal their goal.

The Danger of Mandates

The insistence on full-population vaccination mandates, without adequately addressing safety concerns, puts public health and public trust at risk. The denial of potential vaccine risks and the imposition of mandates ignore the very real experiences of vaccine-injured individuals and, of course, studies that have found associations. Found associations via retrospective studies become “mere associations”, and are dismissed. In Popperian terms, the retrospective studies fail to provide a critical test. This approach not only fuels vaccine hesitancy but also undermines the credibility of health authorities. Mandating vaccines without comprehensive safety data is a reckless disregard for individual health and autonomy.

Call for Accountability

It is high time we hold those who have held the keys to databases and conducted sham studies accountable for decades of inadequate safety surveillance and research, as well as for scientific fraud. A prosecutorial investigation into potential scientific fraud at the CDC over the past 40 years is warranted. This investigation should focus on whether there has been success at efforts designed to provide systematic destruction of scientific findings via study manipulation and records destruction, a systematic failure to conduct and report comprehensive safety studies, and whether conflicts of interest have influenced vaccine policy and research. I would also investigate the VSD for data manipulation; the CDC and the vaccine industry have had exclusive control over that dataset far too long.

By exposing these issues and demanding scientific rigor, we can begin to rebuild public trust and ensure that our vaccine policies genuinely serve the best interests of public health. In a sane world, readers would be encouraged to contact their congressional representatives and the Office of Inspector General (OIG) to demand an investigation into these long-standing issues.

A New Approach: Independent, Prospective RCTs

Recognizing the failures of the current system, independents and advocates have long proposed an alternative: a large, prospective randomized controlled trial (RCT) funded by the government. I disagree. Such studies should only be done by independent research institutions funded through grassroots fundraising. These trials would run for four years and match vaccinated and unvaccinated children to avoid confounding variables and isolate the effects of childhood vaccines on chronic health conditions. This rigorous approach is necessary to provide definitive answers about vaccine safety and to restore public trust. I’m calling on well-funded individuals and organizations like those run by my friends Siri, Kennedy, and Bigtree to pull together, perhaps under the Vaccine Safety Foundation, and fund the studies needed.

We’ve built the infrastructure to do it, including independent journals and an independent IRB. Siri, Kennedy, and Bigtree have sufficient limelight to raise the millions needed to conduct these studies. Lawsuits, reporting, and campaigns are priorities, but I will never trust a study conducted by or funded by CDC. Neither should you.

Aaron, Bobby, and Del - Let’s hold a podcast and raise the funds. I’d be happy to participate in the design of the study and design of analysis.

I’ve tried for ten years to raise funds for such studies via IPAK. I’ve done my part for the sake of objectivity and science for the kids. You guys have the public's attention. Use the systems we’ve built to safeguard objective science.

Conclusion: A Demand for Real Science

Salmon et al.'s admissions are too little, too late. Their reliance on flawed retrospective studies and post-market surveillance is inadequate. What we need are long-term, randomized clinical trials that can provide definitive answers about vaccine safety. The public deserves transparency, accountability, and a commitment to rigorous, unbiased research. Anything less is an abdication of our responsibility to protect public health.

References

1. Daley MF, et al. Association Between Aluminum Exposure From Vaccines Before Age 24 Months and Persistent Asthma at Age 24 to 59 Months. Acad Pediatr. 2023;23(1):37-46.

2. DeStefano F, et al. Childhood vaccinations and risk of asthma. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2002;21:498-504.

3. Institute of Medicine. Adverse Effects of Vaccines: Evidence and Causality. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2011.

4. McNeil MM, et al. The Vaccine Safety Datalink: successes and challenges monitoring vaccine safety. Vaccine. 2014;32:5390-5398.

5. Glanz JM, et al. Cumulative and episodic vaccine aluminum exposure in a population-based cohort of young children. Vaccine. 2015;33:6736-6744.

Related