Dear Editor, snake oils, quack doctors, and charlatans. Once upon a time, it was difficult for people to know what was real and what was fake – people got sick or died from fake medicines.
So we developed a health system we trust. An education system to train scientists in the scientific method. Research institutions to make discoveries and answer questions. Peer-reviewed publications. Clinical trials to test new medicines. Authorities (MedSafe, FDA) to ensure the medicines are safe and effective. Schools to train doctors, nurses and professionals to provide high quality healthcare. This system has developed over centuries and is amazing.
this system works on trust. This is the trust you have in your doctors when
they give a medicine you can’t even pronounce. This is the trust we have in
experts because they have studied and worked in their field for decades. This
trust absolves us of analysing mountains of data and learning medicine ourselves.
We sleep easy at night.
year, a Medsafe NZ panel of experts asked a neutral question: “Is it better to
vaccinate or not vaccinate?”. They then analysed all the relevant data, studies
and findings to come to their final recommendation: It is better to be
vaccinated. The New Zealand and Cook Islands governments and health departments
followed this recommendation based on their trust of MedSafe NZ and the
underlying system. I would guess, this recommendation is the culmination of
many millions of man-hours of research and analysis.
fake news, and conspiracy theorists. Today, we find
ourselves in the same position. What is real and what is fake? A number of
people are spreading their biased opinions against vaccinations where they
cherry-pick information to support their opinions and present it as undisputed
truths. This simply does not meet the high standards of scientific research.
Nor does it compare to the massive amount of research and analysis that led to
the MedSafe NZ recommendation. Based on the presentation of their evidence, it
is unlikely these people are experts in the field they are discussing.
What these people are doing is
irresponsible, damaging and dangerous. Don’t listen to these people.
Listen to the experts.
early to draw conclusions
been somewhat following the various positions put forth
regarding vaccinations and particularly that of children, I decided to go
directly to the source.
is taken from the Cominarty Vaccine Insert (purple cap, approved for use in
5-11 year olds) freely available on the FDA website and labelled “media” in
the http address extension. That address is: https://www.fda.gov/media/151707/download
provides the following:
13.1 Carcinogenesis, Mutagenesis, Impairment of Fertility COMIRNATY has not
been evaluated for the potential to cause carcinogenicity, genotoxicity, or
impairment of male fertility. In a developmental toxicity study in rats with
COMIRNATY there were no vaccine-related effects on female fertility”.
inserts which I will leave to your own investigation bluntly stated that the
impacts of Cominarty on male fertility were “unknown”.
of your letter writers stated the following, which was published unedited:
(cominarty) does not change your DNA which is biologically impossible ... It
(cominarty) does not ... alter fertility ... or cause cancer”.
is simply not possible for anyone to draw such conclusions at this stage as it
has not been evaluated. We cannot say that cominarty does impact fertility,
mutagenesis or carcinogenesis but nor can we say that it does not.
simply do not know.
and address supplied)
your correspondent says is strictly true. However, the FDA is always obliged to
err on the side of conservatism and makes similar statements about many widely
used treatments. The weight of evidence to date confirms safety of the vaccine.
What is not in doubt is the lethality of SARS-CoV-2.
Prof John Dunn FRACS
Te Tuhi Kelly on 09/02/2022
One cannot say that the practice of medicine or medical research is based on the scientific method. This is where people get bogged down by quoting such as Malcolm refers to in his opinion piece. Dunn and I have had words to that effect and to back his ontological world view that imperically that may be right but then we use our experience, skills, knowledge etc. As I pointed out that is not the scientific method. The scientific method leaves no room for conjecture, or debate, theory or faith or belief. Imperically the outcome is always 100%, the safety of vaccines is never 100% and hence to say it was arrived at by the scientific method shows a lack of understanding what that actually means. 80%, 90% or even 97% is still not 100% no matter how one spins it that then means that out of a world population of 7 billion some millions will be adversely affected and if your child or parent is one of those affected what then, what do you say to them, do you say the lives of the many outweigh the lives of the few?