“They just admitted vaccines are not properly studied—neither pre-licensure nor post-licensure.”

Peloni:  The gross lack of logic supporting this newly proposed study speaks loudly of the inconsistencies which are impossible for the ‘vaccine’ hawks to competently respond.  While they suggest the study is in response to “vaccine hesitency”, the reality is that it is in response to public awareness that old ‘safe and effective’ doesn’t mean what they would like you to think it means.  Still, as Siri correctly notes, this study provides an important opportunity for both sides to field their concerns and have a fair and adequate analysis of both the safety and efficacy behind the medical countermeasures.  Yet, I would argue that this is not what the vaccine advocates are actually advocating.  Instead, as we will no doubt come to see, they will use this opportunity to add to their overwhelming pool of data which is selectively collected to convey a predetermined conclusion of “safe and effective” once more.

Dr. Stanley Plotkin, the world’s leading vaccinologist, and his disciples, have just capitulated. After decades of claiming vaccine safety is robustly studied, they just admitted it is not, neither before nor after licensure. But don’t be fooled – read my stack or this long tweet… pic.twitter.com/FAxYgmy678

— Aaron Siri (@AaronSiriSG) July 10, 2024