As far too many parents know, adverse events from vaccines are routinely hidden away behind glib words, like “coincidence”. Even so, more people are becoming aware, which is the likely reason that the WHO limits vaccine adverse event causation determinations to yes or no. This oversimplification is a means of hiding adverse effects.

by Dr. Paul G. King, Ph.D.

Dr. King’s Thoughts on AEFI (adverse event following inoculation) classification issues for serious adverse events (SAEs) following vaccine inoculation focused on the “new” vaccination program case (e.g., the “new” pentavalent vaccine being “introduced” into Asia):

In general, the designation of an infant’s death following shortly after an inoculation session as “SIDS” is inappropriate absent a complete detailed autopsy that rules out any brain, brain stem or cardiovascular inflammation as well as any and all out-of-control immune-system aberrations.

Thus, in many cases, the “SIDS” label is misused to hide “death by vaccination” especially when high fever, wailing, seizures, convulsions, body rigidity and/or body flaccidity are observed just after vaccination.

As to the true cost-benefit, since only a small percentage of AEFIs are reported to VAERS, the VAERS-reported deaths underestimate the vaccination-associated deaths by a factor of 10 to 100+.

Moreover, in those instances where the vaccine contains a live-virus component, whether the virus is intended to be present or is present as a contaminant, the inoculation infects the inoculee—leading to a greatly reduced reporting of cases of infection that, when they manifest as clinical disease, should be reported but generally are not!

As I have stated previously, the classification of SAEs leading to reported AEFIs should have multiple categories:

1. “caused by”,
2. “probably caused by”,
3. “possibly caused by”,
4. “unclassifiable at present” (because of a lack of critical information),
5. “possibly not caused by”,
6. “probably not caused by” and
7. “proven not caused by”.

When there are only a few AEFIs for a new vaccine, categories “1.” through “3.“ should be considered as “causal” but only category “7.” should be considered as “not causal”—the other categories, “5.” And “6.”, should be considered as “indeterminate” because of the scarcity of AEFIs.

As the number of AEFIs common to a particular vaccine increases, the AEFIs in category “2.” will probably move toward category  ”1.” or stay put while the AEFIs in category “3.” will move toward category “2.” or stay put.  The AEFIs in category “4.” will tend to move into another category as the growing number of AEFIs narrow the information needed to classify a given AEFI properly, and the SAEs in categories “5.” and “6.” may move toward “causal” or “not causal” as the understanding of the pattern(s) of SAEs associated with a given vaccine or vaccine set expands.

In a population of millions, the noise from genetic diversity and other factors (e.g., diet, sanitation, hygiene, housing, war, clothing, availability of adequate amounts of safe food, and availability of clean potable water) preclude any valid black/white classification scheme for AEFIs, such as that being proposed by the WHO, as does the lack of universal availability of in-depth differential diagnostic work-ups on those who are injured and/or detailed microscopic and immunological work-ups on those who die after vaccination or, for that matter, afterother medications and/or medical procedures.

In the scientific world of “cause and effect”, the scientific method initially presumes that, for apparently healthy persons (only those to whom prophylactic vaccines are supposed to be administered), the adverse events that develop after inoculation (AEFIs) are directly or indirectly caused by the inoculation, unless there is proof that the inoculation cannot be a: a) direct causal, b) contributing causal, or c) triggering causal factor for the reported AEFIs following that inoculation.

Thus, finding that the inoculee has some other medical condition that may also be causal does not, as those who are attempting to ignore the scientific method claim, rule out the vaccination as also being a causal factor.  [Note: A recognized example of this is “asbestosis”, where those who smoke are at higher risk, but some non-smokers are diagnosed with “asbestosis”.  In this simplistic example, in the vaccine defenders’ (WHO’s) world, asbestos could not be a causal factor for lung disease unless the person did not smoke—an absurd assumption—one that is as absurd as claiming that a child’s merely having some other medical condition (diagnosis) somehow prevents a vaccination from being a causal factor for the post-inoculation SAE observed.

Paul G. King, PhD,
President, FAME Systems