Would you say cyanide has “adverse effects?”

Of course not. It’s a poison.

Then why do doctors say a drug or vaccine that kills people has adverse effects?

Why not call it a poison?

Obviously, because that would defeat the whole purpose of the drug: making money.

Here’s something else. The effect of a poison can be analyzed in detail. So can the effect of a drug. Note these similar types of explanations:

Cyanide “binds to the ferric ion (Fe³⁺) in the heme group of cytochrome c oxidase (complex IV) in mitochondria. This enzyme is essential for transferring electrons to oxygen, the final electron acceptor in the ETC, during cellular respiration. Binding of cyanide inhibits this process, blocking oxidative phosphorylation and halting ATP production...”

The medical drug Vioxx “inhibited COX-2 and reduced prostacyclin production without affecting thromboxane, leading to: increased risk of blood clots (thrombosis); hypertension (due to unopposed thromboxane-mediated vasoconstriction); cardiovascular events, such as heart attacks and strokes…”

So why not call Vioxx a poison, instead of saying it had “very serious adverse effects?”

Because calling it a poison would jack up (to the sky) the amount of money paid out by the manufacturer as a result of lawsuits. And the public would realize medical drugs (and vaccines) can be poisons.