A summary of the evidence against the COVID vaccines

Here is a short list of reasons that everyone should be concerned about the COVID vaccine. This is not an exhaustive list.

  1. Doctors are told to trust the FDA and CDC, but not verify, when prescribing vaccines. All the post-marketing safety data is kept hidden by health authorities so not even doctors can look at the data themselves to find out if any vaccine is safe. Doctors have to trust the authorities. They are essentially told: “trust, do not verify.”

  1. The CDC itself doesn’t have the data to make a post-marketing independent vaccine safety assessment and they are not interested in obtaining the data either! The CDC relies on the FDA who relies on the manufacturer to test the product. The CDC could ask states for vaccination records tied to death records, but they don’t want to even ask because if they did an analysis, it could be discovered in a FOIA request. The CDC basically has no interest whatsoever in verifying what the actual safety data is.
  2. Lack of transparency by health authorities. Not a single health authority anywhere in the world has ever released anonymized record-level patient data for independent researchers to assess the safety of any vaccine. There isn’t any paper in a peer-reviewed journal showing that health outcomes are improved if public health data is kept secret.
  3. Lack of interest in data transparency by the medical community. Can you name a single high-profile pro-vaccine member of the medical community who has called for data transparency of public health data? Time-series cohort analyses can be easily produced by health authorities and published for everyone to see. These would show safety signals and do not jeopardize patient privacy. These are all kept hidden.
  4. We aren’t allowed to see even the simplest of charts. Wouldn’t it be great to define two cohorts on July 1, 2021: COVID vaccinated vs. COVID unvaccinated. Then you simply record the deaths from that point forward and plot them. Why isn’t this being published?
  5. Misinformation is deemed to be a problem, but the people making these statements are unwilling to take any steps to stop the so-called misinformation. These steps include: open public discussion to resolve differences of opinion and making public health data available/public in a way that preserves privacy. For example, HHS (as well as every state health department) should welcome all of us with open arms and invite us to query their databases (such as VSD and Medicare in the case of HHS) and publish whatever we find. Why does this information need to be hidden? The numbers tell the story, not the individual records.
  6. No response from health authorities to reasonable requests. I’ve sent emails to Sarah Caul of the UK ONS on four ways the ONS can increase data transparency. There was no response.
  7. No response when asked to explain damaging evidence. When credible scientists receive government data that shows very troubling safety signals, there is a total unwillingness of any health authority to discuss the matter and resolve it.
  8. The US Medicare data clearly shows mortality increases after people take the jab. Is there any epidemiologist who can explain why deaths rose during a period in time when they should have been falling (per the Medicare death data)?

  1. For the first 120 days after the shots given in March 2021, death rates overall were falling. But if you got the vaccine, your death rates went up. We know from data from other vaccines that the baseline death rate of 81-year olds in Medicare is 3.85%, so the baseline death rate of this group is <800 deaths a day. These deaths climb far above baseline after you took the COVID shot.
  2. The patient-level data released from NZ data confirms that mortality increases after the shots are given despite the fact that most of the shots were given during time periods when deaths were falling

  1. NZ data: Doses 2 and 4 were given while background mortality was falling, dose 3 while rising. So we’d expect the slope to fall in the first 6 months after vaccination. It does the opposite.
  2. Anecdotes such as the one from Jay Bonnar who lost 15 of his DIRECT friends unexpectedly since the shots rolled out. Four of the 15 died on the same day as that vaccine was given. Before the shots rolled out, Jay had lost only one friend unexpectedly. The probability this happened by chance is given by poisson.sf(14, .25) which is 6e-22. So this can’t happen by chance. SOMETHING killed Jay’s friends and 4 of the 15 died on the same day as they were vaccinated. Is there a more plausible explanation for what killed Jay’s friends? All of them who died were vaccinated with the COVID vaccines.
  3. Well done studies like the one done by Denis Rancourt showing 1 death per 800 shots on average. Jay Bonnar estimates he has around 14,000 friends so Jay’s numbers are consistent with Rancourt’s results.
  4. Survey data like Skidmore and Rasmussen Reports showing that hundreds of thousands of Americans have been killed by the COVID shots. There have never been any counter surveys published showing this not to be the case.
  5. The lack of any success stories. It appears that “vaccine success stories” where COVID infection fatality ratios dropped or that myocarditis cases plummeted do not exist. The US Nursing home data shows that the infection fatality rate (IFR) increased after the vaccine rolled out. There is nobody using that data making the claim it reduced the IFR.
  6. Anecdotes from healthcare are extremely troubling. One nurse reported a hospital admission rate that was 3X higher than anything in the 33-year history of the hospital after the COVID vaccines rolled out. Symptoms rarely ever seen were common after vaccines rolled out in that age group.
  7. Lack of autopsies in clinical trials and post-marketing. The CDC doesn’t request anyone to do autopsies even for people who die on the same day as they got the vaccine. Don’t they want to know what killed those people… just to be sure?
  8. Young people dying in sleep. There are way too many cases of young people who die in their sleep after being vaccinated. Doctors say this is a rare event. Now it is much more common. If the shots are safe, why is this happening?
  9. I have direct personal experience with the vaccine: two people I know were killed by the vaccine, none from COVID. I know many people who are vaccine injured from the COVID vaccine.
  10. Ed Dowd’s book statistics. This very popular book (“Cause Unknown”) listed 500 who died unexpectedly. Ed didn’t know how many were unvaccinated. Only one person has come forward saying that one of the people in the book who died after the vaccines rolled out was unvaccinated.
  11. Prominent doctor/scientists switching sides. Paul Marik is one of the top intensivists in the world. After seeing many COVID vaccine injured patients, he changed his mind about the safety of vaccines. When he was not allowed to practice medicine consistent with his Hippocratic Oath, he resigned his position.
  12. The corruption with COVID protocols. The COVID hospital protocols likely caused 90% of the COVID deaths in hospitals. This led to Paul Marik resigning. See details in this article. Why are doctors forced to use hospital protocols that kill a huge percentage of patients instead of using their best judgment to save patients?
  13. This JAMA paper shows that COVID and influenza vaccines don’t work. Why are we pushing a vaccine where the statistics clearly show the vaccines don’t work?
  14. The consistency of the data. There have been no counter-anecdotes showing the vaccines are safe. I keep looking for one and come up empty.
  15. No debates with anyone prominent promoting the government narrative. Those who promote the narrative refuse to engage in any scientific discussions to resolve differences of opinion. This is similar to the question of whether vaccines cause autism: nobody who thinks it doesn’t is willing to engage in a public discussion about it to discuss the evidence. Why not resolve the issue through dialog? It isn’t resolved in the peer-review literature where half the papers say vaccines cause autism and the other half don’t. Why can’t we talk about it?
  16. Fear and intimidation tactics are used to silence dissent. Open debate would be more productive. But people are not allowed to hold or discuss views that go against the “consensus” or they will lose their jobs, their certifications, or their medical licenses. Health care workers are told they will be fired if they report an adverse event to VAERS, there are nurses who won’t talk about anaphylaxis after getting the vaccine for fear of being fired, vaccine injuries are covered up, hospital workers are afraid to talk about it at work.
  17. The cognitive dissonance is very disturbing. When healthcare workers bring up the topic of mortality and morbidity due to the vaccine, their peers say nothing and walk away.
  18. Censorship tactics employed by the US government to silence dissent instead of public recorded open debates. History has shown that purveyors of censorship are always on the wrong side of the issue.

https://t.me/LauraAbolichannel/53331

A summary of the evidence against the COVID vaccines

Here's a quick summary of the key pieces of evidence that taken together show that the COVID vaccines are unsafe and that the medical community should not be trusted.

What is evidence-based practice?

Here is a short list of reasons that everyone should be concerned about the COVID vaccine. This is not an exhaustive list.

  1. Doctors are told to trust the FDA and CDC when prescribing vaccines. All the post-marketing safety data is kept hidden by health authorities so not even doctors can look at the data themselves to find out if any vaccine is safe. Doctors thus have no choice but to trust the authorities since the data is kept secret. They are essentially told: “do what we tell you to do, do not question authority or we will take away your license.”
    Zero Trust “Don't trust any, but verify, every time all the time.”
  2. The CDC itself doesn’t have the data to make a post-marketing independent vaccine safety assessment and they are not interested in obtaining the data either! The CDC relies on the FDA who relies on the manufacturer to test the product. The CDC could ask states for vaccination records tied to death records, but they don’t want to even ask because if they did a safety analysis, it could be discovered in a FOIA request. The CDC basically has no interest whatsoever in verifying what the actual safety data is. When I offered to show them the NZ data before I published it (so they would finally have record level data), they declined to look at it.
  3. Lack of transparency by health authorities. Not a single health authority anywhere in the world has ever released anonymized record-level patient data for independent researchers to assess the safety of any vaccine. There isn’t any paper in a peer-reviewed journal showing that health outcomes are improved if public health data is kept secret.
  4. Lack of interest in data transparency by the medical community. Can you name a single high-profile pro-vaccine member of the medical community who has called for data transparency of public health data? Time-series cohort analyses can be easily produced by health authorities and published for everyone to see. These would show safety signals and do not jeopardize patient privacy. These are always kept hidden. The lone exception is the UK ONS, but they made their “buckets” so large that you cannot see the impact of the vaccine. When I asked them to redo their analysis with smaller buckets, they stopped responding to me.
  5. We aren’t allowed to see even the simplest of charts. Wouldn’t it be great to define two cohorts on July 1, 2021: COVID vaccinated vs. COVID unvaccinated. Then you simply record the deaths from that point forward and plot them. Why isn’t this being published?
  6. Misinformation is deemed to be a problem, but the people making these statements are unwilling to take any steps to stop the so-called misinformation. These steps include: open public discussion to resolve differences of opinion and making public health data available/public in a way that preserves privacy. For example, HHS (as well as every state health department) should welcome all of us with open arms and invite us to query their databases (such as VSD and Medicare in the case of HHS) and publish whatever we find. Why does this information need to be hidden? The numbers tell the story, not the individual records.
  7. No response from health authorities to reasonable requests. I’ve sent emails to Sarah Caul of the UK ONS on four ways the ONS can increase data transparency. There was no response.
  8. No response when asked to explain damaging evidence. When credible scientists receive government data that shows very troubling safety signals, there is a total unwillingness of any health authority to discuss the matter and resolve it.
  9. The US Medicare data clearly shows mortality increases after people take the jab. Is there any epidemiologist who can explain why deaths rose during a period in time when they should have been falling (per the Medicare death data)?
    For the first 120 days after the shots given in March 2021, death rates overall were falling. But death rates went up for those who got the shot. We know from data from other vaccines that the baseline death rate of 81-year-olds in Medicare is 3.85%, so the baseline death rate of this group is <800 deaths a day. These deaths climb far above baseline after you took the COVID shot.
  10. The patient-level data released from NZ data confirms that mortality increases after the shots are given despite the fact that most of the shots were given during time periods when deaths were falling. Nobody’s been able to explain that.
    NZ data: Doses 2 and 4 were given while background mortality was falling, dose 3 while rising. So we’d expect the slope to fall in the first 6 months after vaccination. It does the opposite.
  11. Anecdotes such as the one from Jay Bonnar who lost 15 of his DIRECT friends unexpectedly since the shots rolled out. Four of the 15 died on the same day as that vaccine was given. Before the shots rolled out, Jay had lost only one friend unexpectedly. The probability this happened by chance is given by poisson.sf(14, .25) which is 5.6e-22. So this can’t happen by chance. SOMETHING killed Jay’s friends and 4 of the 15 died on the same day as they were vaccinated. Is there a more plausible explanation for what killed Jay’s friends? All of them who died were vaccinated with the COVID vaccines.
  12. Well done studies like the one done by Denis Rancourt showing 1 death per 800 shots on average. Jay Bonnar estimates he has around 14,000 friends so Jay Bonnar’s numbers are consistent with Rancourt’s results.
  13. Survey data like Skidmore and Rasmussen Reports showing that hundreds of thousands of Americans have been killed by the COVID shots. There have never been any counter surveys published showing this not to be the case. The Rasmussen polls have shown that a comparable number of people have been killed by the shots as by the virus (and the treatment protocols for the virus).
  14. The lack of any success stories. It appears that “vaccine success stories” where COVID infection fatality ratios dropped or that myocarditis cases plummeted after the vaccines rolled out do not exist. The US Nursing home data shows that the infection fatality rate (IFR) increased after the vaccine rolled out. There is nobody using that data making the claim it reduced the IFR. At best, the vaccines did absolutely nothing. If you showed someone a graph of cases and deaths, nobody would be able to tell you when the vaccines rolled out. Conversely, after the shots rolled out, the “failure stories” skyrocketed.
  15. Anecdotes from healthcare are extremely troubling. One nurse reported a hospital admission rate that was 3X higher than anything in the 33-year history of the hospital after the COVID vaccines rolled out. Symptoms rarely ever seen were common after vaccines rolled out in that age group.
  16. Lack of autopsies in clinical trials and post-marketing. The CDC doesn’t request anyone to do autopsies even for people who die on the same day as they got the vaccine. Don’t they want to know what killed those people… just to be sure?
  17. Young people dying in sleep. There are way too many cases of young people who die in their sleep after being vaccinated. Doctors say this is a rare event. Now it is much more common. If the shots are safe, why is this happening?
  18. I have direct personal experience with the vaccine: two people I know were killed by the vaccine, none from COVID. I know many people who are vaccine injured from the COVID vaccine.
  19. Corruption in the VAERS system used to track adverse events. See this presentation by Albert Albert Benavides. In addition, the v-safe system showed that 8% of the people who got the vaccine had to see medical attention (which is in itself a train wreck), but the CDC refused to voluntarily disclose this important information and even today they don’t talk about it.
  20. The CDC covered up 770 safety signals. They didn’t tell the public about them at all. Not even hinting at them. A safety signal is very serious. To get one safety signal would be concerning. But to get 770 safety signals triggered (on 770 different adverse event types) and then not say anything to the public about it is a sure sign of a very corrupt public agency whose job is to protect the manufacturers, not the public.
  21. Ed Dowd’s book statistics. This very popular book (“Cause Unknown”) listed 500 who died unexpectedly. Ed didn’t know how many were unvaccinated. Only one person has come forward saying that one of the people in the book who died after the vaccines rolled out was unvaccinated.
  22. Prominent doctor/scientists switching sides. Paul Marik is one of the top intensivists in the world. After seeing many COVID vaccine injured patients, he changed his mind about the safety of vaccines. When he was not allowed to practice medicine consistent with his Hippocratic Oath, he resigned his position.
  23. The corruption with COVID protocols. The COVID hospital protocols likely caused 90% of the COVID deaths in hospitals. This led to Paul Marik resigning. See details in this article. Why are doctors forced to use hospital protocols that kill a huge percentage of patients instead of using their best judgment to save patients?
  24. This JAMA paper shows that COVID and influenza vaccines don’t work. Why are we pushing a vaccine where the statistics clearly show the vaccines don’t work?
  25. The consistency of the data. There have been no counter-anecdotes showing the vaccines are safe. I keep looking for one and come up empty.
  26. No debates with anyone prominent promoting the government narrative. Those who promote the narrative refuse to engage in any scientific discussions to resolve differences of opinion. This is similar to the question of whether vaccines cause autism: nobody who thinks it doesn’t is willing to engage in a public discussion about it to discuss the evidence. Why not resolve the issue through dialog? It isn’t resolved in the peer-review literature where half the papers say vaccines cause autism and the other half don’t. Why can’t we talk about it?
  27. Fear and intimidation tactics are used to silence dissent. Open debate would be more productive. But people are not allowed to hold or discuss views that go against the “consensus” or they will lose their jobs, their certifications, or their medical licenses. Health care workers are told they will be fired if they report an adverse event to VAERS, there are nurses who won’t talk about anaphylaxis after getting the vaccine for fear of being fired, vaccine injuries are covered up, hospital workers are afraid to talk about it at work.
  28. The cognitive dissonance is very disturbing. When healthcare workers bring up the topic of mortality and morbidity due to the vaccine, their peers say nothing and walk away.
  29. Censorship tactics employed by the US government to silence dissent instead of public recorded open debates. History has shown that purveyors of censorship are always on the wrong side of the issue.
    Liberty Justice Center Wins Battle for Doctors' First Amendment Rights as California Repeals Physician Censorship Law - Liberty Justice Center
  30. We have stopping condition. The Schwab paper showed people are being killed by the vaccine. The paper established that the rate of deaths was sufficient to halt the vaccine as unsafe. Nobody paid attention. The stopping condition is one death per million doses. So if you give 750M doses, you should have fewer than 750 deaths. The Schwab paper estimated that 14% of the people who died within 20 days of vaccination were killed by the vaccine. 14% of 137,000 people is 19,000 people which is more than 750 people.
  31. Highly respected scientists are calling for a halt to the vaccine. Peter McCullough has called for an end to the COVID shots, yet it falls on deaf ears. Peter McCullough and European Parliament 14 SEPT 23. Dr. Peter McCullough Calls For Complete Stop To All COVID Injections - Not Safe For Human Use: “I submit to you the COVID-19 vaccines and all of their progeny & future boosters are not safe for human use.”
https://open.substack.com/pub/stevekirsch/p/a-summary-of-the-evidence-against?r=yozac&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email
https://t.me/LauraAbolichannel/49988
https://t.me/LauraAbolichannel/49987
The Unexpected Battle Between Vaccines and the COVID VirusHumans appear to be fighting a never-ending battle against COVID-19 using vaccines that have so far been ineffective against the constantly mutating variants.By Yuhong Dong11/6/2023Since the unprecedented COVID-19 global pandemic that started in January 2020, humans have been in a constant battle with the SARS-CoV-2 virus.A series of vaccine versions have been developed and administered globally, beginning in January 2021 when an mRNA vaccine based on the original Wuhan strain was implemented. Subsequently, a bivalent mRNA vaccine was developed based on the Omicron offspring. Currently, the most updated version is based on XBB.1.5 and is ready to be injected into people's arms.Bivalent vaccines contain two different components. One component is to protect us against the original viral strain, while the other targets the most recent variants.The vaccine is based on the gene code of a known virus, whereas the lead time for vaccine development normally takes an average of 10 years. Even with the current "green-light" policies for COVID-19 vaccines, it takes almost one year for the first generation to launch and a couple of months for the second and third generations.However, due to the basic survival skills of SARS-CoV-2, the virus is always mutating in order to escape from a vaccine. Even before a vaccine is ready to launch, there are always a few mutants that have already found a way to escape from the antibodies induced by the sluggish vaccine, creating the next wave.Regardless, the unprecedented speed of vaccine development won't be able to compete with the speed of viral mutation, as the virus is always taking the lead and will be one step ahead of the vaccine.

This is why even the top scientists cannot predict how the virus will mutate and when the next wave will occur.

SARS-CoV-2 Variants

From 2020 to early 2021, a number of major SARS-CoV-2 variants have appeared: Alpha (B.1.1.7), Beta (B.1.351), Gamma(P.1), and Delta (B.1.617.2).

Not including those old variants, once Omicron (B.1.1.529) was first reported in South Africa in November 2021, it quickly evolved into a few sister lineages: BA.1, BA.2, BA.4, BA.5XBB.1.5EG.5, and HV.1, which each took the stage, one after the other within an interval of a couple of months.

  • BA.1 and BA.2: first detected in February 2022.
  • BA.4 and BA.5: first detected in May 2022.
  • XBB.1.5 (Kraken): an offspring of two BA.2 sublineages first detected in October 2022.
  • BA.2.86 (Pirola): first detected in 2023 and is currently being monitored.
  • EG.5 (Eris): first detected in Feb 2023, peaked in October, and is now declining.
  • HV.1: first detected in July 2023, has taken the lead in the United States at the end of October 2023.

The fierce battle between the virus and human technology has become a marathon. With each generation of vaccine development, who were the winners?

First Generation Vaccine: Delta Emerged, Creating Global Havoc

In January 2021, the original mRNA monovalent vaccines developed by Pfizer and Moderna and based on the old Wuhan strain were launched at a rocket-like speed.

In June 2021, when more than 50 percent of the U.S. population had received two doses of these vaccines, the stage was set for various mutants to take over, including the well-known alpha and delta variants.

A key mutation in spike protein called N501Y, which can escape from vaccine protection, was discovered in alpha. It was also found in two other major variants prevalent during that time and significantly increased in the rate at which it spread.

Shortly thereafter, Delta (B.1.617.2) emerged and presented even more enhanced transmissibility and vaccine escape ability with its intriguing spike protein double mutations of L452R and E484Q, refreshing the viral spreading and escaping records. It was designated as a "variant of concern" by the World Health Organization (WHO) on May 11, 2021.

These double mutations in the spike protein cause the vaccine-induced antibodies to significantly lose their ability to bind to delta, resulting in immunological evasion and causing major global havoc.

The increased binding affinity caused by delta makes it much easier to replicate in human cells. It was reported that patients infected with delta had a viral load 1000 times greater than patients with the original strain. It's also been able to spread twice as fast as the original SARS-CoV-2 virus.

In July 2021, preliminary data from Israel showed that Pfizer's vaccine efficacy was significantly reduced at five and six months after vaccination to 44 percent and 16 percent, respectively.

In a July 2021 outbreak in Massachusetts, 74 percent of breakthrough infections occurred in fully vaccinated persons, and the delta variant was detected in 90 percent of them.

The first round of the battle between the vaccine and the virus concluded with an overwhelming vaccine failure when the first generation of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine met the unexpected delta variant.

Vaccine Versus Virus: The First Battle Round

Vaccine: Monovalent.

Result: The vaccine failed.

Time lapsed: Seven months from the first monovalent vaccine launched in January 2021 until the dominant delta wave in July 2021 in the United States.

Since then, a concern regarding the vaccine strategy of generating vaccine escape variants has been raised by scientists, including researchers from Michigan State University.

Second Generation Vaccine: XBB.1.5 Won

People continued to witness the declining effects of the original vaccine against delta, even after boosters were widely administered. The government continually stressed that the original vaccines had sufficient efficacy, one time after another.

Almost all of Omicron and its subvariants have developed specific mutations that have made them spread more quickly while evading our immune response. It has been clearly defined as an immune escape strain according to this Nature review.

A surprising virus, Omicron (B.1.1.529) surged more quickly than any previous strain and completely took over by April 2022. This emergence of hypermutated, increasingly transmissible Omicron variant significantly threatened the vaccine strategy.

It harbors multiple amino acid mutations in the spike (including Q498R and N501Y), which significantly enhance binding to the ACE2 receptor. It has also altered the cell entry pathway which further contributes to its ability to escape from vaccine protection.

In mid-2022, BA.4 and BA.5 lineages of Omicron were the dominant COVID-19 variants in the United States and were predicted to circulate in the second half of 2022.

Thus, Pfizer and Moderna quickly took the initiative to develop bivalent boosters based on the original strain from Wuhan and Omicron BA.4 and BA.5. They made it within another miraculously short time frame of just a few months.

On August 31, 2022, the FDA approved the bivalent booster shots of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines designed to target the Omicron subvariants BA.4 and BA.5, with Pfizer only providing the data on eight mice.

However, Omicron keeps quickly changing, splitting into even more diversified subgroups. Soon after the new bivalent vaccine was distributed, BA.4 and BA.5 became history.

A new variant XBB.1.5 began appearing in October 2022 and reached its peak in April 2023. It combines two descendent lineages (BA.2.10.1 and BA.2.75) of Omicron. The featured new spike protein mutation (F486P) leads to increased transmissibility and significant escape from the vaccine.

Not surprisingly, the antibody levels to XBB.1.5 in bivalent mRNA-boosted individuals declined significantly to pre-booster levels after only three months. The bivalent booster vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19-associated hospitalization declined to as low as 24 percent at six months post-vaccination, according to CDC data collected from September 2022 to April 2023.

The second round ended when the second generation bivalent mRNA vaccine encountered the XBB.1.5 starting in April 2023.

Vaccine Versus Virus: The Second Battle Round

Vaccine: Bivalent mRNA.

Result: The vaccine failed.

Time lapsed: Five months after the bivalent booster vaccine launched in September 2022 and was utilized until the U.S. dominant wave of XBB.1.5 in January 2023 emerged.

Vaccine Races with SARS-CoV-2 Variants (The Epoch Times)

Third Generation Vaccine: Doomed to Fail

As of September 2023, the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna mRNA vaccines have been reformulated—for the third time—this time based on XBB.1.5, which is the great-grandchild of Omicron. This latest booster recommendation applies to all individuals, regardless of previous COVID-19 vaccination history.

However, one month before the 3.0 vaccine was approved, the dominant virus had already changed from XBB.1.5 to EG.5—the "Eris" variant, which spreads faster and has a stronger ability to escape from the XBB.1.5 vaccine.

Vaccine Versus Virus: The Third Battle Round

Vaccine: XBB.1.5 mRNA.

Result: Vaccine doomed to fail.

Time lapsed: Less than one month from the XBB.1.5 booster vaccine launch in October 2023 to the U.S. dominant wave of vaccine escape by EG.5 or other cousin variants in October 2023.

Omicron continues to change from XBB to JN, HK.3, EG.5, and  HV.1—all belonging to the huge and diversified Omicron family.

EG.5, carrying an additional F456L mutation, is significantly more resistant to neutralization by the sera from vaccinated people. That means even the most recent version of the COVID-19 vaccine based on XBB.1.5 is going to lose its protection with EG.5. Since the risk of breakthrough infection remains high, the WHO listed EG.5 as a "variant of concern" in early August.

While HV.1 shares almost all spike mutations that EG.5 carries, it took on a surprising additional mutation (L452R) from a remote ancestor delta variant in 2011, which had normally disappeared in the omicron variant. HV.1 can further escape the XBB.1.5-based vaccine-induced immunity and is even more evasive than EG.5.

The same detour trick of HV.1 is also used by JN.1 coming on the scene in August 2023. It gains an additional L455S mutation, switching from the XBB sublineage to BA.2.86 (Pirola).

The HK.3 virus has played a novel trick. It has two mutations in the adjacent spike 455 and 456 positions (L455F and F456L), thus called a "FLip." Together, this virus binds even more tightly to ACE2 and is taking off slowly in Brazil and Spain.

Both HK.3 (FLip) and JN.1 present even lower binding affinities, meaning the vaccine is even less effective than the current version, raising further concerns over vaccine strategy.

All these new variants are a direct result of the so-called vaccine-escaped viral mutations.

Despite the extraordinary speed of vaccine development against COVID-19 and the continued mass vaccination program, the never-ending emergence of new SARS-CoV-2 variants threatens to significantly overturn the vaccine's intended effects.

This is a tiring battle between vaccines and the virus. The winners and losers are clear. The microscopic tricks utilized by the SARS-CoV-2 virus variants are far superior to the vaccines' unproven technology.

Alerts have been raised and major concerns have been discussed by scientists as early as 2021 in top-ranked journals including The Lancet and Nature in addition to Nature ReviewseBioMedicine (part of The Lancet Discovery Science), and other publications through 2023.

The common view is that the pressure exerted on viruses from repeated vaccination programs serves as a primary driver of the diversified variants of SARS-CoV-2.

If humans continue to develop vaccines based on these emerging new variants, there will continue to be repeated failures. How many more failures will it take to realize that all of these vaccine efforts have been in vain?

It is a time for rational deliberation to pause to reflect on finding the root cause of the viral infection.

We already have a dynamic shield of protection against serious viral attacks—our natural immunity. Only by facing our own innate immunity will the virus find its tricks useless.

child deaths after vaccines
COVID Vaccines Causally Linked to Increased Mortality, Resulting in 17 Million Deaths: Scientific ReportData suggest COVID-19 vaccines haven’t saved lives, but instead, have resulted in 17 million deaths and increased all-cause mortality in 17 countries.By Megan Redshaw9/28/2023A new scientific report challenges the idea that COVID-19 vaccines have prevented deaths after researchers assessed all-cause mortality in 17 countries and found COVID-19 vaccines did not have any beneficial effect on reducing mortality. Instead, researchers found that unprecedented peaks in high all-cause mortality in each country—especially among the elderly population when COVID-19 vaccines were deployed—coincided with the rollout of third and fourth booster doses.The report published Sept. 17 by Correlation Research in the Public Interest (pdf) quantified the vaccine-dose fatality rate (vDFR) for all ages—which is the ratio of inferred vaccine-induced deaths to vaccine doses delivered in a given population. After analyzing mortality data, the researchers calculated a mean all-ages fatal toxicity by injection of vDFR of one death per 800 injections across all ages and countries. This equates to 17 million COVID-19 vaccine-related deaths worldwide from 13.25 billion injections as of Sept. 2, 2023."This would correspond to a mass iatrogenic event that killed (0.213 ± 0.006) % of the world population (1 death per 470 living persons, in less than 3 years), and did not measurably prevent any deaths," the authors said. The overall risk of death induced by COVID-19 vaccines is 1,000 times greater than previously reported in data from clinical trials, adverse event monitoring, and cause-of-death statistics obtained from death certificates.All-cause mortality is the death rate from all causes of death for a population in a specific time period. This is the most reliable data for detecting and epidemiologically characterizing events driving death and for measuring the population-level impact of any surge or collapse in deaths from any cause."All-cause mortality is a good feature to use in statistical medical analyses since there is no ambiguity in whether someone has died or not," Stephanie Seneff, a senior research scientist at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), told The Epoch Times in an email. "It is highly disturbing that these authors have found a consistent trend among seventeen countries showing a significant increase in all-cause mortality coinciding with extensive COVID vaccine rollout. Their estimate of one death for every 800 injections globally is alarming."Ms. Seneff said her investigations into potential mechanisms of vaccine injury have led her to believe that it is plausible that these injections are "extremely toxic" and should not have been approved by regulatory agencies.Key FindingsThe researchers conducted an analysis of all-cause mortality using data from the World Mortality Dataset for 17 equatorial and Southern Hemisphere countries, including Argentina, Australia, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Malaysia, New Zealand, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Singapore, South Africa, Suriname, Thailand, and Uruguay. Equatorial countries have no summer and winter seasons, so there are no seasonal variations in their all-cause mortality patterns.These countries comprise 9.1 percent of the global population and 10.3 percent of worldwide COVID-19 injections—with a vaccination rate of 1.91 injections per person of all ages—and include nearly every COVID-19 vaccine product and manufacturer across four continents.

Key findings from the 180-page report include:

  • In all countries included in the analysis, all-cause mortality increased when COVID-19 vaccines were deployed.
  • Nine of 17 countries had no detectable excess deaths following the World Health Organization’s March 11, 2020, declaration and the beginning of the COVID-19 vaccination campaign.
  • Unprecedented peaks in all-cause mortality were observed in January and February 2022, during the summer season of Southern Hemisphere countries coinciding with or following the rollout of boosters in 15 of 17 countries studied.
  • Excess all-cause mortality during the vaccination period beginning January 2021 was 1.74 million deaths, or one death per 800 injections, in the 17 countries studied.
  • The vDFR increased exponentially with age, reaching almost 5 percent among those 90 years and older who received a fourth vaccine dose.

"There is no evidence in the hard data of all-cause mortality of a beneficial effect from the COVID-19 vaccine rollouts. No lives were saved,” Denis Rancourt, co-director of Correlation Research in the Public Interest with a doctorate in physics, told The Epoch Times in an email. “On the contrary, the evidence can be understood in terms of being subjected to a toxic substance. The risk of death per injection increases exponentially with age. The policy of prioritizing the elderly for injection must be ended immediately.”

Peaks in All-Cause Mortality Coincide with Booster Doses

Using mortality and vaccination data from Chile and Peru by age and dose number, researchers observed clear peaks in all-cause mortality in July through August 2021, January through February 2022, and July through August 2022 among elderly age groups. The increase in all-cause mortality observed in January and February 2022 in both countries coincided with the rapid rollout of Chile’s fourth COVID-19 vaccine dose and Peru’s third dose.

It is unlikely that the rise in all-cause mortality coinciding with the rollout and sustained administration of COVID-19 vaccines in all 17 countries could be due to any cause other than the vaccines, researchers said.

In Chile and Peru, the vDFR increased exponentially with age and was most significant for the most recent booster doses, resulting in one death per 20 injections of vaccine dose for in those over age 90. This pattern was similar to data the same researchers collected in Australia.

“Synchronicity between the many peaks in ACM (in 17 countries, on 4 continents, in all elderly age groups, at different times) and associated rapid booster rollouts allows this firm conclusion regarding causality and accurate quantification of COVID-19-vaccine toxicity,” the researchers wrote.

Results in other countries mirrored what was observed in Chile and Peru in every case where age-stratified mortality and age-stratified dose-specific vaccination data were available. In 15 countries with sufficient mortality data, an unprecedented surge in all-age all-cause mortality during or near January and February 2022 coincided with or was immediately preceded by a rapid rollout of booster doses three or four depending on the country and the continued administration of non-booster doses.

Researchers Found No Evidence COVID-19 Vaccines Improved Mortality

The researchers said their findings are conclusive, and the associations observed are numerous and systematic. They could not find a single counter-example showing COVID-19 vaccines improved all-cause mortality.

“If vaccines prevented transmission, infection or serious illness, then there should be decreases in mortality following vaccine rollouts, not increases, as in every observed elderly age group subjected to rapid booster rollouts. And, mortality would not increase solely when vaccines are rolled out, where no excess mortality occurs before vaccine rollouts, as we have documented here, in nine countries across three continents,” researchers concluded.

According to the report, data from numerous countries such as India, Australia, Canada, Israel, and the United States show a similar phenomenon—abnormal peaks in all-cause mortality coinciding with booster rollouts. In the United States, deaths were prominent in the 25 to 64 age group in 21 states, coinciding with a “rapid surge” in vaccines given during the “vaccine equity” campaigns launched by regulatory agencies. Researchers estimated the United States experienced roughly 160,000 excess deaths during a period where more than 60 million COVID-19 vaccine doses were administered.

mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines Should Be Labeled Gene Therapy Products: Peer-Reviewed PaperMegan Redshaw, J.D.Jun 30 2023Now that the pandemic has ended, researchers are urging regulatory agencies to consider the safety issues associated with the rapid approval of COVID-19 vaccines—and to correctly classify messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines as gene therapy products (GTPs) to prevent pharmaceutical companies from bypassing regulatory standards.According to a paper published in Nature on June 22, COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, by mode and action, are gene therapy products and should adhere to different regulatory standards. Yet U.S. and European regulatory agencies have not classified COVID-19 mRNA vaccines as gene therapy products, which has allowed them to be regulated as vaccines against infectious diseases instead of being subjected to the more stringent regulation of GTPs.Because current regulatory guidelines either do not apply, do not mention RNA therapeutics, or do not have a widely accepted definition for these products, regulatory agencies adopted a modified and accelerated approval process for COVID-19 vaccines in the form of a “rolling review.”A rolling review is a regulatory tool typically used during a public health emergency to speed up the assessment of data for medicines or vaccines. It allows data to be reviewed as it becomes available—without the complete data package or specific controls.This process led to broad and continuous biodistribution of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines that were not thoroughly studied and yielded tests with noncompliant results regarding purity, quality, and batch homogeneity. Manufacturers are now planning to replace classic vaccines with mRNA vaccines using the same process—starting with influenza vaccines.Vaccines With mRNA Technology Are Gene TherapiesThe Centers for Disease Control and Prevention currently defines a “vaccine” as a preparation used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases. However, the agency’s definition was changed in 2021 out of concern it didn’t apply to COVID-19 vaccines.A vaccine must contain an antigen to trigger the body’s natural immune response. Pfizer and Moderna’s mRNA vaccines do not contain antigens. The active substance used to elicit an immune response in these vaccines is the mRNA—a form of nucleic acid and the genetic material of the SARS-CoV-2 virus that provides instructions to the body for producing antigens—spike proteins.In other words, the mRNA is not the substance causing active immunization. Instead, the mRNA must be translated into protein by the cells of the person vaccinated, and that person’s immune system must produce its own antigens to trigger an immune response.The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) states that gene therapy seeks to “modify or manipulate the expression of a gene or to alter the biological properties of living cells for therapeutic use.” Moderna’s Q2 2020 filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission acknowledged that mRNA is “considered a gene therapy product by the FDA.” In addition, BioNTech founder Ugur Sahin, in a 2014 article stated, “One would expect the classification of an mRNA drug to be a biologic, gene therapy, or somatic cell therapy.”

According to the FDA, mRNA vaccines are comparable to the TypeIA of prodrugs—substances that, after administration, are converted in the body into pharmacologically active drugs.

This “prodrug property” could suggest that additional controls should be applied in addition to those required for vaccines. However, neither the FDA nor the European Medicines Agency (EMA) have referenced these qualifications for mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.

“With a conventional vaccine, you have the antigen, and you inject it into a person, and that is the thing that your immune system looks at and says, ‘ah ha,’ we need to make antibodies, T-cells, and other immune system components to what’s being injected,” said Dr. David Wiseman, a research scientist with a background in pharmacy, pharmacology, and experimental pathology, in an interview with The Epoch Times.

“The prime reaction of an mRNA vaccine is that it instructs the body how to make the antigen of interest. So, it’s similar to a prodrug, which is converted inside the body via metabolism and enzymes into the desired drug effect. The substance you’re injecting isn’t doing the final action; it leads to the thing that does the final action. With a prodrug, the molecule you inject does not get changed into the final molecule of the antigen, it simply provides instructions because it’s gene therapy.”

Wiseman said the FDA and EMA guidance and regulations that discuss gene therapy all define gene therapies “more or less” the same way. However, a number of years ago, the FDA decided to exclude vaccines for infectious diseases from its various guidance for unknown reasons, including vaccines made from gene therapy technology. Vaccines, in essence, were given their “own set of rules.”

However, the FDA can “change or exclude whatever they want from regulatory guidance, but it doesn’t change the biologic definition of the product,” said Wiseman. “Since Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines meet the definition of gene therapy, they should be handled according to gene therapy guidelines.”

mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines Bypassed Essential Studies

According to the paper, because mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were not classified as gene therapy, necessary tests required for GTPs were not performed for the following:

  • Genotoxicity.
  • Genome integration.
  • Germ-line transmission.
  • Insertional mutagenesis.
  • Tumorigenicity.
  • Embryo/fetal and perinatal toxicity.
  • Long-term expression.
  • Repeated toxicity.
  • Excretion in the environment, such as shedding through seminal fluid or breast milk.

“The long-term safety monitoring of GTPs is required over several years whereas, for vaccines, it is generally only carried out over a few weeks,” wrote Dr. Helene Banoun with the French Institute of Health and Medical Research in the paper. “This should not be acceptable, given the persistence of the drug product and the expressed protein.”

In addition, known results of anti-cancer therapies that use gene therapy technology and mRNA vaccines could lead us to anticipate safety and efficacy problems, she added.

In the EU, gene therapy medicinal products are required to undergo “tests or trials to evaluate the risk of genome integration and germ-line transmission, even if this integration is unlikely,” and tests and clinical trials to evaluate the risk of “insertional mutagenesis, tumorigenicity, embryo/fetal and perinatal toxicity, and long-term expression.”

EMA requires “extensive studies on both the nucleic acid and the vector particle/delivery system that includes biodistribution, dose study, potential target toxicity, the identification of the target organ to obtain biological activity, toxicity linked to the expression of structurally altered proteins.”

It is necessary to insist pharmacokinetic studies be performed to determine how the body interacts with the administered substance during the entire duration of exposure—even though they are generally not required for vaccines unless there’s a new formulation or a vaccine contains novel adjuvants or excipients (inactive substances such as preservatives).

For GTPs, shedding studies are also needed to determine excretion and dissemination in the body, and biodistribution studies are needed to assess where injected compounds—such as lipid nanoparticles, the delivery system used to deliver mRNA—travel in the body and which tissues or organs they accumulate in.

After assessing Pfizer and Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine documents obtained by attorney Aaron Siri through the Freedom of Information Act, Wiseman noted many studies listed in nonclinical summaries that should have been performed but were not.

“Several studies should have been done but weren’t done because they fell under the auspices of vaccines. But if you read the guidelines, it doesn’t say these studies are unnecessary, just that circumstances may deem them unnecessary,” Wiseman said. “We need laws for products that say you can’t just exclude them from regulations because you feel like it—because they are still gene therapies,” he said.”We are hijacking the machines of our bodies to produce spike proteins in an uncontrolled, undefined way—there are too many things we don’t know about.”

Repeated COVID-19 Vaccination Weakens Immune System: StudyZachary Stieber, ReporterJun 1 2023Repeated COVID-19 vaccination weakens the immune system, potentially making people susceptible to life-threatening conditions such as cancer, according to a new study.Multiple doses of the Pfizer or Moderna COVID-19 vaccines lead to higher levels of antibodies called IgG4, which can provide a protective effect. But a growing body of evidence indicates that the “abnormally high levels” of the immunoglobulin subclass actually make the immune system more susceptible to the COVID-19 spike protein in the vaccines, researchers said in the paper.They pointed to experiments performed on mice that found multiple boosters on top of the initial COVID-19 vaccination “significantly decreased” protection against both the Delta and Omicron virus variants and testing that found a spike in IgG4 levels after repeat Pfizer vaccination, suggesting immune exhaustion.Studies have detected higher levels of IgG4 in people who died with COVID-19 when compared to those who recovered and linked the levels with another known determinant of COVID-19-related mortality, the researchers also noted.A review of the literature also showed that vaccines against HIV, malaria, and pertussis also induce the production of IgG4.“In sum, COVID-19 epidemiological studies cited in our work plus the failure of HIV, Malaria, and Pertussis vaccines constitute irrefutable evidence demonstrating that an increase in IgG4 levels impairs immune responses,” Alberto Rubio Casillas, a researcher with the biology laboratory at the University of Guadalajara in Mexico and one of the authors of the new paper, told The Epoch Times via email.The paper was published by the journal Vaccines in May.Pfizer and Moderna officials didn’t respond to requests for comment.Both companies utilize messenger RNA (mRNA) technology in their vaccines.Dr. Robert Malone, who helped invent the technology, said the paper illustrates why he’s been warning about the negative effects of repeated vaccination.“I warned that more jabs can result in what’s called high zone tolerance, of which the switch to IgG4 is one of the mechanisms. And now we have data that clearly demonstrate that’s occurring in the case of this as well as some other vaccines,” Malone, who wasn’t involved with the study, told The Epoch Times.“So it’s basically validating that this rush to administer and re-administer without having solid data to back those decisions was highly counterproductive and appears to have resulted in a cohort of people that are actually more susceptible to the disease.”

Possible Problems

The weakened immune systems brought about by repeated vaccination could lead to serious problems, including cancer, the researchers said.

“Increased IgG4 synthesis due to repeated mRNA vaccination with high antigen concentrations may also cause autoimmune diseases, and promote cancer growth and autoimmune myocarditis in susceptible individuals,” they wrote in the paper.

Myocarditis is a form of heart inflammation that is caused by COVID-19 vaccination, with young males facing the highest risk.

Potential longer-term consequences of repeated vaccination include vaccinated people who get infected suffering from more severe cases of COVID-19, according to the researchers.

“Without an adequate protection level, even the new Omicron sub-variants (considered as mild) could cause severe multi-organ damage and death in immuno-compromised individuals and those with comorbidities,” they said.

Some studies have pegged the vaccinated as having a higher risk of infection when compared to people who enjoy natural immunity, or post-recovery protection. One recent study, published in April by Open Forum Infectious Diseases, found that each additional dose raised the risk of infection.

The tolerance stemming from heightened levels of IgG4 means the immune system lacks the ability to respond to antigens, or foreign substances, Malone said.

Further experiments could include following vaccinated patients over time and comparing their antibody profile to a group of naturally immune people, Malone said. Other testing could include in vitro studies or animal experiments, Casillas said.

Cautious Approach Warranted

The new paper shows that repeated vaccination “should be approached with caution,” the researchers said.

Some countries have recently halted or slowed down recommendations for COVID-19 vaccination after years of promoting repeated shots as data show the vaccines provide substandard protection against infection and short-lived protection against severe illness. The United States, for instance, stopped recommending boosters for all and changed the primary vaccination of the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines from two doses to one.

Still, some health agencies are moving toward a model based on the approach to influenza vaccination. That would involve selecting updated vaccine compositions each year aimed at targeting the circulating COVID-19 strains, and recommending certain groups, or virtually everybody, get an annual shot.

The World Health Organization said in May that the composition should be updated to focus on the XBB.1 Omicron subvariant “in order to improve protection.” Advisers to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration are set to convene in June to consider whether the vaccines should be updated for the 2023–2024 “vaccination campaign.” Officials in many countries have already discontinued the old Moderna and Pfizer vaccines and cleared shots that target the BA.1 or BA.4/BA.5 Omicron subvariants.

https://halturnerradioshow.com/index.php/en/news-page/world/dr-ryan-cole-told-by-fauci-don-t-do-autopsies-on-covid-patients

VAERS-Summary-02102023

 

Africa Is Starkly Unvaccinated, And Starkly Unvanquished By COVID

MONDAY, JAN 23, 2023 - 04:30 AM

Authored by Colleen Huber via The Epoch Times,

Let's study that victory with utmost diligence...

Africa as a Whole Is Very Strikingly Unvaccinated, According to Johns Hopkins University, Our World in Data.

Let’s keep in mind that most striking continent on an otherwise bleak world map, as we examine the following map, which shows Africa’s burden of COVID cases since the beginning of COVID.

Here is Africa’s relative share of COVID cases since the beginning of COVID:

https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html

The Data Reports That Can Be Expected Three Years Into a Pandemic

One would reasonably expect a worldwide pandemic that began three years ago to have been recorded with some ballpark accuracy in case counts, and morbidity and mortality data throughout the world by now, as each hemisphere has been through three winters.  One would also expect that a worldwide vaccine campaign that peaked over a year ago to have resulted in reliable vaccine uptake maps.  One would expect a general consensus regarding such data.  So let’s accept the above maps as not (or not yet) disputed, and as reliable documentation of historical events of pinnacle importance, events that behoove humanity to understand well, and to understand as thoroughly as if our future well-being depends on it.

One who has faith in the practice of vaccination would have also expected that vaccines carrying the name of the pandemic to have mitigated case counts of the same disease.  How then is the overall experience of the African continent to be understood?

Africa was not the only part of the world where reported COVID cases have been low.  Prior to vaccination, numerous countries were barely impacted at all by COVID.  Let’s zoom out from Africa now to examine events in other countries.

Former US Dept of Justice adviser Gavin de Becker wrote an article on Children’s Health Defense [3] that also appears in a book by Edward Dowd, Cause Unknown; in it he looks at COVID mortality in various nations, primarily in Asia, but also in Africa, Europe, Latin America and the Middle East, after COVID began, as well as before and after the launch of their vaccination campaigns.  Three of de Becker’s timelines are as follows.  De Becker indicates with a syringe pointer the date at which each of the following countries began their COVID vaccine campaigns.

Gavin de Becker, https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/covid-vaccine-deaths-cause-unknown/

Gavin de Becker, https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/covid-vaccine-deaths-cause-unknown/

Gavin de Becker, https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/covid-vaccine-deaths-cause-unknown/

De Becker notes that “the reality displayed on the graphs you’ve seen is undeniable, cannot be unseen, and is available to anyone more interested and more industrious than media and governments have been.”

Elusive Truth in Morbidity and Mortality Data: The PCR Problem

De Becker’s article, as the Johns Hopkins data, necessarily relies on reports that are fraught with much difficulty, for the reasons I review below, primarily the wildly misapplied PCR “test” to COVID diagnosis.  However, because that alleged test is primarily how the world has evaluated and tallied COVID cases and deaths for three years, we are necessarily dependent on and limited to the derived data from this alleged test for any meaningful assessment of COVID epidemiology.

COVID-19 diagnoses have been troublesome from the beginning.  It has been noted, including at Johns Hopkins University, which produces the most university-based statistical data on COVID, that reported deaths from flu, pneumonia, heart disease and diabetes decreased significantly in 2020, while COVID-19 deaths became the cause of death listed for now over six million lost lives around the world.  Flu and pneumonia as primary causes of death nearly disappeared.  For every lost life and every grieving family, the signs and symptoms of this respiratory disease phenomenon occurred, and then it is a matter of disagreement as to whether we will call those deaths flu, pneumonia or COVID, with no particular loss of life any less tragic for the bereaved from one diagnosis from the others. Cardiovascular mortality reports also dropped precipitously, without any credible reason for the change.  Another unexplained surprise to epidemiologists was that those deceased with a COVID cause of death exceeded the average age of life expectancy in the US.  Genevieve Briand of Johns Hopkins University discusses these anomalies.

Flu and pneumonia had always been among the most threatening diseases for seniors.  And then the mortality reports changed.  There are two major influences that created an alleged 2020 pandemic out of what was otherwise a typical flu year.  The following two factors led to false reporting of US mortality data for COVID:

First Domino Falls

The first was a manufacturing technique that wound up being wildly misappropriated as a diagnostic test, despite the prior protests of its inventor, the late Kary Mullis, PhD.   The essence of the world’s confusion and fear of COVID stems from the testing itself.  Reverse-transcriptase, polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) is a method for producing more RNA nucleic acid sequences. Essentially, PCR does what it was designed by Mullis to do:  It matches or aligns specific genetic signatures between a given test reagent and a sample.  As the test is run in consecutive cycles, each cycle multiplies the sample.  So that sample then grows exponentially.  The PCR is simply incapable to determine if the introduced sample contains adequate viral particles or virions to rise to the threshold of causing an infection.

For those who have worked with PCR, it is understood that any PCR process run through 20 or more cycles is useless for detection.  The CDC acknowledged that 33 cycles or more are unlikely to detect active virus.  Yet for all of 2020, throughout the US, the number of cycles used in “COVID-19 testing” have been above 37 and often well into the 40’s.   Boris Borovoy and I discuss problems related to this misuse of PCR.  The misplaced faith in this manufacturing technique as a test of anything having to do with contagion was the misjudgment at the core of worldwide disaster.

From such a simple decision and widespread acquiescence to create a test out of a non-test, whether by error, misunderstanding or possibly worse on the part of some: deliberate misuse of an industrial process, a new world may be in its birth from this practice.  This misuse, born of widespread misunderstanding of PCR, became the pretext for the estimated four trillion dollar COVID industry.

Second Domino Falls

The second factor that fired up the COVID engines, so to speak, at least in the United States, was the financially-incentivized COVID cause of death.  Under the US CARES Act, hospitals were compensated more than twice as much money for a COVID case than a flu or pneumonia case,  and the most lethal treatments were compensated even further.   Many US hospitals made millions of dollars from this shift in diagnosis during treatment and on death certificates.

Other forensic evidence shows lack of a pandemic in 2020.  Wall Street seems to need and to have greater reliance on accurate data than governments.  COVID is primarily a pathogenic disease of the respiratory tract, with dyspnea (shortness of breath) noted as one of the most common symptoms along with coughing, in which acute and late-stage care often involves supplemental oxygen.   Oxygen use would be the most reliable artifact of COVID care.  Therefore, we looked at sales of medical oxygen, by revenue of the top companies that produce it, in 2020 vs 2019.  We then noted that their sales decreased in that time.  Meanwhile, sales by six of the top oxygen concentrator producers trading on the NYSE had increased by less than one percentage point from 2019 to 2020. This is the 0.93% in the last line of the following table.   In the same time, the world’s population grew by 1.05%.

C Huber, B Borovoy. Data that disprove the COVID-19 pandemic.  Dec 19, 2020.  PDMJ.   https://pdmj.org/papers/is_there_a_pandemic

For whatever other wealth distribution occurred during what is widely considered to be the peak pandemic year of 2020, the New York Stock Exchange does not reflect the primary medical need of the pandemic patients to have made impact on the revenue of the main companies supplying that medical demand.

How Africa Defeated COVID so Decisively Without Vaccines

Part of the African continent’s success is no doubt due to a fortunate accident of microbiology, infectious diseases, pharmacology and immunology.  It so happens that two of the most effective treatments for COVID, ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, are also routine prophylactic weekly medicines throughout equatorial Africa, because they happen to be known for a half-century as the most effective, applicable and safest anti-parasite medications.  So the population, particularly through about 31 countries, the tropical middle rectangle roughly, of Africa already were well-equipped prior to COVID events launching in late 2019 to early 2020.

As fortune would have it, the unpatented and relatively inexpensive half-century old drug ivermectin, whose inventors won the Nobel Prize for Medicine in 2015, also has been the most effective medicine against COVID, [15] due in part to its specific effect against RNA transcriptase, as well as its blocking effect on all three parts of the trimeric spike protein, and other mechanisms.

Hydroxychloroquine is also used widely throughout at least equatorial regions of Africa as a prophylactic against parasites, but which fortunately has now been studied extensively and used successfully as both prevention and treatment of COVID disease, and as inhibitor of SARS-CoV-2 replication and activity.  This is shown in over 380 studies conducted in 55 countries.

Africa Leads Again

This is not the first piece of evidence that Africa is leading the world away from a microbial-pretext tyranny.   Last summer, Africa stood alone in being the continent, led by Botswana, to pull the worlds’ people back from the precipice, while pushing the World Health Organization (WHO) back from their attempted tyranny over all world governments.  [18]  This danger is by no means past, and new efforts for WHO dominance over the world are ominously re-grouping at this time.

Africa led the way and inspires the world.  Are the politicians and “public health experts” of the rest of the world humble enough to admit their grotesque errors, even crimes, and to learn from the peoples of the African nations, their experiences and lessons on handling a pandemic?

Or will ethnocentrism or a hostile and racist pride, or the sheer greed stimulated by the lucrative COVIDmania boondoggle, prevent the rest of the world’s willingness to learn from the African experience?  Will such provincial and purchased attitudes bury the 21st century’s most important lesson to date?

They forgot to tell you: the new bivalent vaccines make it MORE likely you'll get COVID

The more boosters you get, the more depressed your immune system becomes. That's why every time they inject you, it makes you more vulnerable to getting COVID.

Executive summary

The data I’ve been able to collect is consistent with the hypothesis that the more boosters you get, the worse the outcome.

Even the Moderna data was consistent with that.

Introduction

did a survey of hospitals on January 12, 2023 and got 101 responses.

Only one hospital, The Wayne Center (nursing home) Wayne PA, did they think the booster made things slightly better. In 10 places, it made NO DIFFERENCE. Everywhere else, the reporters believed it made things worse.

In 71 places, they believed it made things MUCH WORSE.

But wait… didn’t the government agencies say it reduces your risk of death from COVID by 10X?

If that is true, then how come I can’t find any nursing home in the world where that happened? It’s easy to find places where the all-cause mortality (ACM) skyrocketed after the shot (one Australian nursing home in Clifton Hill lost over 20% of their residents in 12 months after the shots rolled out), but I can’t seem to find a success story where the ACM plummeted after the shots. Odd, isn’t it?

Moderna data that was initially withheld from the FDA

More troubling is that Moderna decided not to share with the FDA panel information that is consistent with my hypothesis that more boosters made you more likely to be infected with COVID.

Find this hard to believe? This is a direct quote from the CNN article entitled FDA vaccine advisers ‘disappointed’ and ‘angry’ that early data about new Covid-19 booster shot wasn’t presented for review last year which said:

The data that was not presented to the experts looked at actual infections: who caught Covid-19 and who did not.

It found that 1.9% of the study participants who received the original booster became infected. Among those who got the updated bivalent vaccine – the one that scientists hoped would work better – a higher percentage, 3.2%, became infected. Both versions of the shot were found to be safe.

In other words, when the data shows the vaccines aren’t working, the drug companies do the only ethical (in their mind) thing: they withhold the data from the FDA panel.

Paul Offit said he’s not getting the bivalent booster. He said there is no benefit and it’s all risk. For once, I agree with Paul.

If Paul Offit isn’t taking the new bivalent booster, why should you?

Answer: You shouldn’t. Nobody should.

Will anyone from the drug companies debate any of us on whether more boosters are both safe and beneficial?

No way. They’d lose.

The drug companies don’t stand behind their product. They don’t need to because:

  1. they have liability protection (why do they need that again???) and
  2. because they have conned lawmakers all over the world into coercing people to take the vaccine.

The only thing a debate would do is expose that they are lying about the safety and efficacy of the vaccines. That’s why none of them will take my $1M bet (with a term sheet similar to this one I negotiated with Saar Wilf for $500K) and show the world I’m wrong. Because they know they will lose and that will end their revenue stream.

I’m willing to bet anyone $1M I’m right on any of these topics:

  1. The mRNA vaccines in the US have killed more people than they’ve saved
  2. The three randomized trials have not shown that masks make a measurable positive difference in protecting people from getting COVID
  3. The mRNA COVID vaccines cause strokes
  4. The mRNA vaccines cause measurable heart injury in >2% of people injected
  5. The vaccines have seriously injured over 500,000 people in America
  6. More boosters are safe and more beneficial (more is better)

You can accept any of these bets here if you are serious about negotiating a term sheet similar to this term sheet.

Summary

They (CDC and medical community) are willing to risk your LIFE that they are right about the safety of the COVID vaccines, but aren't willing to risk even a dime of their MONEY that they are wrong.

In short, for the drug companies, I’m willing to lower the bet to a dime just to prove that they won’t even risk a dime of their moneyBut risking your life? No problem! They have no liability!

Think about it.

You should be very upset about this.

 

Confidential Pfizer and Government Documents confirm ADE, VAED, and AIDS due to COVID-19 Vaccination leading to Millions “Dying Suddenly” & still counting

BY THE EXPOSÉ ON DECEMBER 30, 2022

Confidential documents reveal that within months of receiving the initial doses of the COVID-19 vaccine, some individuals are developing Antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) and Vaccine-Associated Enhanced Disease (VAED).

And as if that weren’t alarming enough, official documents also prove that a mysterious form of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome is also appearing in a disturbing number of recipients just five months after their initial injections.

This may explain why, tragically, official Government records confirm that millions of people have mysteriously died suddenly in countries around the globe, including the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, and Europe, in the wake of the widespread distribution of the COVID-19 vaccines.

Antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) and Vaccine-Associated Enhanced Disease (VAED). are serious adverse events that can occur after vaccination.

ADE and VAED can occur when an individual is exposed to a pathogen, such as the alleged Covid-19 virus, after receiving a vaccine that does not provide full immunity.

In these cases, the vaccine-induced antibodies may actually enhance the ability of the pathogen to infect cells, leading to more severe illness than if the individual had not received the vaccine.

When a vaccine causes ADE or VAED, it can have significant public health implications.

First and foremost, individuals who receive the vaccine and develop ADE or VAE may suffer from severe illness, and in some cases, even death.

One example of a previous vaccine that has been associated with ADE is the dengue vaccine. In many cases, individuals who received the dengue vaccine and were subsequently infected with the dengue virus experienced more severe illness and an increased risk of hospitalization and death.

Similarly, ADE has been reported in individuals who received vaccines for respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and HIV.

One example of a bacterial infection that could potentially be worsened by ADE or VAE is streptococcus A (strep A) infection. Strep A is a type of bacteria that can cause a wide range of illnesses, including sore throat, pneumonia, and sepsis. You will have most likely seen in the mainstream news that Strep A infection is killing children left, right and centre this winter.

Covid-19 vaccination is the most likely reason for this, and the most important piece of evidence to support this fact is official Government reports that prove Covid-19 vaccination damages the immune system and has the potential to cause some new form of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome.

It is entirely possible that ADE and VAED can lead to immense immune system damage similar to that seen in acquired immune deficiency disorder (AIDS).

In individuals with AIDS, the immune system is severely compromised, making them more susceptible to infections and other diseases. Similarly, the occurrence of ADE or VAED can lead to damage to the immune system, potentially leading to a higher risk of infections and other diseases.

In addition to the risk of severe illness comparable to AIDS, ADE and VAED may also increase the risk of developing certain cancers. For example, some studies have suggested that ADE may increase the risk of developing certain types of lymphoma.

The occurrence of these adverse events has had devastating consequences for the individuals who develop them and confidential and official documents prove that ADE and VAED have occurred due to COVID-19 vaccines, leading to a new form of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome and millions of excess deaths around the world.

Pfizer, the company hit with the largest healthcare fraud settlement and criminal fine to date in 2009; which also happens to be the same company behind the first ever mRNA gene therapy injection administered to the general public under emergency use authorisation in the name of Covid-19, has admitted in confidential documents, that it desperately tried to keep from going public, that its Covid-19 mRNA gene therapy may cause Vaccine-Associated Enhanced Disease.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) attempted to delay the release of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine safety data for 75 years despite approving the injection after only 108 days of safety review on December 11th, 2020.

The FDA originally said that they were prepared to release 500 pages per month in a response to the Freedom of Information (FOI) request filed on behalf of Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency (PHMPT) requesting the safety data.

Instead, in early January 2022, Federal Judge Mark Pittman ordered them to release 55,000 pages per month. They released 12,000 pages by the end of January.

Since then, PHMPT has posted all of the documents to its website.

One of the documents contained in the latest data dump is ‘reissue_5.3.6 postmarketing experience.pdf’. Table 5, found on page 11 of the document shows an ‘Important Potential Risk’, and that risk is listed as ‘Vaccine-Associated Enhanced Disease (VAED), including Vaccine-Associated Enhanced Reporatory Disease (VAERD)’.

Pfizer claimed in their confidential document that up to 28th Feb 2021, they had received 138 cases reporting 317 potentially relevant events indicative of Vaccine-Associated Enhanced Disease. Of these 71 were medically significant resulting in 8 disabilities, 13 were life-threatening events, and 38 of the 138 people died.

Of the 317 relevant events reported by 138 people, 135 were labelled as ‘drug ineffective’, 53 were labelled as dyspnoea (struggling to breathe), 23 were labelled as Covid-19 pneumonia, 8 were labelled as respiratory failure, and 7 were labelled as seizure.

Pfizer also admitted that 75 of the 101 subjects with confirmed Covid-19 following vaccination, had severe disease resulting in hospitalisation, disability, life-threatening consequences or death.

But Pfizer still definitively concluded, for the purposes of their submitted safety data to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the very data that was needed to gain emergency use authorisation and make them billions and billions of dollars, that ‘None of the 75 cases could be definitively considered as VAED’.

But Pfizer then went on to confirm that based on the current evidence, VAED remains a theoretical risk.

This confidential data proves that the Covid-19 injections should never have been granted emergency use authorisation, and should have been pulled from distribution by the FDA as soon as they sighted the figures.

And here’s how we know the ADE and VADE caused by Covid-19 vaccination have led to immune system damage comparable to AIDS.

The UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) used to publish a weekly Vaccine Surveillance Report, with each report containing four weeks worth of data on Covid-19 cases, hospitalisations, and deaths by vaccination status.

We analysed 5 of these published Vaccine Surveillance Reports containing data from August 16th 2021 to January 2nd 2022, in order to get a clear picture of the effect the Covid-19 vaccines were having on the immune systems of the vaccinated population, and this is what we found…

The UKHSA Vaccine Surveillance Reports used for our investigation can all be found here –

You were told that the Pfizer Covid-19 mRNA injection had a vaccine effectiveness of 95%.

The following graph illustrates the increase/decrease in vaccine effectiveness by the month among each age group over a period of 5 months from 16th Aug 21 to 2nd Jan 22.

The first booster shots were administered in week 37 of 2021, and this graph illustrates clearly how they provided a boost in vaccine effectiveness in the following two months. But unfortunately, it also shows how short-lived this boost was with the effectiveness of the Covid-19 vaccines falling to frightening levels between weeks 49 and 52.

Real-world vaccine effectiveness dropped to the lowest levels yet across all age groups except for the over 70’s between December 6th and January 2nd, but the over 70’s still dropped into negative effectiveness.

The expected further boost to 40 to 69-year-olds did not materialise and instead, a huge tumble in vaccine effectiveness was recorded, dropping to -151% in 40-49-year-olds.

Vaccine effectiveness also tumbled in the 30-39-year-old age group to minus-123%, despite the booster jab being administered to millions in week 49.

That’s a far cry from the alleged 95% effectiveness you were told about.

But what does a positive/negative vaccine effectiveness actually mean?

Vaccines work by simulating a viral attack and provoking the immune system into responding as if you have had the virus. They are supposed to train the immune system to the point where you develop natural immunity to the virus.

Therefore, vaccine effectiveness is really a measure of the immune system performance of the vaccinated compared to the immune system performance of the unvaccinated.

The data published by the UKHSA confirms that the real-world effectiveness of the Covid-19 injections (really a measure of immune system performance) wains significantly in a short amount of time.

But, unfortunately for the vaccinated population, rather than the immune system returning to the same state it was prior to vaccination, the immune system performance begins to rapidly decline, making 3it inferior to that of the unvaccinated.

However, the UK Government data does prove that a booster dose of the vaccine can give a short-term boost to the immune system.

But, unfortunately, this same data shows that the immune system performance then begins to decline even faster than it has been prior to the booster dose being given.

This data, therefore, suggests that the vaccinated population will now require an endless cycle of booster shots to boost their immune systems to a point where it does not fail but is inferior to that of the unvaccinated population.

ADE or VAED can also lead to increased excess deaths, which are deaths that occur above and beyond the expected number of deaths in a population.

This is because ADE and VAED may cause more severe illness and an increased risk of death, leading to a higher number of deaths than would be expected in a population that has not been exposed to the vaccine.

This may explain why, tragically, official Government records confirm that millions of people have mysteriously died suddenly in countries around the globe in the wake of the widespread distribution of the COVID-19 vaccines.

Official reports published by the Governments of the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the UK & most of Europe, confirm 1.8 million excess deaths have been recorded since the mass roll-out of the Covid-19 injections.

Some countries have been quite transparent in publishing data on deaths, such as the UK and Europe for example. However, they have refused to actively publicise the figures because of what they reveal.

But other countries, such as the USA, have done their utmost to conceal data on deaths as much as possible.

However, we have finally managed to find the data for 15% of the world’s countries hidden deep within the website of an organisation known as the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD).

The OECD is an intergovernmental organisation with 38 member countries founded in 1961 to stimulate economic progress and world trade. And for some reason, they host a wealth of data on excess deaths. You can find that data for yourself here.

The following chart reveals what we found in terms of excess deaths across the ‘Five Eyes’; which is an intelligence alliance comprising of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States, and a further 27 countries across Europe.

In conclusion, antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) and vaccine-associated enhanced disease (VAED) are serious adverse events that can occur after Covid-19vaccination.

When a Covid-19 vaccinated individual is exposed to a pathogen all hell can break loose. In these cases, the vaccine-induced antibodies may actually enhance the ability of the pathogen to infect cells, leading to more severe illness than if the individual had not received the vaccine.

The occurrence of ADE or VAED is having significant consequences for both individual and public health.

It has led to severe illness and an increased risk of death for individuals who develop ADE or VAED, as well as an increased risk of developing certain cancers.

The occurrence of ADE or VAED has also led to increased excess deaths, with over 1.8 million in the ‘Five Eyes’ countries alone.

Vaccine manufacturers and Public Health agencies should have carefully monitored the public for any adverse events following vaccination and should have taken appropriate action to address the issues that have arisen.

This could have included revising vaccine recommendations, issuing warnings or alerts, and in some cases, withdrawing the vaccine from the market.

But they have done none of these things.

Which leaves us with the gnawing question of, why?

 

CDC Finally Releases VAERS Safety Monitoring Analyses For COVID Vaccines

MONDAY, JAN 09, 2023 - 03:00 AM

Authored by Professor Josh Guetzkow via Jackanapes Junction (some emphasis ours),

SUMMARY

  • CDC’s VAERS safety signal analysis based on reports from Dec. 14, 2020 – July 29, 2022 for mRNA COVID-19 vaccines shows clear safety signals for death and a range of highly concerning thrombo-embolic, cardiac, neurological, hemorrhagic, hematological, immune-system and menstrual adverse events (AEs) among U.S. adults.
  • There were 770 different types of adverse events that showed safety signals in ages 18+, of which over 500 (or 2/3) had a larger safety signal than myocarditis/pericarditis.
  • The CDC analysis shows that the number of serious adverse events reported in less than two years for mRNA COVID-19 vaccines is 5.5 times larger than all serious reports for vaccines given to adults in the US since 2009 (~73,000 vs. ~13,000).
  • Twice as many mRNA COVID-19 vaccine reports were classified as serious compared to all other vaccines given to adults (11% vs. 5.5%). This meets the CDC definition of a safety signal.
  • There are 96 safety signals for 12-17 year-olds, which include: myocarditis, pericarditis, Bell’s Palsy, genital ulcerations, high blood pressure and heartrate, menstrual irregularities, cardiac valve incompetencies, pulmonary embolism, cardiac arrhythmias, thromboses, pericardial and pleural effusion, appendicitis and perforated appendix, immune thrombocytopenia, chest pain, increased troponin levels, being in intensive care, and having anticoagulant therapy.
  • There are 66 safety signals for 5-11 year-olds, which include: myocarditis, pericarditis, ventricular dysfunction and cardiac valve incompetencies, pericardial and pleural effusion, chest pain, appendicitis & appendectomies, Kawasaki’s disease, menstrual irregularities, vitiligo, and vaccine breakthrough infection.
  • The safety signals cannot be dismissed as due to “stimulated,” exaggerated, fraudulent or otherwise artificially inflated reporting, nor can they be dismissed due to the huge number of COVID vaccines administered. There are several reasons why, but the simplest one is this: the safety signal analysis does not depend on the number of reports, but whether or not some AEs are reported at a higher rate for these vaccines than for other non-COVID vaccines. Other reasons are discussed in the full post below.
  • In August, 2022, the CDC told the Epoch Times that the results of their safety signal analysis “were generally consistent with EB [Empirical Bayesian] data mining [conducted by the FDA], revealing no additional unexpected safety signals.” So either the FDA’s data mining was consistent with the CDC’s method—meaning they "generally" found the same large number of highly alarming safety signals—or the signals they did find were expected. Or they were lying. We may never know because the FDA has refused to release their data mining results.

INTRODUCTION

Finally! Zachary Stieber at the Epoch Times managed to get the CDC to release the results of its VAERS safety signal monitoring for COVID-19 vaccines, and they paint a very alarming picture (see his reporting and the data files here, or if that is behind a paywall then here). The analyses cover VAERS reports for mRNA COVID vaccines from the period from the vaccine rollout on December 14, 2020 through to the end of July, 2022. The CDC admitted to only having started its safety signal analysis on March 25, 2022 (coincidentally 3 days after a lawyer at Children’s Health Defense wrote to them reminding them about our FOIA request for it).

[UPDATE: T Coddington left a link in comments to a website where he made the data in the Excel files more accessible.]

Like me, you might be wondering why the CDC waited over 15 months before doing its first safety signal analysis of VAERS, despite having said in a document posted to its website that it would begin in early 2021—especially since VAERS is touted as our early warning vaccine safety system. You might also wonder how they could insist all the while that the COVID-19 vaccines are being subjected to the most rigorous safety monitoring the world has ever known. I’ll come back to that later. First I’m going to give a little background information on the analysis they did (which you can skip if you’re up to speed) and then describe what they found.

BACKGROUND ON SAFETY SIGNAL ANALYSIS

Back in June 2022, the CDC replied to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the safety signal monitoring of the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS)—the one it had said it was going to do weekly beginning in early 2021. Their response was: we never did it. Then a little later they said they had been doing it from early on. But by August, 2022, they had finally gotten their story straight, saying that they actually did do it, but only from March 25, 2022 through end of July. You can get up to speed on that here.

The analysis they were supposed to do uses what’s called proportional reporting ratios (PRRs). This is a type of disproportionality analysis commonly used in pharmacovigilance (meaning the monitoring of adverse events after drugs/vaccines go to market). The basic idea of disproportionality analysis is to take a new drug and compare it to one or more existing drugs generally considered safe. We look for disproportionality in the number of adverse events (AEs) reported for a specific AE out of the total number of AEs reported (since we generally don't know how many people take a given drug). We then compare to existing drugs considered safe to see if there is a higher proportion of particular adverse events reported for the new drug compared to existing ones. (In this case they are looking at vaccines, but they still use PRR even though they generally have a much better sense of how many vaccines were administered.)

There are many ways to do disproportionality analysis. The PRR is one of the oldest. Empirical Bayesian data mining, which was supposed to be done on VAERS by the FDA, is another. The PRR is calculated by taking the number of reports for a given adverse event divided by the total number of events reported for the new vaccine or the total number of reports. It then divides that by the same ratio for one or more existing drugs/vaccines considered safe. Here is a simple formula:

So for example, if half of all adverse events reported for COVID-19 vaccines and the comparator vaccine(s) are for myocarditis, then the PRR is 0.5/0.5 = 1. If one quarter of all AEs for the comparator vaccine are for myocarditis, then the PRR is 0.5/0.25 = 2.

Traditionally, for a PRR to count as a safety signal, the PRR has to be 2 or greater, have a Chi-square value of 4 or greater (meaning it is statistically significant) and there has to be at least 3 events reported for a given AE. (This also means that if there are tons of different AEs reported for COVID vaccines that have never been reported for any other vaccine, it will not count as a safety signal. I found over 6,000 of those in my safety signal analysis from 2021.

Of course a safety signal does not necessarily mean there is a problem or that the vaccine caused the adverse event. But it is supposed to set off alarm bells to prompt closer inspection, as in this CDC pamphlet:

Ah yes, shared with the public — after first refusing to share the results and months of foot-dragging following repeated FOIA requests! We will see that the CDC has not done a more focused study on almost any of adverse events with “new patterns” (AKA safety signals).

SO WHAT DID THE CDC ACTUALLY DO?

The Epoch Times obtained 3 weeks of safety signal analyses from the CDC for VAERS data updated on July 15, 22 and 29, 2022. Here I will focus on the last one, since there is very little difference between them and it is more complete. The safety signal analysis compares adverse events1 reported to VAERS for mRNA COVID-19 vaccines from Dec. 14, 2020 through July 29, 2022 to reports for all non-COVID vaccines from Jan 1, 2009 through July 29, 2022.

PRRs are calculated separately for 5-11 year-olds, 12-15 year-olds and 18+ separately. For each age group, there are separate tables for AEs from all reports, AEs from reports marked serious and AEs from reports not marked as serious.2 Recall that a serious report is one that involves death, a life-threatening event, new or prolonged hospitalization, disability or permanent damage, or a congenital anomaly. I will focus on the reports for all AE’s.

They also have a table that calculates PRRs by comparing reports for the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine to reports for the Moderna vaccine and vice versa, again for all reports, serious reports only and non-serious reports. There were no remarkable findings in those tables, so I will not discuss them. [Edit: I forgot what Norman Fenton noted in his analysis: the overall proportion of reports with serious adverse events is 9.6% for Modern compared to 12.6% for Pfizer.] This isn’t that surprising since both vaccines are very similar and so should present relatively similar adverse events when compared to each other, and any differences are likely not large enough to be picked up by a PRR analysis. [Though the difference in the overall rate of serious adverse events, which are not specific to a particular type of event only how serious it is, was significant.]

The CDC seems to have calculated PRRs for every different type of adverse event reported for all the COVID vaccines examined - though it’s possible they only analyzed a subset. What seems clear is that, among the AEs they examined, the only ones included in the tables satisfy at least one of two conditions: a PRR value of at least 2 and a Chi-square value of at least 4 (Chi is the Greek letter χ and is pronounced like ‘kai’). When both conditions were met, they highlighted the adverse event in yellow, which appears to indicate a safety signal. There were no COVID vaccine AEs listed with fewer than 3 reported events, though for non-COVID vaccines there were many AEs listed that had only 1 or 2 reported since 2009. The CDC tables still include these and highlight them in yellow when the PRR is greater than 2 and the Chi-square value is great than 4, indicating these events are counted as safety signals.

WHAT SAFETY SIGNALS DID THE CDC FIND?

I’m going to divide this up by age groups and the Pfizer v. Moderna comparison. Let’s start with the 18+ group.

There are 772 AEs that appear on the list. Of these, 770 are marked in yellow and have PRR and Chi-square values that qualify them as safety signals. Some of these are new COVID-19 related codes, and we would expect those to trigger a signal since they didn’t exist in prior years to be reported by other vaccines. So if we take those off, we are left with 758 different types of non-COVID adverse events that showed safety signals.

I grouped these 758 safety signals into different categories. The figure below shows the total number of AEs reported for each of the major categories of safety signals:


Let’s dig into some of these categories to look at what types of AEs generated the most number of reports:
3

 

 

You can peruse the adverse events using the Excel tables provided by the CDC, which were posted by The Epoch Times and Children’s Health Defense at the links at the top of this post.

What about The Children?

If there is anything that looks remotely like a bright spot in all of this is that the list of safety signals for 12-17 and 5-11 year-olds is much shorter than for 18+. There are 96 AEs that qualify as a safety signal for the 12-17 group and 67 for the 5-11. When we take out the new COVID-era AEs, there are 92 safety signals for 12-17 year-olds and 65 for 5-11 year-olds. Here are the most alarming ones:

I don’t know why the list of AE’s is so much shorter for these age groups. It could be that the list of AE’s for other vaccines for these age groups is much shorter, so in a case where AEs have been reported for the mRNA COVID vaccines but not for other vaccines, it will not be counted as a safety signal by definition.

COMPARISONS TO MYOCARDITIS & PERICARDITIS

We are told that the existence of a safety signal doesn’t necessarily mean the AE is caused by the vaccine, and I accept that premise. But the current practice seems to be to ignore safety signals, dismiss them as noise without any evidence, and stall any investigation into them as long as possible. The precautionary principle, however, dictates we should presume that a safety signal indicates causality, until proven otherwise. Since, it has been acknowledged that the mRNA COVID vaccines can cause myocarditis and pericarditis (often referred to as myo-pericarditis), we can take those AEs as a kind of benchmark, and propose that, at minimum, any AE with a signal of equal or greater size should be considered potentially causal and investigated more thoroughly.4

After dropping the new COVID-era AEs, there are 503 AEs with PRRs larger than myocarditis (PRR=3.09) and 552 with PRRs larger than pericarditis (PRR=2.82).5 This means that 66.4% of the AEs had a bigger safety signal than myocarditis and 77.3% were larger than pericarditis. You can see what those were by use this Excel file provided by the CDC and sorting the 18+ tab by the 12/14-07/29 PRR column (Column E). Then just look at which AEs have PRRs larger than the ones for pericarditis and myocarditis.

For 12-17 year-olds, there is 1 safety signal larger than myocarditis (it’s ‘troponin increased’) and 14 safety signals larger than pericarditis (excluding myocarditis), which include: mitral valve incompetence, bell’s palsy, heavy menstrual bleeding, genital ulceration, vaccine breakthrough infection, and a range of indicators of cardiac abnormalities.

For 5-11 year-olds, the comparison to myo/pericarditis is less germane, as they seem to suffer less from this side effect. But we can still make the comparison: there are 7 safety signals larger than pericarditis, including bell’s palsy, left ventricular dysfunction, mitral valve incompetence, and ‘drug ineffective’ (presumably meaning they still got COVID). There are 16 safety signals larger than myocarditis (excluding pericarditis), which in addition to those listed above also include: pericardial effusion, diastolic blood pressure increase, tricuspid valve incompetence, and vitiligo. Sinus tachycardia (high heart rate), appendicitis, and menstrual disorder come in just below myocarditis.

Now if we think of a safety signal as having both strength and clarity, then the PRR can be thought of as an indicator of how strong the signal is, while the Chi-square is a measure of how clear or unambiguous the signal is, because it gives us a sense of how likely the signal is due to chance alone: the larger the Chi-square value, the less likely the signal is due to chance. A Chi-square of 4 means there is only a 5% chance the observed signal is due to chance. A Chi-square of 8 means there is only a 0.5% chance of it being due to chance.6

For the 18+ group, there are 57 AEs with a Chi-square larger than myocarditis (Chi-square=303.8) and 68 with a Chi-square larger than pericarditis (Chi-square=229.5). Again, you can see what these are by going the Excel file linked above and sorting on Column D.

For the 12-17 group, there are 4 AEs with a larger Chi-square than myocarditis (Chi-square=681.5) and 6 larger than pericarditis (Chi-square=175.4).

For the 5-11 group, there are 22 AEs with a Chi-square larger than myocarditis (Chi-square=30.42) and 34 AEs with a Chi-square larger than pericarditis (Chi-square=18.86).

RESPONDING TO OBJECTIONS

Let’s dispense with some of the criticisms used to dismiss VAERS data, which will undoubtedly be raised if you try to bring the CDC’s analysis to people’s attention.

  1. Objection: Anybody can report to VAERS. The reports are unreliable. Anti-vaxxers made lots of fraudulent reports. Nobody was aware of VAERS in the past, but now they are. So many people were afraid of the vaccine so they blamed all their health problems on it. Health workers were required by law to report certain adverse events, like deaths and anaphylaxis. Etc. Etc.

All of these objections ultimately rely on the notion that VAERS reports for COVID-19 vaccines have been artificially inflated over previous years for one reason or another. The thing of it is, though, that the CDC has a method for distinguishing between artificial inflation and real signal. The idea is simple: if adverse events are artificially inflated, they should be artificially inflated to the same degree. Meaning, the PRRs for all of these safety signals should be about the same. But even a casual glance at the PRRs in the Excel file show they vary widely, from as low at 2 to as high as 105 for vaccine breakthrough infection or 74 for cerebral thrombosis. This method does not on the number of reports, but the rate of reporting for certain events out of all events reported. If anything, this method would tend to hide safety signals in a situation where a new vaccine generates a very large number of reports.

The CDC has even done us the favor of calculating upper and lower confidence intervals, meaning that we can be at least 95% confident that two PRRs are truly different if their confidence intervals don’t overlap. So for example the lower confidence interval for pulmonary thrombosis is 19.7, which is higher than the upper confidence interval for 543 other signals. Artificially inflated reporting cannot explain why so many different adverse events have large PRRs that are statistically distinct from one another.

  1. Objection: The safety signals are due to the huge number of COVID vaccines given out. Never before have we given out so many vaccine doses. By the end of July, the US had administered something like 600 million vaccine doses to people aged 18+. But the CDC analysis compares VAERS reports for these doses to all doses for all other vaccines for this age group since Jan. 1, 2009. But from 2015-2020 there were over 100 million flu doses administered annually to this age group alone. In previous work, I estimated 538 million doses of flu given to people 18+ from July 2015-June 2020. The number of flu and other non-COVID vaccines for this age group administered from Jan 1., 2009 through July 29, 2022 must be well over double this number, meaning VAERS reports for COVID vaccines are being compared to reports for at least double the number of doses for other vaccines. In addition to this, as already noted, the PRR methodology does not depend, strictly speaking, on the number of doses, but rather the rate of reporting of a specific AE out of all AEs for that vaccine.
  2. Objection: the vaccines are mainly being given to older people who tend to have health problems, whereas other vaccines are given to younger people. This objection is dealt with, since the analyses are stratified by age groups. It might be still be somewhat valid for the 18+ group, except that in the safety signal analysis I did in the fall of 2021I stratified by smaller age bands and still found safety signals. In any case, this objection is not enough to dismiss the safety signal analysis out of hand, but rather calls for better and more refined research.
  3. Objection: The VAERS data is not verified and cannot be trusted. I’ll be the first person to agree that VAERS is not high quality data, but if it is completely untrustworthy, then how is it that the CDC uses these data to publish in the best medical journals such as JAMA and The Lancet? If the data were worthless, then these journals shouldn’t accept these papers. In that JAMA paper, they reported that 80% of the myocarditis reports met their definition of myocarditis and were included in the analysis. Many other reports simply needed more details for validation. Furthermore, the CDC has the ability and budget to follow-up on every report VAERS receives to get more details and even medical records to verify the report.

So if myocarditis shows a clear signal in the CDC’s analysis, and 80% of those reports were apparently high quality enough to be included in a paper published in one of the world’s top medical journals, how is it possible that all the rest of the reports are junk? That all of the other safety signals are meaningless? Answer: it isn’t.

And since we’re on the topic of safety signals that turned out to be real, it’s instructive to find appendicitis turn up as a safety signal in all 3 age groups, since a study published in NEJM based on medical records of over a million adult Israelis found an increased risk of appendicitis in the 42 days following Pfizer vaccination (but not following a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test). That study also found an increase in lymphadenopathy (swollen lymph nodes) after vaccination, but not after positive COVID test. Lymphadenopathy was another safety signal.

  1. And that brings us to our last objection to be dispensed with: all of these AEs were due to COVID. There was an epidemic and so people were falling ill due to COVID and having all of these problems that were then blamed on the vaccine. Well to begin with, as we just saw, at least two of them (appendicitis and lymphadenopathy) do not appear to have increased risk ratios following a positive SARS-CoV-2 test, and we know that the mRNA vaccines increase risk of myo/pericarditis independent of infections. So how can we assume the rest of these are and dismiss them with the wave of a hand? We can’t. At minimum, they need further investigation. Furthermore, in the safety signal analysis I did in 2021, I dropped all VAERS reports where any sign of a SARS-CoV-2 exposure or infection was indicated on the report, and I still found large, significant safety signals.

PUTTING IT ALL INTO PERSPECTIVE

The Epoch Times article quotes my esteemed colleague and friend, Norman Fenton, Professor of Risk Management and an world renowned expert in Bayesian statistical analysis: “from a Bayesian perspective, the probability that the true rate of the AE of the COVID-19 vaccines is not higher than that of the non-COVID-19 vaccines is essentially zero…. The onus is on the regulators to come up with some other causal explanation for this difference if they wish to claim that the probability a COVID vaccine AE results in death is not significantly higher than that of other vaccines.” (See his post on the CDC analysis here.) The same is true for all the safety signals they found.

The CDC’s VAERS SOP analysis document lists 18 Adverse Events of Special Interest says they are going to pay close attention to. In their 2021 JAMA paper (and similar presentations to ACIP), the researchers responsible for analyzing the millions of medical records in the CDC’s Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) using the ‘Rapid Cycle Analysis’ only studied 23 outcomes. A Similar analysis in NEJM from Israeli researchers focused on only 25 outcomes. Compare this to over 700 safety signals found by the CDC when they finally decided to look—and that’s not even counting all the adverse events that have never been reported for other vaccines so cannot ever show a safety signal by definition. How can the CDC say that these safety signals are meaningless if almost none of them have been studied any further? And yet we are assured that these vaccines have undergone the most intensive safety monitoring effort in history. It’s complete and utter hogwash!

*  *  *

Josh Guetzkow is a senior lecturer at The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Subscribe to his Substack here.

1) To be precise, the 'adverse events' are for 'preferred terms' (PTs) which is a type/level of classification used in the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA), which is the classification system used by VAERS and in other pharmacovigilance systems and clinical research for coding reported adverse events. Not all preferred terms are a symptom or adverse event per se. Some refer to a specific diagnostic test that was done or a treatment that was given.

2) It's not entirely clear how they divided these up, since there are clearly AEs that should be considered serious that don't show up in the serious Excel table — though maybe they don’t come up simply because they are looking within serious reports. I believe that they just filtered the reports to include only serious reports or non-serious reports, then did the safety signal analysis on all the AE's coded in those reports. The reason I think this is that I used the MedAlerts Wayback Machine, selected just the serious COVID-19 vaccine reports, and the numbers of total reports was very close to the one in the table provided by the CDC (MedAlerts actually had a bit less). The files obtained by the Epoch Times do not include much in the way of a description as to how the analyses were done, so I had to infer some details, which might be incorrect. I will try to note when I am drawing an inference about how the analysis was done.

3) Generally speaking, these figures show the top ten AEs in each category. In some cases I combined AEs that indicated the same thing, such as combining ‘heart rate irregular’ with ‘arrythmia.’ [UPDATE: Note that the charts of all categories, cardiac and thrombo-embolic events were updated on Jan 7, 2023. The reason is that I had previously categorized acute myocardial infarction as a cardiac issue and myocardial infarction as thrombo-embolic. To be consistent, I have now combined myocardial infarction and acute myocardial infarction into one AE category in the thrombo-embolic events (which made the total AEs reported for that category larger than for pulmonary ones) and then added a different cardiac AE to the cardiovascular AE category, ventricular extrasystoles, AKA premature ventricular contraction (PVC), which dependent on frequency and the presence of other cardiomyopathies is associated with sudden cardiac arrest.]

4) Note that using the myo-pericarditis signal as a yardstick doesn’t mean that these are the only signals that matter. To give one example, anaphylactic reactions don’t even show up in the list of safety signals, even though that was one of the very first risk of the vaccine that became apparent from day one of the vaccine rollout.

One potential objection to this benchmark is that it is too low of a bar, since myo-pericarditis appears to disproportionately affect younger men and so a proper safety signal should be stratified by age and gender then compared with myocarditis similarly stratified. I agree, and it is the CDC’s job to do that. But the fact is that any adverse reaction might disproportionately affect some subgroup of people, in which case the safety signal for that group would be similarly faint or diluted when we look at everyone together. So objection overruled.

5) In their Standard Operation Procedures document, the CDC said they would combine these and related codes together to assess a safety signal, but never mind – at least they finally got around to doing something.

6) In this context, the Chi-square is largely driven by the sheer number of adverse events: the more adverse events reported, including for the comparator vaccine, the larger the Chi-square. For example, the PRR for pericarditis and subdural haematoma is the same (2.82), but there were 1,701 incidents of pericarditis reported for mRNA COVID vaccines versus 221for the comparator vaccines, with Chi-square of 229.5. For subdural haematoma, these numbers are 162 verus 21, for a Chi-square of 21.2.

 

The Question That Terrifies Branch Covidians: Why Has Covid Spared Africa Where Only 6% Are Vaxxed?

by Dr. Joseph Mercola

January 12, 2023

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • There are clear contradictions between the World Health Organization’s directives regarding the need for COVID shots in Africa and the actual situation on the ground
  • The WHO is still calling on all countries to get the COVID jab into at least 70% of their populations, and warns that developing countries are at grave risk due to low jab rates. Meanwhile, Africa, where less than 6% of the population is jabbed, has fared far better than countries with high injection rates. A large-scale survey in Uganda also shows COVID is no longer a clinical issue
  • Variants have also gotten milder (less pathogenic) with each iteration, yet the WHO warns that new variants may create “large waves of serious disease and death in populations with low vaccination coverage”
  • The explanation for the disconnect between the WHO’s priorities and what’s happening in Africa can be explained when you look at the focus of the WHO’s Catastrophic Contagion exercise. It focused on getting African leadership trained in following the pandemic script. The WHO needs additional pandemics in order to justify its pandemic treaty, which will give it sole power to dictate countermeasures, and it needs to eliminate the African control group, which shows the COVID “vaccines” do more harm than good
  • The WHO also has every intention of implementing climate lockdowns once it has the power to do so. To that aim, the WHO’s director of Environment and Health has suggested combining health and climate issues into one

In the video above, John Campbell, Ph.D., a retired nurse educator, compares the contradictions between the World Health Organization’s directives regarding the need for COVID shots in Africa and the actual situation on the ground.

As of December 12, 2022, the WHO was still calling on all countries to get the COVID jab into at least 70% of their populations.1 Its original deadline for meeting this 70% threshold was mid-2022, but by June 2022, only 58 of 194 member states had reached this target.2

According to the WHO, jab supplies, technical support and financial support were lacking during the early days of the injection campaign but, now, those obstacles have been resolved. As a result, all countries now have the ability to meet the global target of 70%.

Low Jab Rates Threaten Low-Income Countries, WHO Claims

The “overarching challenge” right now is the administration of the shots, actually “getting shots into arms.”3 To address that, the WHO suggests integrating COVID-19 injection services “with other immunization services and alongside other health and social interventions.” This, they say, will maximize impact and “build long-term capacity.”

The WHO also stresses that “As people’s risk perception of the virus wanes, careful risk communication and community engagement plans need to be adapted to enhance demand for vaccination.” To ensure low-income countries get onboard to meet the 70% target, the WHO also launched The COVID-19 Vaccine Delivery Partnership in January 2022.

This is an international effort “to intensify country readiness and delivery support” in 34 countries with low COVID jab uptake. Partners include UNICEF, Gavi and the World Bank. According to the WHO:4

“Despite incremental success since its launch in January 2022, low and lower-middle income countries are facing difficulties to get a step change in vaccination rates.

This represents a serious threat to the fragile economic recovery, including due to the risk of new variants creating large waves of serious disease and death in populations with low vaccination coverage.

It also means accelerating the delivery of other COVID-19 tools and treatments is a crucial priority to help the world build up multiple layers of protection against the virus. Concerted and urgent action from countries, international partners and agencies, along with G20 Finance Ministers is required to increase vaccination levels and expedite access.”

In short, the WHO is really concerned that countries with low COVID jab rates will suffer lest they meet or exceed the target goal of jabbing 70% of their populations. But what is that concern based on? Certainly not the real world.

WHO’s Statements Contradict Real-World Situations

The statements made by the WHO contradict a number of real-world situations. For starters, while developed nations with high jab rates struggled with COVID-19 throughout much of 2021 and 2022, Africa avoided this fate, despite its single-digit jab rate.

Scientists are said to be “mystified” as to how Africa fared so well, completely ignoring data showing that the more COVID shots you get, the higher your risk of contracting COVID and ending up in the hospital.

Over the past year, researchers have been warning that the COVID jabs appear to be dysregulating and actually destroying people’s immune systems, leaving them vulnerable not only to COVID but also other infections.5 It stands to reason, then, that Africa with its low injection rate would not be burdened with COVID cases brought on by dysfunctional immune systems.

Secondly, variants have gotten milder (less pathogenic) with each iteration, albeit more infectious (i.e., they spread easier). So why is the WHO worried about “the risk of new variants creating large waves of serious disease and death in populations with low vaccination coverage”? What is that “risk” based on?

And, since COVID infection keeps getting milder, and has had a lethality on par with or lower than influenza6,7,8,9,10 ever since mid-2020 at the latest, why is it still a “crucial priority” to accelerate delivery of COVID treatments?

As a reminder, according to a September 2, 2020 study in Annals of Internal Medicine, the overall noninstitutionalized infection fatality ratio for COVID was a mere 0.26%. Below 40 years of age, the infection fatality ratio was just 0.01%. Meanwhile, the estimated infection fatality rate for seasonal influenza is 0.8%.11

Report From Uganda

Campbell goes on to cite a large-scale survey by a community health partner in Uganda, which surveyed doctors, nurses and medical officers across the country, and “basically, they don’t see any COVID anymore,” he says.

They’re not getting the jab and they’re not getting tested for COVID either. There’s no need, because no one is getting sick with COVID — at least not to the point they need medical attention.

The Ugandan government has even stopped publishing COVID guidelines. From their perspective, the pandemic is over. The same sentiment appears common in other African countries as well. Given the situation on the ground, is it really a pressing need to jab 30 million people in Uganda against a disease they’re not getting sick from?

What Uganda does need is malaria treatments, mosquito nets, clean drinking water and antibiotics. “That is what the priorities on the ground seem to be,” Campbell says. So, what’s with the apparent disconnect between the WHO’s priorities and what’s actually happening in areas with low COVID jab rates? The WHO’s Catastrophic Contagion exercise12,13 clues us in.

The Disconnect Reveals the WHO’s True Intentions

October 23, 2022, the WHO, Bill Gates and Johns Hopkins cohosted a global challenge exercise dubbed “Catastrophic Contagion,”14,15 involving the outbreak of a novel pathogen called “severe epidemic enterovirus respiratory syndrome 2025” (SEERS-25).

Tellingly, this tabletop exercise was focused on getting African leadership involved and trained in following the pandemic script. Participants included 10 current and former health ministers and senior public health officials from Senegal, Rwanda, Nigeria, Angola and Liberia. (Representatives from Singapore, India and Germany, as well as Gates himself, were also in attendance.)

African nations just so happened to go “off script” more often than others during the COVID pandemic and didn’t follow in the footsteps of developed nations when it came to pushing the jabs. As a result, vaccine makers now face the problem of having a huge control group, as the COVID jab uptake on the African continent was only 6%.16

They cannot reasonably explain how or why Africa ended up faring so better than developed nations with high COVID jab rates in terms of COVID-19 infections and related deaths.17

The WHO’s pandemic treaty is the gateway to a global, top-down totalitarian regime. But to secure that power, they will need more pandemics.

The WHO desperately needs to get rid of this control group, so they’re enlisting and training African leaders how to push for widespread vaccination using the WHO’s talking points. This, I believe, is the only reason the WHO is still speaking about COVID-19 in catastrophic terms.

The WHO Needs Additional Pandemics to Secure Its Power Grab

At this point, it’s quite clear that “biosecurity” is the chosen means by which the globalist cabal intends to usher in its one world government. The WHO is working on securing sole power over pandemic response globally through its international pandemic treaty which, if implemented, will eradicate the sovereignty of member nations.

The WHO’s pandemic treaty is basically the gateway to a global, top-down totalitarian regime. But to secure that power, they will need more pandemics. COVID-19 alone was not enough to get everyone onboard with a centralized pandemic response unit, and they probably knew that from the start.

So, the reason we can be sure there will be additional pandemics, whether manufactured using fear and hype alone or an actual bioweapon created for this very purpose, is because the takeover plan, aka The Great Reset, is based on the premise that we need global biosecurity surveillance and a centralized response.

The Biden-McCarthy-Schumer era has begun, which means your wealth or retirement is in jeopardy. The smart money is getting physical precious metals sent straight to their door and rolling over their retirement to self-directed IRAs.

Biosecurity, in turn, is the justification for an international vaccine passport, which the G20 just signed on to, and that passport will also be your digital identification. That digital ID, then, will be tied to your social credit score, personal carbon footprint tracker, medical records, educational records, work records, social media presence, purchase records, your bank accounts and a programmable central bank digital currency (CBDC).

Once all these pieces are fully connected, you’ll be in a digital prison, and the ruling cabal — whether officially a one world government by then or not — will have total control over your life from cradle to grave.

The WHO’s pandemic treaty is what sets this chain of events off, as it will have the power to implement vaccine passports globally once the treaty is signed. The WHO will also have the power to mandate vaccines, standardize medical care and issue travel restrictions.

This treaty will likely pass this year, which means the WHO will either need to ramp up the COVID narrative again, or switch to another pandemic in order to justify these kinds of actions.

With 90% of ingredients in pharmaceuticals coming from Communist China, the risk of a medical supply chain crisis has never been greater. Secure five types of antibiotics to have ready when you need. Use promo code “Rucker10” for $10 off.

The Pandemic Treaty Is the Death Knell to Freedom Worldwide

It’s important to realize that the WHO’s pandemic treaty will radically alter the global power structure and strip you of some of your most basic rights and freedoms. It’s a direct attack on the sovereignty of its member states, as well as a direct attack on your bodily autonomy.

Once signed, all member nations will be subject to the WHO’s dictates. If the WHO says every person on the planet needs to have a vaccine passport and digital identity to ensure vaccination compliance, then that’s what every country will be forced to implement, even if the people have rejected such plans using local democratic processes.

There’s also reason to suspect the WHO intends to extend its sovereign leadership into the health care systems of every nation, eventually implementing a universal or “socialist-like” health care system as part of The Great Reset. WHO Director-General Tedros has previously stated that his “central priority” as director-general of the WHO is to push the world toward universal health coverage.18

Prediction: Climate Lockdowns Are Next

Considering the WHO changed its definition of “pandemic” to “a worldwide epidemic of a disease,”19 without the original specificity of severe illness that causes high morbidity,20,21 just about anything could be made to fit the pandemic criterion. This means that once they’re in power, they won’t need to rely exclusively on pathogenic threats.

They could also declare a global pandemic for a noninfectious threat, like global warming, for example. Such a declaration would then allow the WHO to circumvent laws that are in place to preserve our freedom, and allow for the implementation of tyrannical measures such as lockdowns and travel restrictions.

Indeed, the notion of “climate lockdowns” has already been publicly flouted on multiple occasions.22 As reported by The Pulse:23

“Climate lockdowns and other restrictions will be framed as saving the people of the world from themselves. Who would ever disagree with such measures when it is framed under the guise of good will?

Like we saw with COVID mandates, if climate mandates ever take place they will be promoted as an extremely noble and necessary action. Those who disagree and present evidence that such actions are not useful or impactful, and instead cause more harm, will most likely be silenced, censored and ridiculed …

What would a climate lockdown look like? Well, if such an initiative were to take place, governments would limit or ban the consumption of many foods. They would ban or limit private-vehicle use, or limit the distance one can travel in a gas powered car or perhaps even by plane.

Working from home could eventually become the permanent norm if special carbon taxes are put in place. Such taxes could be imposed on companies, limiting driving or air miles, and extend to individual employees … Schools, especially those heavily influenced by teachers’ unions, could impose permanent online-only days.”

Officials Around the World Have Suggested Climate Lockdowns

As noted by The Pulse, a number of officials around the world have voiced support for climate lockdowns, completely ignoring the devastating effects the COVID lockdowns have already had. This just goes to show lockdowns were never about public health and never will be.

Among the climate lockdown enthusiasts we have Germany’s health minister Karl Lauterbach, who in December 2020 proclaimed that addressing climate change would require restrictions on personal freedom, similar to those implemented to “flatten the curve” of COVID.24

British economics professor Mariana Mazzucato is another advocate for climate lockdowns, who in September 2020 warned that “In the near future, the world may need to resort to lockdowns again — this time to tackle a climate emergency.”25

We also have the statements of Bill Gates26 and the Red Cross,27 both of which in 2020 claimed that climate change poses a greater threat to mankind than COVID, and must be confronted with the same urgency and resolve. The World Economic Forum (WEF), the United Nations and the WHO have also published articles stating their intent to “fight climate change” by shutting down society.28

Notably, in “How to Fight the Next Threat to Our World: Air Pollution,” published by the WEF29 and co-written by the director of WHO’s Environment and Health Department, it’s suggested that health and climate issues be combined into one. As noted in that article:

“We can confront these crises more effectively and fairly if we address them as one — and foster support across all sectors of the economy … COVID-19 has proven humanity’s inbuilt ability to rise up and act to protect the health of our most vulnerable people. We need to do the same with air pollution.”

Recall, as I mentioned above, if the WHO has sole power over global health, combining health and climate issues will automatically give the WHO the de facto power to issue climate lockdowns. Some claim climate lockdowns have already begun,30 with the random shutting off of people’s power even though there’s no actual outage — sort of slow-walking people into accepting that the lights won’t always turn on.

That the WHO will jump at the opportunity to implement climate lockdowns can also be seen in the WHO Manifesto for a Healthy Recovery From COVID-19, which states:31

“The ‘lockdown’ measures that have been necessary to control the spread of COVID-19 have slowed economic activity, and disrupted lives — but have also given some glimpses of a possible brighter future.

In some places, pollution levels have dropped to such an extent that people have breathed clean air, or have seen blue skies and clear waters, or have been able to walk and cycle safely with their children — for the first times in their lives.

The use of digital technology has accelerated new ways of working and connecting with each other, from reducing time spent commuting, to more flexible ways of studying, to carrying out medical consultations remotely, to spending more time with our families.

Opinion polls from around the world show that people want to protect the environment, and preserve the positives that have emerged from the crisis, as we recover …

Decisions made in the coming months can either “lock in” economic development patterns that will do permanent and escalating damage to the ecological systems that sustain all human health and livelihoods, or, if wisely taken, can promote a healthier, fairer, and greener world.”

This manifesto also lays out many other aspects of The Great Reset agenda, including smart cities, travel restrictions, new food systems, a complete transition to green energy and more. But again, the thing that will really facilitate all of these changes is to have a centralized powerbase, and that is the WHO.

What Can You Do?

Stopping the WHO pandemic treaty will be difficult, as the World Health Assembly may or may not even accept public comment before making a decision. Your best bet right now is to sign up for the World Council for Health’s (WCH) newsletter.

The last time the World Health Assembly met to discuss the treaty, the WCH issued links and instructions on how to submit your comment. You can subscribe at the bottom of this page, or on the WCH’s home page. I and the CHD will also share details if they become available, so subscribing to our newsletters can give you a heads-up as well.

In the absence of instructions, you could reach out to your respective delegation and request that they oppose the treaty. A list of U.S. delegates can be found in James Roguski’s Substack article, “Speaking Truth to Power.”

For contact information for other nations’ delegates, I would suggest contacting the regional office and ask for a list (see “Regions” in the blue section at the bottom of the World Health Assembly’s webpage).

 

COVID Vaccines Are "Obviously Dangerous" And Should Be Halted Immediately, Say Senior Swedish Doctors

SATURDAY, JAN 14, 2023 - 06:10 AM

Authored by Dr. Johan Eddebo via The Daily Sceptic,,

There follows a public statement by a group of five senior Swedish doctors who, in collaboration with Dr. Johan Eddebo, a researcher in digitalisation and human rights, are raising the alert about the Covid vaccines, which they describe as “obviously dangerous”. They say there should be an “immediate halt” to the mass vaccination pending “thorough investigations” of the true incidence and severity of adverse effects.

The true character and scope of the harm caused by the unprecedented mass vaccinations for COVID-19 is just now beginning to become clear. Leading scientific journals have finally begun publishing data corroborating what the underground research community has observed over the last two years, especially in relation to complex problems of immune suppression.

Truly concerning numbers pertaining to both births and mortality are also emerging.

At this moment in time, a new, allegedly super-infectious Omicron variant is all over the headlines. A sub-variant of XXB, this strain is said to possess immune escape capabilities of precisely the type that some independent researchers predicted would follow on the heels of the mass vaccinations’ narrow antigenic fixation.

The WHO maintains that worldwide, 10,000 people still die due to Covid every single day, an implausible death toll more than ten times that of an average flu. It reiterates the urgent need for vaccinations, especially in light of China’s reopening and allegedly falsified data on mortality and infections.

The EU has even called an emergency summit in light of the purported Chinese “Covid chaos” that “calls to mind how everything began in Wuhan, three years ago”.

In Sweden, the Minister for Health and Social Affairs has said he cannot rule out new restrictions, and states that everyone must take “their three doses”, since “only” 85% of the population is ‘fully inoculated’.

That such an extensive vaccine coverage has not yielded better results after nearly two years is a remarkable fact. Even more so in light of some individuals receiving four or more repeated exposures to the same vaccine antigen, yet still contracting the disease they are supposedly immunised against.

At the same time, even more ominous warning signs abound.

One such warning sign is the fact that average mortality in many Western states is still at a remarkably high level, in spite of the direct effects of the coronavirus being marginal for more than a year. Data from EuroMOMO indicate a marked excess mortality in the EU for all of 2022, and the German Bureau of Statistics reports that the country’s mortality in October was more than 19% over the median value of the preceding years.

Is this due to Covid, as the WHO’s ’10 000 per day’ figure would seem to indicate?

Blame is placed at the feet of ‘Long Covid‘ as well as the regular acute infections, but according to the EuroMOMO and Our World in Data stats, the bulk of the excess deaths in Europe during 2022 are actually not due to clinically manifest coronavirus infections.

Moreover, we shouldn’t see continued excess deaths from a respiratory virus of this kind after three years of global exposure due to the inevitable consolidation of natural immunity.

If such a situation persists, the hypothetical connection to a vaccine-related immunity suppression that just now has come into focus becomes pertinent to investigate in detail.

If, as has been argued, the vaccinations, and especially the boosters, alter the immune profile of recipients such that Covid infections get ‘tolerated’ by the immune system, it’s possible that vaccinated individuals will tend towards a situation of long-term, repeat infections that do not get cleared, and do not present with obvious symptoms, while still promoting systemic damage.

The literature now indicates an extensive substitution in the vaccinated of virus-neutralising antibodies for non-inflammatory ones, a ‘class switch’ from antibodies that work towards clearing the virus from our system, to a category of antibodies whose purpose is to desensitise us to irritants and allergens.

The net effect is that the inflammatory response to Covid infection gets down-regulated (reduced). This means that full-blown infections will present with milder symptoms, and that they won’t get cleared as effectively (partly since fever and inflammation are essential to your body getting rid of a pathogen).

That these developments alone aren’t cause for an immediate halt to the mass vaccinations, as well as thorough investigations, is astonishing.

There is of course another, and more well-known, potential partial explanation of the surprising excess mortality. We have indications of clotting disorders connected to the Covid vaccines, evident in a new major Nordic study, while repeated studies evidence a clear correlation between heart disease and Covid vaccination (see Le Vu et al.Karlstad et al. and Patone et al.).

A newly published Thai study moreover indicated that almost a third of the vaccinated youth enrolled exhibited cardiovascular manifestations, and a yet unpublished Swiss study suggests that as many as 3% of everyone vaccinated manifest heart muscle damage.

And as stated above, we also see signals pertaining to fertility disturbances connected to the Covid vaccines.

An Israeli study shows impaired motility and sperm concentrations after both Pfizer and Moderna vaccination. The safety committee of the European Medicines Agency has also affirmed that the vaccines may cause menstrual disturbances, and Pfizer’s own studies indicate that the lipid nanoparticles of the mRNA-vaccines cluster in the reproductive organs.

The hypothesis that COVID-19 vaccinations influence fertility is supported by a significant and unprecedented decline in the Swedish birth rate during the first months of 2022. According to Swedish demographers, the decline is ”surprising”.

There are similar data from many other Western countries, and to continue the mass vaccinations for low-risk groups such as children or pregnant women is utterly irresponsible – especially since the vaccinations do little or nothing to stop the spread as was initially promised, and is often still falsely maintained.

One hopes that the hypothesis of a decline in birth rates due to the vaccinations can be falsified through a thorough and independent investigation as soon as possible. The numbers are truly worrying.

Yet the fact that Pfizer’s data pertaining to fertility disturbances had been hidden away and needed to be discovered through a FOIA request is typical for the entire situation.

There’s almost no independent public debate on these issues, and critical perspectives are actively suppressed by the major digital platforms.

Public watchdogs such as the European Medicines Agency are funded by the pharmaceutical industry and often base their recommendations on Big Pharma’s in-house studies. The independence of our scientific and academic institutions is threatened, and we see a confluence between scientific research, private corporate interests and political and ideological objectives on every level.

To place a digital filter of censorship on top of all of this, where proprietary algorithms micromanage the flow of information and the public debate in accordance with the intentions of their owners, in practice means to abolish the open democratic society and independent scientific research.

Recent disclosures also show that the digital platforms have actively worked towards suppressing critical perspectives on the Covid policies and the mass vaccinations. Twitter has for this purpose developed clandestine censorship strategies and employed so-called ‘shadowbanning’ with the effect of an almost undetectable suppression of the visibility of posts and accounts connected to undesirable perspectives and analyses. Facebook took down more than seven million posts to influence the debate on Covid only during the second quarter of 2020. YouTube has banned publishing of video material that contains critical perspectives on the Covid vaccinations. Such content is designated ‘misinformation’ and ‘disinformation’ whether or not it is supported by relevant data.

These kinds of measures have very serious consequences. Digitalisation’s centralised control of the flow of information doesn’t just affect policy on the local and regional level, but also influences the way in which scientific and journalistic work can be designed and carried out. It creates structures that immediately repress heterodox views and silences critical voices through fear and indirect persecution.

Public trust in our common institutions will inevitably be eroded by this development.

The open society now desperately needs a renaissance. The democratic and scientific discourses must be rebuilt from the ground up, and in a way which respects the new and unique risks of our contemporary situation, and which protects and emphasises the responsibility of the individual citizen.

Key to this in our current predicament is to press on with critical questions pertaining to the obviously dangerous mass vaccinations and to investigate the corruption of our political and scientific institutions that the Covid situation has shed light on.

It is critical that we immediately begin to remedy the significant damage that has been rendered to global public health, and to the open society as such. 

Johan Eddebo, Ph.D, researcher in digitalisation and human rights

Sture Blomberg, MD, Ph.D, Associate Professor in Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care and former senior physician

Ragnar Hultborn, Professor Emeritus, specialist in oncology

Sven Román, MD, Child and Adolescent Psychiatrist, since 2015 Consultant Psychiatrist working in Child and Adolescent Psychiatry throughout Sweden

Lilian Weiss, Associate Professor, specialist in surgery

Nils Littorin, resident in psychiatry, MD in clinical microbiology

The authors are members of the bio-medico-legal network of Läkaruppropet. They are organising a conference in Stockholm on January 21st-22nd in conjunction with the Swedish Doctors’ Appeal network. Its main focus will be on the consequences of the global COVID-19 politics and the effects of the Covid vaccines.

 

How COVID Vaccines Cause Cancer

Colleen Huber

Dec 30 2022

Antibodies are studied more than other immune proteins for association with disease. This does not mean that they are more decisive in disease outcomes. Type I interferon likely has far more impact.

Antibodies Are Not the Whole Story of Immune Resilience Toward Cancer

Much is being made of a recent study showing IgG4 antibodies spiking in the blood labs of those who are triple-injected with the mRNA COVID vaccines.   Journalists are speculating that this may be the cause of increased cancers in the COVID-vaccinated.  But that is not the main reason that the COVID-vaccinated are getting new cancer cases, sometimes aggressive “turbo cancers,” or coming out of remission from earlier cancer.  Rather, there is earlier research that provides more plausible mechanisms for cancer risk, based on abundant prior knowledge of immune function.  Let’s look at both the new study on IgG antibodies and earlier research.

The popular fallacy seems to be along these lines: ‘Antibodies are easy to test for.  Plus, they are the focus of vaccine development and vaccine action.  So therefore we spend a lot of time thinking and talking about them.  So therefore they must be important markers of disease outcomes.  So therefore they must be decisive in disease outcomes.’

After focusing my own work on cancer patients for the last 16 years as a naturopathic oncologist, if I made this mistake in thinking, most of my patients would be dead by now from misdirected efforts.

No, cancer remains a mega-problem of DNA damage, immune distraction, disrupted cell signaling, frenzied growth, lack of apoptosis, weakened tissues, angiogenesis, and metabolic derangement, as the principal features of an entity that feeds itself at the expense and to the detriment of the organ and the organism.  These are the principal features of cancer, and they are hard as heck to treat successfully.  I discuss that very daunting challenge here.

IgG3 Versus IgG4

First, let’s look at the new study on IgG3 versus IgG4 antibodies in the triple-jabbed.  Herein, let’s call it the IgG4 study.   It finds that the triple-jabbed may be developing a non-inflammatory tolerance to even high levels of spike proteins.  That is, rather than having typical dyspnea, cough, olfactory and other full-blown COVID-type symptoms, IgG4 is a tolerant and tolerizing antibody that allows virions and spike protein load to accumulate in the body without the usual symptomatic alarms.  Thus, a COVID+ PCR result with mild symptoms, or even no symptoms, often ensues.  This may partly account for the many celebrities and politicians frequently quoted in MSM saying in so many words, ‘I tested positive for COVID, but thanks to my shots, it’s mild.’   Yet their lack of effective immune defeat of SARS-CoV-2 is what prevents their developing a lasting neutralizing immunity.  So they (at least at first) tolerate high spike protein loads and are perpetually vulnerable to recurrent infections.   Even more worrisome, what underlies that recurrence of mild symptoms, show the IgG4 study authors, is a precarious derangement of immune function with potentially problematic stockpiling of viral load, spike proteins and antibodies, with potentially devastating consequences for their future health outcomes.  Even a myeloma like abundance of immunoglobulins can create a multiple myeloma-like disease in the COVID-vaccinated, a sludgy protein-laden blood that is harmful to the fine filtration structures, glomeruli, of the kidneys.

That immune deviation, misdirection and derangement has been previously described as pathogenic priming, a maladaptation of the immune system to either ignore or to fight ineffectively against genuine threats, while at the same time focusing its resources to slay the paper tigers of non-threatening antigens.  This happened in the design of the mRNA vaccines to produce a spike protein that was characteristic of the original Wuhan strain of SARS-CoV-2, but turned out to be ineffective against Delta, Omicron and subsequent strains, as some of us had earlier warned.  Because the Wuhan strain had already flamed and burned out, the COVID vaccines were obsolete by the time they were offered to the public.

Under circumstances of natural infection, whereas IgM antibodies flare for a short time after infection onset, IgG antibodies, in contrast, are slower to develop, and are those that remain long after an infection has resolved.  (For example, my measles IgGs are still robust on a blood lab decades after I had measles as a child, with only natural immunity, no vaccine history.)

The subclass IgG4 is a non-inflammatory one that is correlated with tolerance to antigens, similar to allergy shots rendering the immune response more tolerant to grass pollen.   IgG4 has no known effector function.  Likewise, IgG4 seems to be inversely correlated with anaphylaxis.   Here, in the IgG4 paper, regarding the COVID-vaccinated, IgG4 increases considerably, over 38 times, after a third mRNA injection.  Please note that the scale of the y-axis is logarithmic, putting the IgG4s quite far up there.

At the same time, both triple- and double-jabbed lose a considerable amount of their IgG3 antibodies, discovered at 180-day and 210-day follow-up labs, respectively.  Note again the logarithmic scale, showing cratering drop-off of IgG3 antibodies, with skyrocketing IgG4 antibodies.   This is from Figure 1 of the IgG4 paper:

The subclass IgG3 is sometimes thought, including by the IgG4 authors, to be pro-inflammatory, one of many immune assaults against invading pathogens.  Although there is evidence to the contrary as well.  IgG3 is thus sometimes assumed, including by the IgG4 authors, and interested journalists, to neutralize, or fight effectively against, antigens.

However, there is little support, other than correlation of titers, for the assertion that IgG3 antibodies may be effective warriors against pathogens.  The IgG4 study authors acknowledge an earlier observation of “IgG3 responses correlating with partial protection against HIV,” and only a rise in IgG3 antibodies after natural infection with SARS-CoV-2, such as reported here, without mechanism of its protection.

One possible clue as to the IgG4 study authors’ observations of low IgG3 is the glycosylation of IgG3 as impactful on SARS-CoV-2 infection severity.  (Immunoglobulins are glycosylated protein molecules generally, but hyper-glycosylation seems to be a problem.  Glycosylation is generally detrimental to its optimal function; notorious glycosylation has devastated more than simply antibodies, in our junk food loving culture.)

IgG3 antibodies are a very small proportion of IgG antibodies and have not yet been well-studied.  Both IgG3 and IgG4 antibodies are generally a small proportion of all our B-cells, 3% and 4% respectively.

Low IgG3 antibodies are not necessarily correlated with low disease severity.  For example, in COPD, we see this correlation of low IgG3 levels with life-threatening exacerbations of COPD.  All antibodies, including IgG3 and IgG4, generally rise and then fall in case of natural infection.  Below I will explain why I am not so sure the cause and effect vector goes as is currently being assumed, from low IgG3 / IgG4 ratio to generalized immune dysfunction.  Rather, I suspect that it may more likely be an effect of other mechanisms, described below.

There Is so Much More to Immune Function Than Only Antibodies

The first problem with the current IgG fascination is the assumption that just because antibodies consume much attention, and are easily measurable proteins on a blood lab, that they are then necessarily impactful on the vast complexity of the rest of the immune system.  Metaphorically, by assuming that that which we can see is necessarily decisive, we are looking at the skin, so to speak, and assuming that we therefore know the functions of the internal organs and that the skin is the dominant cause of internal effects.  Obviously, such is not the case.

Let’s first assume that the highly mobile and ubiquitous blood contains many of the cells in our immune system and are, as a whole and in parts, key to optimal immune function.  Here is the proportion of IgG immunoglobulin antibodies to the rest of the immune system:

Immunoglobulins are present on the surface of B-cells, where they act as receptors for antigens.  B-cells fluctuate in number, but average 5.2% of all white blood cells.  White blood cells are 0.1% of all cells in the blood.  Therefore B-cells are about 0.00005% or 5 in 100,000 cells in the blood.

I explain further about that here.

This proportion of B-cells to other cells in the blood is vanishingly small.  If you can see the very skinny red line at the far left of the band below, that is the proportion of all B-cells compared to the vast remainder of cells in the blood.  (The thin red line would actually need to be a little thinner to be true to scale.)

Now let’s look at other aspects of immune function that are powerhouse fighters against cancer, but have been associated with high viral load and/or high spike protein, such as is expected to occur after COVID vaccination.  These researchers found that two of our most important cancer-fighting cells, natural killer (NK) cells and CD8+ T-cells were significantly reduced in these circumstances.  Reduction in NK cells is seen with more aggressive tumors.

But the major problem with the mRNA COVID vaccines and cancer risk was shown in April of this year, in the Seneff, Nigh paper.

The science community’s pre-occupation with the relatively smaller adaptive immune system, mostly its humoral portion, and unfamiliarity or disinterest in the vastly more important and stronger innate immune system has led attention away from this seminal paper.   I have to recommend not only reading but thoroughly studying the Seneff, Nigh paper for the best understanding to date of the effect of the COVID vaccines on tumorigenesis, immune-failure with respect to cancer and metastatic events.

What Seneff et al found is that the most profound threat to immune function by the mRNA vaccines is the interference with Type I interferon signaling pathways.  This in turn debilitates the surveillance capabilities of the immune system in cancer detection.  As a result, we see both new tumors and metastases of existing cancers in the COVID-vaccinated.  We see what is now called turbo cancers.  Here is how Seneff et al supports that hypothesis.  Their paper is enormously detailed, and my summary of it below is quite brief.

Ivanova, et al found that people who were naturally infected with SARS-CoV-2 have been able to dramatically up-regulate our arguably most crucial cytokine, Type I interferon, as seen from their peripheral dendritic cells, whereas mRNA-vaccinated people have not shown this ability, nor any such increase, nor any progenitor cells for the same.  From those various findings, is evident that the COVID vaccines suppress Type I interferon signaling.  The results are a devastating breakdown of many downstream immune functions, creating new vulnerability to not only viral diseases, but also to cancer. The necessity of interferons for the body’s war against cancer is further seen in the productive clinical use over decades of interferon as a therapeutic agent to cancer patients.

The most appreciated mechanisms of Type I interferon against cancers include up-regulation of the tumor suppressor gene p53, as well as kinase inhibitors, and the resulting arrest of cancer’s cell reproduction.  Perhaps even more crucial is that Interferon-alpha, a type of interferon I, makes cancer recognizable, or in a way visible to other immune cells for destruction.  Two other major effects of Type I interferons, specifically interferon-alpha, are cell differentiation and apoptosis, which are two of the major events that are important for a natural victory over cancer.  Type I interferon also activates the essential cancer-fighting cells discussed above, CD8+ and NK cells.  There are further genetic effects of Type I interferons, each of which tend to suppress tumors, notably through IRF-7 genes.  These genes have impact on cancers of the breast, prostate, uterus, ovaries and pancreas.  But these and oncogenes generally appear to become dysregulated by the mRNA vaccines.

Fay et al discuss G-quadruplex formations in RNA, and that role in proto-oncogene expression.  This can in turn lead to cancer progression.

Cancer Incidence

Even before the boosters were rolled out to the public, the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) of the Dept of Health and Human Services (HHS) showed vastly more cancers following COVID vaccines than for all other vaccines during the 30-year history of VAERS.  These new cancers following the COVID vaccines accounted for 98% of cancers reported.  Here again from Seneff et al:

Seneff, Nigh et al https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9012513/

It should be noted that the reporting of these 2021 cancers occurred in large part prior to the US public’s (tepid) uptake of even the earliest mRNA COVID boosters (injection #3 in the fall of 2021) as here shown in Our World in Data.

That 3rd injection is the one after which the IgG4 paper authors saw the most difference in IgG3/IgG4 ratios, but not necessarily the greatest increase in cases of cancer.

Let’s consider the whole immune system, not only immunoglobulins, as necessary to protect against the ravages of cancer.  Immune cells and cytokines, and their exquisitely coordinated and synergistic functions, must be protected from the destructive events initiated by irreversible experimental injections of novel products, such as the mRNA vaccines.

 

COVID Boosters Trigger Metastasis

Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola

January 05, 2023

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • Cancer rates have increased since the introduction of the COVID shots and is now one of the top three leading causes of premature death among younger adults — a trend that in turn is driving down U.S. life expectancy
  • The leading causes of death in 2021 were heart disease and cancer, both of which are potential side effects of the COVID jabs
  • Dr. Angus Dalgleish, professor of oncology at St. George’s University of London, warns that COVID boosters may be causing aggressive metastatic cancers
  • Research shows SARS-CoV-2 spike protein obliterates 90% of the DNA repair mechanism in lymphocytes, a type of white blood cell that helps your body fight infection and chronic disease, including cancer
  • The COVID jab is less effective in lymphoma patients. Emory University researchers found only 68% of non-Hodgkin lymphoma and chronic lymphocytic leukemia developed neutralizing antibodies after the second dose, compared to 100% of healthy controls

Cancer rates have increased since the introduction of the COVID shots and is one of the top three leading causes of premature death among younger adults — a trend that in turn is driving down U.S. life expectancy.

In 2019, the average life span of Americans of all ethnicities was nearly 78.8 years.1 By the end of 2021, life expectancy had dropped to 76.42 — a loss of nearly three years, which is an astounding decline. The leading causes of death in 2021 were heart disease, cancer and COVID-19, all three of which were higher in 2021 than in 2020,3 and both heart disease and cancer are potential side effects of the COVID jabs.

COVID Boosters Are Triggering Metastatic Cancer

November 26, 2022, The Daily Sceptic published a letter4,5 to the editor of The BMJ, written by Dr. Angus Dalgleish, professor of oncology at St. George’s University of London, warning that COVID boosters may be causing aggressive metastatic cancers:

“COVID no longer needs a vaccine programme given the average age of death of COVID in the U.K. is 82 and from all other causes is 81 and falling,” Dalgleish writes.6 “The link with clots, myocarditis, heart attacks and strokes is now well accepted, as is the link with myelitis and neuropathy ...

However, there is now another reason to halt all vaccine programmes. As a practicing oncologist I am seeing people with stable disease rapidly progress after being forced to have a booster, usually so they can travel. Even within my own personal contacts I am seeing B cell-based disease after the boosters.

They describe being distinctly unwell a few days to weeks after the booster — one developing leukemia, two work colleagues Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, and an old friend who has felt like he has had Long COVID since receiving his booster and who, after getting severe bone pain, has been diagnosed as having multiple metastases from a rare B cell disorder.

I am experienced enough to know that these are not the coincidental anecdotes ... The reports of innate immune suppression after mRNA for several weeks would fit, as all these patients to date have melanoma or B cell based cancers, which are very susceptible to immune control — and that is before the reports of suppressor gene suppression by mRNA in laboratory experiments. This must be aired and debated immediately.”

New Norm: Explosive Cancer Relapses

In a December 19, 2022, article7 in Conservative Woman, Dalgleish continues discussing the phenomenon of rapidly spreading cancers in patients who were in stable remission for years before receiving their COVID boosters. He notes that after his letter to The BMJ was published, several oncologists have contacted him to say they’re seeing the same thing in their own practices.

“Seeing the recurrence of these cancers after all this time naturally makes me wonder if there is a common cause?” he writes.8 “I had previously noted that relapse in stable cancer is often associated with severe long-term stress, such as bankruptcy, divorce, etc.

However, I found that none of my patients had any such extra stress during this time, but they had all had booster vaccines and, indeed, a couple of them noted that they had a very bad reaction to the booster which they did not have to the first two injections.

I then noted that some of these patients were not having a normal pattern of relapse but rather an explosive relapse, with metastases occurring at the same time in several sites ... Scientifically, I was reading reports that the booster was leading to a big excess of antibodies at the expense of the T-cell response and that this T-cell suppression could last for three weeks, if not more.

To me, this could be causal as the immune system is being asked to make an excessive response through the humoral inflammatory part of the immune response against a virus (the alpha-delta variant) which is no longer in existence in the community.

This exertion leads to immune exhaustion, which is why these patients are reporting up to a 50% greater increase in Omicron, or other variations, than the non-vaccinated.”

A Change of Heart and Mind

Interestingly, in mid-2021, the Daily Mail published an article in which Dalgleish encouraged people to get the COVID shot, especially younger individuals.9 Dalgleish explains that, at the time, there was an “overwhelming push by the government and the medical community ... that this would be in everyone’s best interest.”

So, he caved to the narrative, even though he had concerns from the start. Now, however, the environment has changed and there’s really no need for these experimental shots anymore.

His concerns further grew when his son developed myocarditis “after having a jab he did not want but that he needed for work and travel purposes.” A friend of his son, who was in his early 30s, suffered a stroke after his jab, and a relative of a close colleague died from a heart attack at the age of 34 after hers.

“I began to be highly alarmed that it was the vaccines causing these symptoms,” Dalgleish writes,10 “and that just as we had written11 ... a genetically engineered virus had serious implications for vaccine design.

This paper, which was suppressed and therefore did not appear in print for many months, reported that the sequence of the virus was completely consistent with having been genetically engineered, with a furin cleavage site and six inserts at places that would make the virus very infectious, and the reason this had such tremendous implications for vaccine design was that 80% of these sequences had homology to human epitopes.

In particular, we had noticed a homology with platelet factor 4 and myelin. The former is also certainly associated with what is known as VITT (low platelets and clotting issues) and the latter associated with all the neurological problems, such as transverse myelitis, both of which are now recognized as side effects of the vaccine even by the MHRA [Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency in the UK].”

Authorities Have Willfully Ignored All Warning Signals

Dalgleish says his team’s findings were eventually circulated among cabinet members and various medical committees, but everyone ignored them. As a result, many have been placed at unnecessary risk for serious injury and/or death.

As Dalgleish points out, young hearts over-express the ACE receptor that the virus was engineered to bind to. This binding with the ACE2 receptor is what “sets off the inflammatory response, which leads to myocarditis, pericarditis, stroke and deaths,” Dalgleish says.

This could explain the dramatic increase observed in deaths of young athletes who were jabbed: They simply have more ACE2 receptors that bind to the spike proteins created by the jab. Dalgleish continues:12

“When the facts change, or new facts emerge, the position of all those in authority directing mandates should change but unfortunately, they did not.

I tried desperately to point out that all the evidence that vaccines might have been useful in helping to curtail the pandemic was changing; that it was becoming very clear that there were highly significant side effects to the vaccine programme that Pfizer had gone to great lengths to cover up, and that it was only a court case in the US that led to them becoming available.

At this stage the whole vaccine programme should have been stopped but nobody seemed to want to address this, neither the Government, the medical authorities or the media.

Having written many articles for the Daily Mail arguing against lockdown and for it never to be used again, I was extremely keen to address my change of opinion on the vaccines and to warn people of their dangers particularly to younger people, and to point out there were no grounds at all for giving it to children.

Unfortunately, all my efforts and approaches to the mainstream media on this subject have been rejected. This, I believe, is something that will come back to haunt all those who introduced an Orwellian kind of suppression to the emerging truth, which labelled doctors trying to save their patients along the lines of ‘first do no harm’ as outcasts or villains.”

Scientific Proof COVID Jab Causes Cancer

Back in August 2022, The Exposé13 highlighted scientific evidence showing the COVID jabs can cause cancer of the ovaries, pancreas and breast, and that “a monumental cover-up is taking place to suppress the consequences ... on women’s health.”

Research shows SARS-CoV-2 spike protein obliterates 90% of the DNA repair mechanism in lymphocytes, a type of white blood cells that help your body fight infection and chronic disease, including cancer.

The research in question was that of Jiang and Mei, who published a peer-reviewed article showing the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein obliterated the DNA repair mechanism in lymphocytes, a type of white blood cells that play an important role in your immune system. Lymphocytes help your body fight infection and chronic disease, including cancer. Professional data analyst Joel Smalley writes:14

“The viral spike protein was so toxic to this pathway that it knocked 90% of it out. If the whole spike protein got into the nucleus (in the ovaries), and enough of it was produced and hung around long enough before the body was able to get rid of it all, it would cause cancer. Fortunately, in the case of natural infection, this is unlikely to occur.

Unfortunately, the experimental mRNA toxshot induces spike protein to be produced (the full-length spike exactly matching — amino acid for amino acid — the full length of the viral spike protein15) in and around the cell nucleus and is produced for at least 60 days and almost certainly longer.16

‘Fact checkers’ said the viral spike protein doesn’t get in the nucleus despite the expert scientists showing that it absolutely does. Public health authorities and regulators said the vaccinal spike protein doesn’t get in the nucleus despite the mRNA manufacturers submitting pictures of it doing so to them as part of their emergency use application ...

Jiang and Mei, quite logically and reasonably, cautioned that the mRNA spike protein would likely have the same effect as the viral spike protein on p53 and therefore cause cancer ... [The] Jiang and Mei paper was retracted due to spurious ‘expressions of concern’ (EOC) about the methods of the study despite them being standard practice ...

Well, despite the retraction, the spike protein circulating in large quantities, in the direct vicinity of the cell nucleus, for elongated periods of time, still has the potential to induce cancer in those cells (ovary, pancreas, breast, prostate, lymph nodes). These cancers can take years to develop and so it’s possible that we don’t see much of a safety signal for 5 or 10 years.”

As noted by Smalley, one of the authors of the EOC that led to the retraction of the paper was Eric Freed, Ph.D., who heads up the U.S. National Institutes of Health’s Center for Cancer Research.

He’s been a tenured investigator with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and NIH since 2002,17 the very agencies that funded Moderna’s mRNA jab, yet this conflict of interest was not disclosed in the EOC.

A Not so Rare Cancer Case

At the end of September 2022, The Atlantic18 featured the story of Belgian immunologist Michel Goldman, 67, who in the spring of 2021 got his first and second COVID shot. In the fall that year, he was diagnosed with lymphoma, cancer of the immune system.

Mere weeks after his body scan and diagnosis, he got his first booster, thinking he needed it since he’d soon become immunocompromised by the chemotherapy. But the booster caused a rapid decline in his health.

Another body scan at the end of September 2021, just three weeks after his first scan, revealed “a brand-new barrage of cancer lesions — so many spots that it looked like someone had set off fireworks inside Michel’s body,” Roxanne Khamsi writes:19

“More than that, the lesions were now prominent on both sides of the body, with new clusters blooming in Michel’s right armpit, and along the right side of his neck.

When Michel’s hematologist saw the scan, she told him to report directly to the nearest hospital pharmacy. He’d have to start on steroid pills right away, she told him. Such a swift progression for lymphoma in just three weeks was highly unusual, and he could not risk waiting a single day longer.

As he followed these instructions, Michel felt a gnawing worry that his COVID booster shot had somehow made him sicker. His brother [Serge, head of nuclear medicine at the hospital of the Université Libre de Bruxelles] was harboring a similar concern.

The asymmetrical cluster of cancerous nodes around Michel’s left armpit on the initial scan had already seemed ‘a bit disturbing,’ as his brother said; especially given that Michel’s first two doses of vaccine had been delivered on that side. Now he’d had a booster shot in the other arm, and the cancer’s asymmetry was flipped.

The brothers knew this might be just an eerie coincidence. But they couldn’t shake the feeling that Michel had experienced what would be a very rare yet life-threatening side effect of COVID vaccination.”20

T Cells Gone Berserk

Goldman, who was an early champion of the mRNA COVID shots, now “suspected that he was their unlucky victim,” Khamsi writes.21 He decided to go public about his cancer despite fears “anti-vaxxers” would use it to argue against the COVID jab. His concern for people who had the same type of cancer he had won out.

There are approximately 30 different subtypes of lymphoma. The kind Goldman had — angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma — attacks follicular helper T cells, which play a crucial role in your body’s immune response to invading pathogens.

Helper T cells serve as a messenger between dendritic cells, which identify the pathogen, and B cells that make the appropriate antibodies. The mRNA COVID shots “are especially effective at generating that message, and spurring its passage through the helper T cells,” Khamsi writes.

This activation of helper T cells is part of what makes the COVID jabs work. But Goldman began to suspect that revving up those helper T cells might in some cases cause them to go berserk, resulting in tumors, or worsening of already existing ones.

Other Case Reports

Goldman was lucky. He lived to talk about it. Many others have not been so fortunate. And while he still believes he’s an “ultra-rare” case, he’s since received reports from other patients who suddenly developed angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma after their shots. As reported by Khamsi:22

“Around the time of his February follow-up, Michel received a message from a doctor who had read his self-referential case report. The doctor’s mother had been diagnosed with the same subtype of lymphoma that Michel has following a COVID booster shot. More recently, he got an email from a woman whose sister had been vaccinated and received that diagnosis the following month.”

In August 2022, Frontiers in Medicine published a case report23 describing “rapid progression of marginal zone B-cell lymphoma” following the COVID jab. The 80-year-old Japanese woman featured in the report developed a noticeable tumor the very next day after her first shot. According to the authors:24

“Initially, we suspected head-and-neck benign lymphadenopathy as a side effect of vaccination. Nine weeks later, the number of swollen submandibular and parotid glands increased, and the lymph nodes further enlarged.

Finally, the right temporal mass was diagnosed as marginal zone B-cell lymphoma based on immunohistochemical and flow cytometry findings of biopsy specimens.

Our findings suggest that although 4-6 weeks of observation for lymph node inflammation after the second vaccination is recommended, malignancy should also be considered in the differential diagnosis of lymphadenopathy following vaccination.”

COVID Jab Is Far Less Effective in Lymphoma Patients

In May 2022, a single-center study25 at Emory University discovered that the humoral immune response in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) or chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) was significantly reduced after getting a COVID jab, compared to people who did not have either of those diagnoses.

Patients with NHL or CLL also didn’t have nearly the same antibody response to the shot. Only 68% of them developed neutralizing antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 after the second dose, compared to 100% of healthy controls. NHL/CLL patients who had undergone anti–CD20-directed therapies within one year of the first dose had the lowest antibody levels.

Turbo-Charged Cancers Are Becoming More Prevalent

Video Link

Data from the Defense Medical Epidemiology Database (DMED)26 — historically one of the most well-kept and most heavily-relied upon medical databases in the world — showed that, compared to the previous five-year averages, cancer among Department of Defense (DOD) personnel in 2021 skyrocketed.

Overall, cancers tripled among servicemen and their family members after the rollout of the COVID shots. Breast cancer went up 487%. Exploding cancer rates are also seen elsewhere. One of the first to warn that the shots might cause cancer was Dr. Ryan Cole, a pathologist who runs his own pathology lab.

He suspects the shots accelerate already existing cancers by way of immune dysregulation.27 He noticed that cancers that were previously well-controlled would suddenly grow out of control and rapidly lead to death once they got the COVID jab.

Swedish pathologist, researcher and senior physician at Lund’s University, Dr. Ute Kruger, has also observed an explosion in rapidly advancing cancers in the wake of the COVID shots. For example, she’s noticed:28,29

  • Cancer patients are getting younger — The largest increase is among 30- to 50-year-olds
  • Tumor sizes are dramatically larger — Historically, 3-centimeter tumors were commonly found at the time of cancer diagnosis. Now, the tumors they’re finding are regularly 4 to 12 centimeters, which suggests they’re growing at a much faster rate than normal
  • Multiple tumors in multiple organs are becoming more common
  • Recurrence and metastasis are increasing — Kruger points out that many of the cancer patients she’s seeing have been in remission for years, only to suddenly be beset with uncontrollable cancer growth and metastasis shortly after their COVID jab

These “turbo-cancers,” as Kruger calls them, cannot be explained by delayed cancer screenings due to lockdowns and other COVID restrictions, as those days are long gone. Patients, despite having access to medical screenings as in years past, are showing up with grossly exacerbated tumor growths, and she believes this is because the cancers are being “turbo-charged” by the mRNA jabs.

Disturbingly, as detailed in “How Cancer Deaths From the COVID Jabs Are Being Hidden,” analysis of U.S. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) data suggests the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has been filtering out and redesignating cancer deaths as COVID deaths since April 2021 to eliminate the cancer signal. The signal is being hidden by swapping the underlying cause of death with main cause of death.

Spike Protein Disrupting Immunity in Millions After COVID Infection or Vaccination: Here’s How It’s Being Treated

The spike proteins cause inflammation, turn of type 1 interferon response, and reduce autophagy among other things, all of which adds up to a dysregulated immune system
Multiple studies have shown that the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein is a highly toxic and inflammatory protein, capable of causing pathologies in its hosts.
The presence of spike protein has been strongly linked with long COVID and post-vaccine symptoms. Studies have shown that spike proteins are often present in symptomatic patients, sometimes even months after infections or vaccinations.
The numbers of long COVID and post-vaccine cases have been climbing in the United States, increasingly posing as a healthcare problem.
Data from the Center of Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that around 7 percent of Americans are currently experiencing long COVID symptoms, which would be over 15 million people. Some people with long COVID have been so debilitated that they cannot go to work, the same have been reported in people experiencing post-vaccine symptoms.
Over 880,000 adverse events have been reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) database for possible post-COVID vaccine symptoms.
However, statisticians argue that the number of people suffering from post-vaccine syndromes are much higher.
Canadian molecular biologist Jessica Rose estimated an underreporting factor of 31, adding up to an estimation that more than 27 million Americans may have suffered from adverse events following vaccination.
“The vaccine-injured are vast,” said Dr. Pierre Kory on Oct. 15 at a Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) conference.
“The numbers are massive … they are underserved and their needs are not being met.”
However, many doctors are looking to change this situation. The FLCCC has been at the forefront in treating COVID-19, long COVID, and post-vaccine symptoms.
No large scale studies have been done on treatment for post-vaccine symptoms. Based on clinical observations, patient feedback, and extensive research, the FLCCC has released its updated treatment recommendations.
The FLCCC co-founder and Chief Scientific Officer Dr. Paul Marik told The Epoch Times that recommendations are always subject to change based on patient feedback, as well as research on a new treatment option.
However, to understand the treatment options, one first needs to understand on how spike protein is causing damage.

Pathology of Spike Proteins

Long COVID and post-vaccine syndrome share a high degree of overlap as the two conditions have both been linked to long-term spike protein presence, and the symptoms are often similar too.
“The core problem in post-vaccine syndrome is chronic ‘immune dysregulation,’” Marik shared at the FLCCC conference.
Spike proteins can cause chronic inflammation. Studies have shown that inflammation can lead to cell stress, damage, and even death.  Cells make up tissues, different tissues form organs, and organs are part of our own physiological systems. Therefore spike protein injuries are a systemic syndrome.
Spike proteins trigger chronic inflammation by causing immune dysregulation. Spike proteins enter immune cells, switch off normal immune responses, and trigger pro-inflammatory pathways instead.
The normal immune response for infected immune cells is to release type 1 interferons, this give signals to other immune cells to enhance defense against viral particles. But spike protein reduces this signaling in infected cells, and uninfected cells will also take in and become damaged by the spike protein as the infection goes out of control.
Marik said that a critical aspect of long-term spike protein damage is that it inhibits autophagy, your body’s way of recycling damaged cells. Usually, when cells have been infected with viral particles, the cells will try to break these particles down and remove them as waste.
However, studies on SARS-CoV-2 viruses have shown that autophagy processes are reduced in infected patients, with spike proteins present many months after the initial exposure.
“The spike protein is a really wicked protein,” said Marik. “It switches off autophagy, that’s why the spike can stay in the cells for such a long time.”
Dr. Paul Marik, co-founder of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) and former Chief of the Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine at Eastern Virginia Medical School, at the FLCCC conference “Understanding & Treating Spike Protein-Induced Diseases” in Kissimmee, Fla. on Oct. 14, 2022. (The Epoch Times)

Immune Cell Dysfunction

Studies have shown that spike can reduce and exhaust the action of T and natural killer cells. These two cell types are responsible for killing infected cells and cancerous cells. Therefore a reduced cellular immunity from T and natural killer cells can contribute to an untimely clearance of spike-infected cells.
Damage from spike can lead to damaged DNA, and studies have shown that spike can also reduce DNA repair. Psychological and environmental stress such as ultraviolet light, pollutants, oxidants, and many other factors, can routinely damage DNA, requiring constant repair.
Damaged DNA puts cells at risk of becoming cancerous, and these cells should be killed to prevent cancer formations. However, with reduced T and natural killer cell activity, this may lead to unchecked proliferation of potentially cancerous cells.
Other dysfunctions that have been reported following vaccinations include autoimmune diseases.
These diseases may be linked to the spike proteins having a high level of molecular mimicry, meaning spike proteins have many regions similar to other proteins in the human body.
So when the immune system attacks the spike protein, due to structural similarities, the antibodies produced against spike protein regions may also react against the body’s own proteins and tissues. Studies have shown thatantibodies made against the spike protein can also bind to and attack self tissues.

Spike Protein Causes Fatigue

The spike is also linked with dysfunction in the mitochondria. Colloquially known as the powerhouse of the cell, mitochondria are responsible for harnessing energy from the sugar we ingest.
Human neural cells treated with spike protein have been shown to produce more reactive oxygen species, and this is an indication of mitochondrial dysfunction, suggesting possible reduction in energy production.
People with long COVID and post-vaccine syndromes often experience chronic fatigue, brain fog, exercise intolerance, and muscle weakness. These symptoms are also often seen in people with mitochondrial dysfunction, indicating a possible link.
Dr. Paul Marik’s slides presented at the FLCCC Conference in Orlando Florida (Courtesy of the FLCCC)

Spike Protein Damage to Blood Vessels and Organs

These receptors are particularly abundant in cells of the blood vessels, heart, immune system, ovaries, and many other areas. Spike protein can therefore trigger inflammation and damage in blood vessels and its related organs, leading to systemic injury.
Marik said that spike protein injury is closer to a systemic syndrome rather than a disease.
“It’s not a disease. It doesn’t fit the traditional model of a disease. This is a syndrome which affects every single organ … the spike goes everywhere … so this is a multi-systems disease and it doesn’t follow the traditional paradigm of a disease which is one symptom, one diagnosis.”
Dr. Pierre Kory’s slides presented at the FLCCC conference in Kissimmee, Fla. (Courtesy of the FLCCC)

FLCCC’s First Line Treatments

Intermittent fasting can result in multiple health benefits including improved insulin sensitivity, weight loss, reduced inflammation and autoimmunity, and many more.
However it should be noted that intermittent fasting is not recommended for people younger than the age of 18, as it can prevent growth. Pregnant and breastfeeding women are also not recommended to fast intermittently. People with diabetes and kidney disease are also recommended to check with their primary care physicians before considering intermittent fasting.
While intermittent fasting may not be suitable for everyone, there are other treatment options that can boost autophagy and reduce spike protein toxicity.

Ivermectin

Ivermectin can help with the removal of spike protein. Studies have shown that ivermectin has a higher affinity for the spike protein and will bind to its regions, effectively neutralizing and immobilizing it for destruction.
Ivermectin also directly opposes the pro-inflammatory pathways that are triggered by the spike protein including NF-KB pathway that activates inflammatory cytokines and toll-like receptor 4.
FLCCC doctors reason that ivermectin and intermittent fasting can act “synergistically” to remove the body spike protein, and recommends taking ivermectin with or just after a meal.
Ivermectin is also able to bind to ACE2 and CD147, and therefore blocks spike protein from entering and triggering inflammation in cells that display these receptors. Studies have also shown that ivermectin can maintain the energy produced by mitochondria even under conditions of low oxygen.
Kory said that around 70 to 90 percent of his post-vaccine syndrome patients respond to the drug, generally within 10 days.
“Patients can be classified as ivermectin responders or non-responders … the non-responders—[are] actually a group of patients that are more difficult to treat,” said Marik.
Patients that are non-responsive—typically after four to six weeks of treatment—are recommended to go on a more aggressive treatment.
When overdosed, ivermectin can cause confusion, disorientation, and possibly even death. However, the drug has a high safety profile when used in reasonable doses. There is little literature on its use in pregnant women so the FLCCC cautions against the use of it in pregnancy.
“Ivermectin has continually proved to be astonishingly safe for human use,” wrote Dr. Satoshi Ohmura, the discoverer of ivermectin in his co-authored study.
“Indeed, it is such a safe drug, with minimal side effects, that it can be administered by non-medical staff and even illiterate individuals in remote rural communities, provided that they have had some very basic, appropriate training.”

Low Dose Naltrexone

LDN has an anti-inflammatory effect; studies show that it is able to block inflammatory toll-like receptors, reduce the production of pro-inflammatory cytokines, and block inflammatory cascades.
LDN works to balance the activity between Th1 and Th2 type cytokines.
Th1 type cytokines tend to produce pro-inflammatory response to kill intracellular parasites and propel autoimmune activities. Th2 type cytokines typically have more of an anti-inflammatory activity and can counteract the activity of Th1 cytokines.
LDN selectively modulates this balance by reducing Th1 activity and increasing Th2 cytokine activities.
Clinically, LDN has been shown to be effective against post-COVID and post-vaccine neurological symptoms. It has been listed by the FLCCC to be effective against neuropathic pain, brain fog, fatigue, bell’s palsy, and facial paresthesia.
This is because LDN also reduces neuroinflammation. It is neuroprotective and is able to cross the blood-brain barrier and reduce inflammatory actions of the microglia, which function as immune cells in the brain.

Resveratrol

Resveratrol is a nutraceutical commonly found in fruits. It can be found in peanuts, pistachios, grapes, red and white wine, blueberries, cranberries, and even cocoa and dark chocolate.
It can also be obtained through vitamins, though there is generally a low bioavailability of resveratrol, and therefore the FLCCC recommends it to be taken with quercetin.
Resveratrol is anti-inflammatory and anti-oxidizing. Studies have shown it to be selective in killing cancer cells. It activates DNA repair pathways and therefore can reduce cellular stress and prevent the formation of cancerous cells.
In stressed cells, resveratrol can reduce reactive oxygen species produced by the mitochondria and promote autophagy. In animal studies on fruit flies and nematodes, the use of resveratrol increased their lifespan, indicating the molecule’s anti-aging and life-extending properties.

Low Dose Aspirin

Neurocognitive impairment has been a major complaint of many people suffering from post-COVID vaccine syndromes. This includes brain fog and peripheral neuropathic pain.
Studies on Alzheimer’s disease patients have shown that taking aspirin was associated with slower cognitive decline, though results have been conflicting across different studies.
Animal studies showed that rats that were given aspirin had lower cognitive decline. Studies in rats with damaged nerves suggested that aspirin may also be neuroprotective due to its anti-inflammatory nature.
The use of aspirin may cause side effects in pregnancy and such as bleeding.

Melatonin

In cells, melatonin promotes mitochondrial health by reducing active oxygen species. Because the mitochondria uses a lot of oxygen, when it is stressed through environmental toxins such as radiation or spike protein exposure, it may produce reactive oxygen species.
Melatonin, an antioxidant, can therefore prevent oxidative damage. Studies show that it also prevents leakage of electrons from mitochondria and therefore maximizes energy production.
It also promotes autophagy by unblocking the autophagy pathway, helping the cell to break down spike proteins and boost the removal of these toxic proteins.
Due to its anti-oxidizing property, melatonin repairs DNAdamaged by free radicals. Melatonin and its metabolites also activate genes that promote DNA repair, and suppress gene activity that may lead to damaged DNA.
Melatonin also has anti-cancerous properties. Animal studies on melatonin have shown that animals that were administered melatonin had a lower rate of tumor generation.
Melatonin has also been recommended by the FLCCC in treating tinnitus, a symptom of post-vaccine and long COVID. The symptom is a ringing in the ears, and can disturb sleep if severe. Melatonin can help reduce the ringing and help people to get a good night’s sleep.

Differences Between Long COVID and Post-Vaccine Syndrome

“It seems that with the vaccine injured, the predominant symptom and the predominant organ is neurological,” said Marik. In his observation, roughly “more than 80 percent of patients with vaccine injury have some degree of neurological impairment.”
Marik said post-vaccine symptoms can also be harder to treat than long COVID, and are more persistent, with some patients presenting with debilitating symptoms for almost two years.
Therefore treatment for people with post-vaccine symptoms are “more aggressive and more brain targeted,” said Marik.
“It seems like long COVID gets better with time. While some patients persist, it seems to be somewhat self resolving to a degree,” said Marik. “The problem with the vaccine-injured is that it can persist. We have patients who were vaccinated in December of 2020 … [who] are still severely, severely injured.”
“The two are similar, but we’ve put much more emphasis on the vaccine-injury because it’s a much more difficult disease to treat.”
document 
COVID-19 Vaccines Hinder the Immune System, Lead to More Severe Illness: Dr. Robert MaloneBy Ella Kietlinska and Joshua PhilippAugust 2, 2022 Updated: August 2, 2022A study out of the United Kingdom has shown that health care workers who received multiple COVID-19 vaccine boosters after initially being infected with the original virus strain from Wuhan are more prone to chronic reinfection from the Omicron variant.This may help explain why the people who have received several COVID-19 vaccine boosters are increasingly the ones who end up in the hospital with severe COVID-19 symptoms, sometimes resulting in death, said scientist and physician Dr. Robert Malone.In a July 21 interview for EpochTV’s “Crossroads” program, Malone, an inventor of mRNA vaccine technology, said this phenomenon is the result of a process called “immune imprinting,” whereby initial exposure to a virus strain may prevent the body from producing enough neutralizing antibodies against a newer strain.He added that this process is reinforced by multiple inoculations.“All over the world, we are seeing these datasets that show that, unfortunately, the people that are dying and being hospitalized are overwhelmingly the highly vaccinated,” he said. “It is not those that have natural immunity.”Vaccines Based on Old StrainsThe COVID-19 vaccines currently in circulation are based on the Wuhan strain of the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus, also known as SARS-CoV-2, which causes the illness now identified as COVID-19.A number of strains have emerged and become dominant since the Wuhan strain was prevalent, including the currently dominant Omicron variant.The problem is that COVID-19 vaccines use only one of the components of the whole virus, which is a spike protein, so the immune system of a person who received an mRNA vaccine becomes trained to respond to only that component, Malone explained.“If that antigen has changed slightly, if that virus has changed slightly, [the immune system] still reacts as if it’s the old one,” he said.The COVID-19 vaccines are based on the spike protein of the original virus identified in Wuhan. That strain of the virus no longer exists and is not circulating in the population anymore, Malone said.If a vaccine based on a now-defunct viral strain is repeatedly administered, it trains the immune system to focus more and more on the antigen delivered through the vaccine and to disregard anything else that’s slightly different, Malone explained, calling this phenomenon immune imprinting.“The literature on immune imprinting is bombproof,” Malone said. “Paper after paper after paper now, in the top peer-reviewed journals from the top laboratories all across the world, are documenting it.”The phenomenon has long been known in the field of vaccinology, said Malone, but the topic is verboten, and people who work in the field prefer not to discuss it, he said.Vaccine Immunity Versus Natural ImmunityHealth care workers in the UK—many of whom were infected with the Wuhan variant of the virus and also received three or four COVID-19 vaccine doses—have been developing chronic repeated infections from the Omicron variant, Malone said, citing a paper published in the academic journal Science.Another paper published in Nature shows that the evolution of the virus is not coming from the general population, but rather from immunocompromised people who have received multiple vaccine doses, Malone said, and about 30 percent of the highly vaccinated population are having repeated infections.This is contrary to the promoted narrative that the unvaccinated are putting the wider population at risk, Malone noted.Natural immunity from a COVID-19 infection lasts for at least 14 months, including immunity against the Omicron strains, Malone said, citing a scientific paper from Qatar which has not yet been peer reviewed (pdf).Vaccine-induced immunity, however, lasts only a couple of months, he added.When someone gets infected with the original virus, that person will generate an immune response that includes “all kinds of proteins from the virus,” provided he or she hasn’t experienced too much immune imprinting, Malone explained.“The problem with these monovalent vaccines, or the single-antigen vaccines, is they’re driving all your immune response against one thing as opposed to the whole virus. So all the virus has to do is genetically, through evolution, tweak a few knobs to escape that,” he said. “And that is exactly what’s happened with Omicron.”The paradox is that most of the countries with emerging economies and low vaccination rates also have the lowest COVID-19 mortality rates in the world, Malone said.“It’s likely that we’re going to continue to see this trend,” he said.According to Our World in Data, only 1.4 percent of Haiti’s population has been vaccinated, and the country has recorded 838 COVID-19 deaths, a rate of 73 deaths per 1 million people.In South Africa, where 32 percent of the population is vaccinated, there have been nearly 102,000 deaths, a rate of 1,717 deaths per 1 million people.In the UK, 75 percent of the population is vaccinated, and more than 184,000 people have died, which is a rate of 2,736 deaths per 1 million.And in the United States, 67 percent of the population is vaccinated, and 1.03 million people have died from the virus, a rate of 3,058 deaths per 1 million people.Other Problems with VaccinesMalone pointed out a problem with the current mRNA vaccines.When a vaccine is injected into a patient’s arm, the RNA from the vaccine, which is a modified RNA, is supposed to last for only a couple of hours, but a study from Stanford University shows that “the RNA sticks around for at least 60 days,” Malone said.However, the government only accounts for vaccine reactions and illnesses that are recorded on the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) within the first couple of weeks after vaccination, even though the drug is still in the body two months later, Malone said.“The RNA from the vaccine produces more spike protein than the natural infection does,” he said. “Now that makes sense about why we see more adverse events with the vaccines than we see with the infection itself, because spike is a toxin.”VAERS was established by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration to collect and analyze data about the adverse effects of vaccination.The system relies on individuals to send in reports and is not intended to determine if a reported health problem was caused by a vaccine, but it is “especially useful for detecting unusual or unexpected patterns of adverse event reporting that might indicate a possible safety problem with a vaccine,” according to the Department of Health and Human Services.Malone, president and co-founder of the International Alliance of Physicians and Medical Scientists, said over 17,000 doctors and scientists have signed a declaration stating unequivocally that genetic vaccines need to be withdrawn.

“These genetic vaccines are not working,” he said.

VAERS COVID Vaccine
Adverse Event Reports

https://www.openvaers.com/covid-data

 

New England Journal of Medicine: Unvaccinated COVID Patients Are Contagious for LESS Time Than those Vaxed or Boosted.BY NATALIE WINTERSJULY 22, 2022A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine showed that people vaccinated against COVID-19 remained contagious with the virus for a longer period of time than their unvaccinated counterparts.The disparity in contagiousness was particularly pronounced between the unvaccinated and individuals who did not receive a booster shot.The findings were published in a letter to the editor signed by dozens of doctors from a variety of hospitals in Boston, Massachusetts in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine in June. From July 2021 through January 2022, researchers studied 66 participants who contracted COVID-19, including 32 people with the Delta variant and 34 with the Omicron variant.Researchers compiled a variety of graphs tracking how long people remained contagious with the virus, using both PCR tests and viral cultures as indicators.When the data was separated into the categories “unvaccinated,” “vaccinated,” and “boosted,” individuals who did not receive a COVID-19 vaccine were contagious for a shorter period of time.Regarding positive PCR tests, within the first 10 days of contracting the virus 68.75 percent of unvaccinated subjects were no longer contagious. In contrast, just 29.72 percent of vaccinated and 38.46 percent of boosted people were no longer contagious.Fifteen days into the study, 93.75 percent and 92.31 percent of unvaccinated and boosted people, respectively, were no longer contagious; however, just 78.38 percent of vaccinated people weren’t contagious.The study follows a host of similar reports and analyses conducted by researchers who deduced similar conclusions that undercut the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines.Natural immunity has also proven to be superior in fighting against the initial infection of COVID-19.Despite these data points, which have been routinely censored by social media “fact-checkers,” the White House and mainstream media have continued to uncritically promote COVID-19 vaccines.The embrace of COVID-19 vaccines by companies including Pfizer and Moderna follows massive lobbying campaigns and spending efforts by the pharmaceutical giants.

The "safe and effective" narrative is falling apart

Here is my list of over 25 leading indicators that the momentum is moving in our favor. I'd be surprised if the narrative doesn't fall apart soon. It's now unravelling quickly in the UK.

https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/the-safe-and-effective-narrative?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email&utm_content=share

mRNA Vaccines Produce Persisting Spike Protein, Likely Causing Clots, Heart Inflammations, Cancers: Dr. Ryan ColeBy Harry Lee and Roman BalmakovApril 18, 2022According to Dr. Ryan Cole, messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines produce persisting spike protein that may cause severe damage to the recipient’s health, such as unusual clotting, heart inflammation, or cancer.
Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines are the only mRNA vaccines approved or authorized for booster use in the United States. Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccines use a viral vector, a modified version of a virus, to give cells instructions.Cole is a pathologist who has operated a lab for 18 years. He has seen, mostly through the microscope, about 500,000 patients in his career.“[In] normal mRNA, you have cells making messages all day long … mRNA is generally broken down within minutes to maybe an hour or two. mRNA should not persist,” Cole told EpochTV’s “Facts Matter” program during the Global COVID Summit held in Houston, Texas, on April 8.Related CoverageCole said mRNA is a message that tells your cell to make a certain protein for different body reactions.“But when you put this synthetic pseudouridine [in your body],” said Cole. “The body doesn’t know what to do with it, and it looks at it and says, ‘Hmm, I don’t know what to do. So I’m not going to break it down.’ And so it evades that breakdown process, and it also evades an immune response. But it also turns down our immune system, which is not a good thing because other things—cancers, viruses—get to wake up.”In a February interview with The Epoch Times, Cole said that he had seen an uptick in cancers that he shouldn’t be seeing. In addition, he has seen elevations and clotting factors persisting for a long time post-vaccination. However, when he voiced his concerns, no government agencies were willing to look into this finding.Currently, Cole examines about 40,000 biopsies a year.Cole’s view aligns with Dr. Robert Malone, a key contributor to mRNA vaccine technology. Malone, in an article published by The Epoch Times on April 11, said the “mRNA” from the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines is not really mRNA. “These molecules have genetic elements similar to those of natural mRNA, but they are clearly far more resistant to the enzymes which normally degrade natural mRNA, seem to be capable of producing high levels of protein for extended periods, and seem to evade normal immunologic mechanisms for eliminating cells which produce foreign proteins which are not normally observed in the body,” said Malone.Dr. Joseph Mercola, an osteopathic physician, also said the spike protein from the COVID-19 vaccines is to blame for the severe organ damage.“Science demonstrated that it wasn’t the virus causing endothelial damage that led to organ damage, such as was found in the heart, liver, and kidney of COVID-19 patients. Rather, it was the spike protein that was also being injected in a genetic therapy shot program,” wrote Mercola in a recent article.Some studies showed the vaccine-induced spike protein persists in human bodies, said Cole, but “we have no idea how long that synthetic sequence is persisting.”A Stanford study by Katharina Röltgen and others showed that the synthetic sequence persists for at least 60 days. A Harvard study by Alana Ogata and others showed that the spike protein could circulate for weeks.Cole said a German professor, Dr. Arne Burkhardt, found in his autopsy study that the spike protein could persist in the human body for as long as 128 days.“And the spike [protein] that [mRNA vaccines] make induces pathologic changes in the body. It can cause clotting,” said Cole. “We hear these young people dying from clots, micro clots, not normal types of clots. These are a unique type of clot that persists, chokes off the body of oxygen, chokes up body parts, inflames the heart, causes heart attacks, causes strokes, causes cancers in young age groups … Unusual things that shouldn’t be happening and are likely related to a synthetic, genetically modified sequence that we’re putting into the bodies of billions of people.”Cole said our cells have DNA-repair mechanisms, but the DNA can’t repair itself when the spike protein gets into the nucleus of the T-cells, one of the important white blood cells playing a central role in the immune system.“A study out of Sweden shows this,” said Cole, referring to a recent study showing that mRNA from Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine can enter human liver cells and be converted into DNA inside the nucleus. “Now the cell, the DNA can’t repair itself. So the cell is going to do one of two things, it’s either going to blow itself up, that’s called apoptosis, or it’s going to mutate. And now it becomes an atypical malignant cell.”“To that question as well, the immune suppression because of the spike [protein], because of the pseudouridine, it changes patterns of receptors on cells,” said Cole, adding these receptors could enable T cells to fight off all kinds of viruses.“Now, you don’t have a defense system. This cancer cell can invade over the wall. This pathogen can invade over the wall because your immune system has been suppressed to a degree that allows that to happen. When does that stop? We don’t know. How do we reverse it? We don’t know. Is it happening to everybody? No, thank heavens. Is it happening to a degree that’s alarming? You bet.”A peer-reviewed study published on Apr. 15 also found that mRNA vaccines “promote sustained synthesis of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein” and “the spike protein is neurotoxic, and it impairs DNA repair mechanisms.”Neither Pfizer nor Moderna has responded to a request for comment.On its website, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) states COVID-19 mRNA vaccines won’t affect or interact with DNA, nor will the mRNA and the spike protein last long in the body.“mRNA never enters the nucleus of the cell where our DNA (genetic material) is located, so it cannot change or influence our genes,” states the CDC. “Our cells break down mRNA and get rid of it within a few days after vaccination. Scientists estimate that the spike protein, like other proteins our bodies create, may stay in the body up to a few weeks.”Intertwining Government-Corporate InterestsCole said the vaccine manufacturers and government health agencies knew about mRNA vaccines’ problems but hid it due to their intertwining interests.“We have known the immune modulation problems of this back since 2006, at the very least some papers there,” said Cole. “There is a reason Moderna had never brought an mRNA product to the market. And they had trials for genetic disorders. They were going to use this modality for gene modification. It never got to market because there were always too many animal models’ side effects. They knew about this. Did Pfizer know about this? Yes.”“[The Food and Drug Administration (FDA)] is corporate-captured. Almost half of the FDA’s income and engrossing revenues come from Pharma,” said Cole. “CDC has 57, 58 vaccine patents … Do you think they have any interest in speaking ill of any vaccine? Of course not.“The [National Institutes of Health (NIH)] holds the patent to the spike protein and the sequence, and they licensed that to Moderna. Every billion that the Moderna coffers get, so does the NIH. Is that intertwining government-corporate interest? You bet.”The Epoch Times has contacted the FDA, CDC, and NIH for comments.According to the FDA fact sheet, for fiscal year 2019, 54 percent of its budget was provided by federal budget authorization. The remaining 46 percent, or $2.8 billion, was paid for by industry user fees.The CDC lists over 60 “vaccine and therapeutic candidates” technologies for licensing and collaboration on its website. The FDA has its own technology transfer program as well.“Each year, hundreds of new inventions are made at NIH and CDC laboratories. Nine NIH Institutes or Centers (ICs) transfer NIH and CDC inventions through licenses to the private sector for further research and development and eventual commercialization,” NIH said.Model licensing agreements show these health agencies ask for royalties to transfer their technologies.According to Axios, in May 2020, then-NIH Director Francis Collins said, “We do have some particular stake in the intellectual property” behind Moderna’s coronavirus vaccine.“Talking to the companies, I don’t hear any of them say they think this [vaccine] is a money-maker,” Collins said. “Nobody sees this as a way to make billions of dollars.”“So nobody’s going to vote themselves out of a job in these agencies,” said Cole. “By denying these applications and application fees and drug reviews for all these large companies, they won’t have enough revenue to keep their agency going either. It’s really a paradoxical lose-lose.”“Truth plus transparency equals trust,” said Cole. However, the government agencies are “destroying the public’s trust” in them.Even the left-leaning New York Times recently reported that the CDC is withholding critical COVID-19 data on boosters, hospitalizations, and other analyses.Cole said if he were in charge, he would have managed the COVID response in line with the Great Barrington Declaration.“We protect the vulnerable. We knew who this was going to affect right away. We keep the schools wide open. We lock nobody down. We focus on early treatments. We knew from SARS COVID-1 that chloroquines work against this family of viruses. We go to old repurposed drugs like we always do with any new and emerging disease. We treat early. We recognize those who are COVID-recovered with natural immunity. And we don’t do what we did. You never let the cure be worse than the disease itself.”

60,000 scientists call for an end to mass vaccination

The scientific community speaks out against the health policy of the authorities: the declaration of Great Barrington (USA) against massive injections of mRNA has collected 870.000 signatures.

While the President of the French Republic meets this Monday, December 6, a new Council of Defense to fight against the spread of the epidemic of Covid-19, more and more voices are raised against the health policy completely crazy of the authorities which aims to vaccinate more and more the population. After the third dose of vaccine imposed, under penalty of deactivation of the health pass! There is now the question of vaccinating children from 5 to 11 years old. A decision that would be very serious according to many doctors and researchers that we have reported here.

Serious side effects

Mass vaccination with a still experimental messenger RNA vaccine has long worried the scientific community. As of October 4, 2020, three high-level scientists, Prof. Martin Kulldorff, professor of medicine at Harvard University, biostatistician and epidemiologist, specializing in the detection and monitoring of infectious disease outbreaks and in the evaluation of vaccine safety. Dr. Sunetra Gupta, professor at Oxford University, an epidemiologist specializing in immunology, vaccine development and mathematical modeling of infectious diseases. And Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, a professor at Stanford University School of Medicine, a physician, epidemiologist, health economist, and public health policy expert specializing in infectious diseases and vulnerable populations, recommended an alternative approach to Covid-19 in what was called the Great Barrington Declaration. Because they are very concerned about the side effects of mass vaccination on populations.
What do they advocate? A “focused” protection. That is to say, to protect as much as possible the elderly, the infirm, the frail and to leave the others to live normally until the society reaches the collective immunity. However, mass vaccination by mRNA makes this collective immunity impossible.

One of the original co-signatories was Dr. Simon Thornley, an epidemiologist and biostatistician at the University of Auckland. The Great Barrington Declaration has since been signed by 60,000 physicians and scientists and is becoming increasingly well known around the world. A petition has so far gathered 870,000 signatures of support.

The Great Barrington Declaration

The Great Barrington Declaration – As infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists we have grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies, and recommend an approach we call Focused Protection.

Coming from both the left and right, and around the world, we have devoted our careers to protecting people. Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health. The results (to name a few) include lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings and deteriorating mental health – leading to greater excess mortality in years to come, with the working class and younger members of society carrying the heaviest burden. Keeping students out of school is a grave injustice.

Keeping these measures in place until a vaccine is available will cause irreparable damage, with the underprivileged disproportionately harmed.

Fortunately, our understanding of the virus is growing. We know that vulnerability to death from COVID-19 is more than a thousand-fold higher in the old and infirm than the young. Indeed, for children, COVID-19 is less dangerous than many other harms, including influenza.

As immunity builds in the population, the risk of infection to all – including the vulnerable – falls. We know that all populations will eventually reach herd immunity – i.e. the point at which the rate of new infections is stable – and that this can be assisted by (but is not dependent upon) a vaccine. Our goal should therefore be to minimize mortality and social harm until we reach herd immunity.

The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk. We call this Focused Protection.

Adopting measures to protect the vulnerable should be the central aim of public health responses to COVID-19. By way of example, nursing homes should use staff with acquired immunity and perform frequent testing of other staff and all visitors. Staff rotation should be minimized. Retired people living at home should have groceries and other essentials delivered to their home. When possible, they should meet family members outside rather than inside. A comprehensive and detailed list of measures, including approaches to multi-generational households, can be implemented, and is well within the scope and capability of public health professionals.

Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal. Simple hygiene measures, such as hand washing and staying home when sick should be practiced by everyone to reduce the herd immunity threshold. Schools and universities should be open for in-person teaching. Extracurricular activities, such as sports, should be resumed. Young low-risk adults should work normally, rather than from home. Restaurants and other businesses should open. Arts, music, sport and other cultural activities should resume. People who are more at risk may participate if they wish, while society as a whole enjoys the protection conferred upon the vulnerable by those who have built up herd immunity.”

 

Hard Data Shows the Covid Vaccines Don’t Work

By Vasko Kohlmayer

The last several months have seen a heated debate about the effectiveness of the vaccines that are being currently administered against Covid-19.

The question on many people’s minds is: Do these pharmaceuticals work?

Both sides tend to feel quite strongly about their position which gives rise to a great deal of emotion as the debate goes on.

The good news is that being nearly a year into the vast vaccination enterprise we now possess sufficient data to determine whether the shots are effective or not.

As we know, the objective of vaccination is to eliminate or significantly reduce the incidence of the targeted disease. If a vaccine works, then in a highly vaccinated population we will see either complete elimination of the disease or a significant decrease of its incidence.

Since it is usually not practicable to achieve 100 percent inoculation rate, the question is what is the vaccination level that will either bring the disease under control or eliminate it altogether?

This level is sometimes referred to as “herd immunity.” We were told at first by experts, most notably Dr. Anthony Fauci, that the vaccination rate of 60 to 70 percent would confer herd immunity in regard to Covid 19.

Fauci’s position was roughly in line with our experience with many other diseases where such levels of inoculation have either eliminated them or made them endemic, i.e., sufficiently limited so that they do not pose a large-scale, epidemic-level threat to the community.

Some twelve months into the worldwide vaccination drive there are now a number of countries with vaccination rates of between 60 and 70 percent. There are also some countries and geographical areas with rates of 80 percent or above.

While we do not know the precise figure which would confer herd immunity against this disease, we can be sure of one thing: if the vaccines are effective, vaccination rates of more than sixty percent should result in a significant reduction in its incidence.

[NOTE: The effect of the vaccines is further augmented by natural immunity which, according to some experts, may run as high as 50% in some populations. Nearly two years into the pandemic, populations in many places have been extensively exposed to the virus and as a result possess natural antibodies. Therefore, inoculating, let’s say, 65 percent of the population with a good vaccine should result in overall immunity in excess of 80 percent. With this kind of immunity level we should expect, if not elimination of the disease, then certainly a considerable decline in its occurrence.]

This, however, is not at all what has happened in most of the highly vaccinated countries and regions. What has transpired in many of them was the very opposite. Following the “success” of their vaccination drives, there occurred dramatic surges of Covid 19. Even more astonishingly, several of these countries posted a record number of cases just after achieving their very high vaccination figures.

This news may come as a shock to many people because the connection between high vaccination rates and subsequent explosion of cases has been virtually ignored by the mainstream media.

We will show you the reality of the situation by presenting the relevant data in an easy-to-see, straightforward way. We do this by juxtaposing graphs that depict vaccination rates with graphs that show case rates in countries with high vaccine uptakes.

Neither side in the debate would dispute the validity of the data presented below. The data is taken from the Google Coronavirus Statistics tool, which draws its material from official sources and government databases. The data is publicly available and widely accessible. If you wish to verify or reproduce the data used in this piece, you can do so easily by going to google.com and typing “coronavirus” plus the name of the country whose statistics you want to examine. Once the country’s data comes up, you can choose in the horizontal menu that runs right under the term “Statistics” what graph you want to see: “New Cases” or “Vaccinations.”

Gibraltar

On November 17, Gibraltar posted its highest number of new cases in more than 10 months. The surge became a cause of great concern and prompted the government to call off Christmas festivities. The last time Gibraltar had so many cases was at the height of the winter wave in mid-January of 2021.

(Gibraltar data via Google.com link)

The most startling aspect of the current surge is that Gibraltar is the most highly vaccinated region in the world with more than 99 percent of its population being fully vaccinated. Even more astonishingly, more than 40 percent of Gibraltarians have already received their booster.

Given what we have been told about the vaccines by the corporate media and government officials, you would be justified in thinking that this is some kind of misinformation or error. It is, however, an undeniable fact that here, in the very midst of Gibraltar’s current surge, 99 percent of its residents are fully vaxxed. This is something you can see for yourself in the chart below.

The example of Gibraltar should stand as a clear lesson and a dire warning to health officials and politicians around the world who are trying to force their populations into high vaccination uptakes. Gibraltar clearly shows that even a 99 percent vaccine rate followed by intense boostering will not tame or eliminate Covid 19 from the population. Quite to the contrary, it can coincide with near-record spikes that will likely surpass previous highs, especially as in the weeks ahead the country enters the winter period.

Singapore

By October 26 nearly 83 percent of the Singapore population received their course of Covid injections. This means that more than 8 out of 10 Singaporeans had achieved fully vaccinated status.

(Singapore data via Google.com link)

Singapore’s very high vaccination rate, however, did nothing to decrease the presence of the disease in the nation. The exact opposite, in fact, happened. On October 27, 2021, Singapore posted its record case count of 5,324 new cases.

This figure was nearly 300 percent higher than the previous record of 1,426 that occurred on April 20, 2021. At that time Singapore’s vaccination rate was only 15 percent.

If the vaccine were even remotely effective such a situation could have never arisen. There is simply no way that a country where 83 percent of population received an effective vaccine could ever experience such a record-breaking surge. Rather than an explosion of Covid, Singapore’s very high vaccination rate should have brought about herd immunity.

Denmark

As of November 12 Denmark’s vaccination stood at more than 75 percent.

(Denmark data via Google.com link)

On the same day, Denmark recorded 4,585 new cases of Covid 19, which was the country’s new case record. Denmark’s previous record was 4,508 cases posted in December of 2020 at the height of last year’s winter wave.

At the time of the old case record, the vaccination rate in Denmark was 0 percent.

The country’s very high vaccination rate not only did not eliminate the disease, but it coincided with record-breaking case numbers. If the vaccines injected into the bodies of two-thirds of Danes were any effective such a situation could have never come about.

Ireland

On November 16 of this year, Ireland boasted a vaccination rate of more than 75 percent.

(Ireland data via Google.com link)

On that day, Ireland posted 8,965 new cases of Covid-19. This was a new high for the nation.

The previous high was recorded on January 8, 2021. The figure stood at 8,227 then. At the time, Ireland’s vaccination rate was 0 percent.

Vaccinating 4.5 million people in Ireland – more than two-thirds of the population – was accompanied by an explosion of cases and a new case high for the nation.

Iceland

On November 16, 2021, the country’s vaccination rate stood at 76.4 percent.

(Iceland data via Google.com link)

On November 15, 2021, Iceland posted 420 new cases of Covid-19. This was a record which topped the country’s previous high by 500 percent when the country’s vaccination rate was zero.

Cayman Islands

On November 12, 2021, the country’s rate of fully vaccinated stood at 83.9 percent of the total population.

(Cayman Islands data via Google.com link)

On the same day, Cayman Islands posted 953 new cases of Covid-19, which was a new high for the country.

It exceeded the country’s high of 258 cases by more than 300% from the same day in the previous year. At that time the vaccination rate was zero percent.

Germany

On November 17, 2021, the country’s vaccination rate was 67.7 percent of the total population.

(Germany data via Google.com link)

On that day Germany posted 68,366 new cases of Covid-19. This set a new record. It exceeded by nearly 50 percent the previous high of 45,333 cases from January 2021. At the time of the previous high, the vaccination rate in Germany was 0 percent.

Austria

On November 19, 2021, country’s full vaccination rate stood at 65 percent.

(Austria data via Google.com link)

On the same day, Austria posted 15,809 new cases of Covid-19. This was a new high. It surpassed by more than 50% the country’s previous record of 9,586 cases from November 13, 2020. At that time, the vaccination rate in Austria was zero percent.

Vermont

On November 10, 2021, the state’s vaccination rate stood at 71%.

(Vermont data via Google.com link)

At the same time, the state of Vermont posted 611 new cases of Covid-19, which was a new high. It topped by more than 100% Vermont’s previous record of 277 cases reported on January 2, 2021. At that time, the vaccination rate in Vermont was less than 1 percent.

Israel

On September 13, 2021, country’s full vaccination rate stood at above 60 percent.

(Israel data via Google.com link)

On the same day, Israel posted 11,800 new cases of Covid-19. This was a new case high for the country in this pandemic. At the time Israel was a global leader in vaccine administration and held out as an example for the rest of the world. Yet at the same time Israel’s infection rate was the highest on the planet. The situation became so dire that Israel’s rate of infection was more than 50 percent higher than that of the second ranked country in that metric, Mongolia. As to the question of vaccine effectiveness, it was quite revealing that Israel led the world in vaccination as well as infection.

Israel’s September record exceeded by nearly 50% the country’s previous high of 7,305 cases posted on January 28, 2021. At the time of the previous high, the vaccination rate in Israel was 18.3%.

CONCLUSION

We have seen again and again record case counts in countries and regions with high vaccination rates. This shows that high vaccine uptake does not reduce the incidence of Covid 19.

Not only do the vaccines not lower the incidence of this disease, they tend to correlate with its increase. As we have seen above, a number of countries have experienced record-breaking surges right after achieving high inoculation rates.

Countries with vaccination rates of 65 percent or more should definitely not be in the pandemic or suffer surges. Yet they do, because “breakthrough” infections in the vaccinated are now very common and frequent. We do know for a fact that the vaccines do not prevent people from getting infected. This was confirmed in August by CDC Director Rochelle Walensky who openly admitted in a CNN interview that the vaccines can longer “prevent transmission.”

With winter coming there is every reason to be deeply concerned, since the high vaccination rates and accompanying explosion in cases were for the most part achieved in the summer and early fall when the virus is weak. As countries in the northern hemisphere are entering the winter season and the death counts keep going up quickly, we seem to stand on the brink of an extremely difficult period in the months ahead.

This situation exists despite the fact that many countries have achieved vaccination rates close to 70 percent. Europe’s average rate of full vaccination, for example, currently stands at 65.5 percent while 69.9 percent of Europeans have received at least one injection.

Europe’s high vaccine uptake falls well within the herd immunity range specified earlier this year by Dr. Fauci and other experts. With such an inoculation rate the pandemic should be if not over, then definitely under control. Instead, it is out of control.

Many European nations, as well as countries in other parts of the globe, are sounding the alarm and imposing a new wave of lockdowns.

If the vaccines were even remotely effective, this could have never happened in highly vaxxed territories.

The vaccines have not only failed to live up to their promise, but the data indicates that in a number of places they have made the situation worse by bringing about surges.

The data clearly demonstrates that the vaccines do not have the effect they were supposed to have. The figures and graphs above provide hard evidence of vaccine failure.

For governments to pursue high vaccination rates with the obviously ineffective vaccines is misguided and counterproductive. It is also highly irresponsible and dangerous because of the vaccines’ extensive and severe side effects.

 

The COVID Vaccine Failure

By Jamaica Plain

The CDC narrative on COVID is simply put: (1) the mask is your best defense, (2) COVID is a pandemic of the unvaccinated, and (3) vaccines are our only exit strategy. However, whenever their narrative falls apart, the emphasis shifts, cover-up lies become bolder, and dissenting science is censored.

According to CDC Director Rachel Walensky in a Twitter public service announcement, masks can help prevent the spread of COVID or flu or common cold by reducing your chance of infection by 80%. Yet eleven Randomized Controlled Trials (RCT), including a Danish RCT studying COVID, failed to show that masks prevent transmission of respiratory viruses. In two lawsuits the Ontario Nurses Association (ONA) won litigation against hospitals’ “vaccinate or mask” policy when RCT showed “scant evidence” that wearing masks reduced influenza transmission. Empirical evidence, including CDC’s own study, Oster's U.S. schools data, and comparing states with and without mask mandates failed to show a benefit to masking on COVID case rates. Though not reported in the media, the “mask is your best defense” isn’t settled science -- the WHO states that: “the use of masks by healthy people in the community setting is not yet supported by high quality scientific evidence.” Despite exclusive pro-mask news, parents are protesting against governors and school boards mandating masking K-12 students.

After vaccine uptake slowed, Walensky called COVID a “Pandemic of the Unvaccinated” to shame the unvaccinated into getting the vaccine. News reports touted divisive messaging of Biden-voting blue states as having higher vaccination rates and lower positivity rates than red states. However, her lies were contradicted when territories that were 80%+ vaccinated had the highest case rates -- Singapore with 85% vax ratesIceland 92% vax rate, and Gibraltar with 100% vax rate saw peaking numbers. Compared to Florida case ratesCalifornia is 200% higherNYC is 300% higherthe most vaxxed state Vermont is 700% higher. Of note: the most vaccine-hesitant were PhDs.

To explain the rising cases in highly vaccinated areas, Walensky reported that breakthrough infections were rare, representing < 1% of hospitalized infections, an assertion that contradicts CDC’s unpublished report showing 15% of May 2021 COVID cases were fully vaccinated, a 500% increase from April 2021, with decreased vaccine efficacy (VE) in nursing-home residents. Their <1% number was criticized for tallying all hospital cases from January to April 2021, well before most residents were vaccinated. Beginning May 1, CDC suppressed vaccinated positive case data -- they no longer published vaccine breakthrough cases, recommended against testing asymptomatic vaccinated individuals, and defined unvaccinated as someone within 14 days of receiving the COVID jab. The CDC’s definition of vaccine changed from “produce immunity” to “produce protection” against disease; their narrative became “vaccines can’t prevent transmission, but do prevent severe illness and death.”

When coercion and shaming didn’t increase vaccination rates, the Biden administration instituted a series of workplace vaccine mandates to compel COVID vaccines for employees in health care, government, and private corporations. The vaccine mandates contradict science by not accepting natural immunity (as EU does), by exempting politically connected groups (Congress and USPS), and administering a “leaky” vaccine. The mandated vaccine caused police and healthcare workers (HCW), many with natural immunity, to stand up for freedom and risk losing jobs. Their sacrifice was noticed when vaccine mandates caused hospital closures from nurses being fired and urban violence from firing policemen.

As COVID cases continued to rise, the CDC’s narrative shifted from vaccines being “safe and effective” to “get a booster shot for protection.” This follows  Anthony Fauci announcing “waning of immunity not only against infection but against hospitalization and to some extent death, which is starting to now involve all age groups. It isn’t just the elderly.” An Israeli paper on booster shot protection shows that VE dropped to 71% in September and 60% in October. Two senior FDA vaccine officials resigned after Biden, FDA, and CDC heads announced a booster eligibility timeline prior to FDA approval. They explain their resignation in a Lancet paper -- existing data doesn’t warrant boosters, third dose decisions warrant more analysis of benefit-harm-population efficacy, and booster decisions “should be made by reliable science rather than by politics.” Like HCWs, police, and firefighters, they protested against having their dissenting views sidelined and censorship of physician scientists.

Since vaccines are the only exit strategy, news was suppressed on potential early treatment strategies, COVID’s low risk to childrenalternate strategies to lockdowns, and vaccine side effects. The NIH could have led by initiating RCTs on early treatment regiments, face masks, natural immunity, and vaccine-induced myocarditis. Instead, physicians now lose their medical licenses for prescribing FDA approved drugs, like ivermectin, for off-label uses that 200+ members of CongressJapan, and India used successfully.

Disregarding natural immunity was the most blatant, dangerous CDC lie, since many who refuse vaccination understand that prior infection is more protective. Furthermore, by not separating prior infected from the vaccinated and unvaccinated cohorts, the VE becomes meaningless. Only the most blind refuse to see that first responders, who put their lives on the line in the early pandemic to treat COVID patients and quell riots, are now sacrificing their livelihoods to refuse vaccines they don't want -- many were infected early while working tireless hours to protect Americans and now have lost jobs in the midst of hospital and police worker shortages.

As Americans, we can either be subject to medical political tyranny or stand for freedoms derived by our God-sanctioned morality. We need to decide whether to fight for our country founded as “a city on a hill” by the courageous who love freedom. Our alternative is a biosecurity state that promises us safety, tells only noble truths, and censors all dissenters. Now is the time to decide: a house divided cannot stand.

UK Data Shows No All-Cause Mortality Benefit for COVID-19 Vaccines

The Vaccine Wars Part I

Mathew Crawford

The original title of this article was, "Did Alex Berenson Fall for a Simpson's Paradox?" I'm rewriting the title and introduction to this article after having finished an analysis that demonstrates no all-cause mortality benefit to the vaccinated in the UK. You'll have to read through the story to understand why.

Are the vaccinated dying at two-to-three times the rate of the unvaccinated in the UK as Alex Berenson's recent article suggests?

Let's be clear: Alex Berenson has done an excellent and courageous job during the pandemic. I follow his work and recommend that you do as well. He definitely digs into data better than most journalists, though we should not expect for him to do everything and be everything. He doesn't have to be perfect and you don't have to agree with every take to understand how important his work isI am writing this before I analyze the data. However, I will note that my first instinct is to think that the [twice] Vaccinated cohort has an older age profile than the Unvaccinated cohort. Thus, we should expect to see greater all cause mortality in that group. This means what we are seeing is an illusion of data aggregation often called a Simpson's paradox, something I've written about several times before (here and here).

If you don't want to read through my discussion of this particular statistical illusion, skip down to the next section to read the conclusion.

Let's be clear: I've seen statisticians and Wall Street quants at the highest levels fall for a Simpson's paradox here or there. Recognizing the way an aggregate can or should be disentangled is a different job than just doing the statistics. It often takes domain knowledge (and humility in reining in expectations) in addition to statistical awareness to spot a Simpson's paradox. Reversed trends in aggregates have probably fooled every human that walked the planet at one point or another, assuming they were numerate enough to view any data at all.

When I teach my Combinatorics, Probability, and Statistics courses, I stop and spend 10% of every course at every level on Simpson's paradox's and similar conditional data twists alone, giving students a chance to noodle over the strange "contradictions" in the results. This is from curriculum I've used with students ages 10-70:

This story is based on circumstances similar to those I've personally witnessed in baseball statistics. Here is the punch line: Peakoles is clearly the superior hitter (at least so far as batting average is concerned):

I spend so much time in class focusing on this kind of paradox and conditionality in probability and statistics for several reasons:

  • I want for students to understand that problems aren't always straight-forward.
  • Understanding these problems is the difference between an elite professional data geek and somebody with enough knowledge to be dangerous (which appears to be the substantial majority of the medical profession and all but the most elite epidemiologists during this pandemic).

We may reach a point at which having more problem solvers trained in teasing apart this kind of data results in millions of lives saved and hundreds of billions or even trillions of dollars saved annually in recovered lost productivity associated with poor management and governance decisions.

Modeling the UK Data Shows No All-Cause Mortality Benefit

I wrote the first half of this article prior to modeling the data.

I took the period mortality tables from the UK's Office of National Statistics (ONS). Next, I painstakingly (yuck) estimated every relevant point on the cumulative vaccinated chart by age from the UK's vaccination surveillance report, using some reasonable interpolations along the way. Then I realized that I needed population proportions for the subgroups of the age 10-59 cohort (Can we get a little granularity, please? Or just open source data?). Now, I can put together a projected mortality profile for each group during an ordinary year using weighted averages (where each age group's projected mortality gets multiplied by its proportion within each cohort, and the results are summed) for each week.

I then took the raw data Berenson pointed to out to one more decimal place, and plotted the actual 2021 all cause mortality data versus the expected all cause mortality data. As we can see, the Vaccinated cohort, due to having a generally older age profile, was expected to have higher all cause mortality. (Lighter hues are projected, heavier hues are what actually happened.)

So, Alex was wrong to suggest that the data showed prima facie higher mortality in the Vaccinated cohort due to the vaccines. However, this result is quite interesting! It's hard to look at these graphs and easily determine which cohort has suffered more excess mortality during the middle months of 2021! So, I took the excess mortality from each cohort for each week, and also cumulatively, and plotted them:

The cumulative trends go back-and-forth, and it seems reasonable to dismiss any difference as statistical noise. But when we do compute the tiny overall observed benefit at the end of the 28 week stretch to the vaccinated group, it amounts to a mere 5 deaths per million doses (at over $6 million per life saved).

I wonder who could have predicted all this?

Also, understand that the single dose all cause mortality rates in the 10-59 range were higher than for either of these cohorts, which is to say that the Unvaccinated cohort is doing just a tiny bit better than the average UK citizen during this time span! This is all very consistent with my hypothesis that the vaccines have no real efficacy. Even worse, they have come at the expense of hundreds of thousands of serious adverse events in the UK alone (possibly over a million at this point), and several billion pounds from the public treasury.

It's also unclear exactly how the laundering of post-vaccination mortality plays into official mortality categorizations, but the charts above are made playing by their rules, with their data. All this provides us with a frightening, if illuminating look at what the Kunlangeta are doing during (provoking?) an international governance and economic crisis.

Addendum: Note that I still think there are excess deaths among the vaccinated group not visible in this time frame because they occurred en masse at the outset of the UK's vaccination program among the elderly. It certainly appears that these vaccines are killing more people than they save.

Addendum 2: In response to a question on Twitter…from March 13 and for several months, the oldest among the 10-59 age group get vaccinated faster (think in proportions), while the youngest get vaccinated slower, which is why the age profile of the Vaccinated cohort grows (and the Unvaccinated gets lower). Hopefully this visualization helps.

Addendum 3: Note that the 10-16 year olds remain almost entirely unvaccinated through week 38. As the older groups shift into the Vaccinated cohort, this distills a lower mortality rate among the Unvaccinated cohort.

 

NULLIFYING NUREMBERG

Published August 4, 2021 | By Pennel Bird

Nazi War Criminals at Nuremberg Trials

[The HFR of July 23 explained how Xiden and leaders of other countries are committing Crimes Against Humanity with their vax mandates: 

“Due to the horrific experimentation on Auschwitz prisoners by Nazi doctors such as Josef Mengele… it is has long been considered by international legal consensus a ‘Crime Against Humanity’ to force people against their will to take an experimental drug – which all Covid vaccines are.”

Here, TTP reader Pennel Bird provides a valuable further explication of why so many government leaders and officials are criminals violating international law.]

Dr. Josef Mengele is one of the true monsters of history.  His profoundly evil medical experiments on Jews, the disabled, the mentally impaired, and other Third Reich deplorables are the stuff of pitch-black fever dreams.

Combining disparate elements of pernicious ideologies including eugenics, antisemitism, racial purity, and the German ideal of lebensraum (“room for living”), what eventually became Nazism informed Hitler’s ethos as he rose to power.  His malignant weltanschauung eventually coalesced into the Final Solution.

Hitler’s infernal vision metastasized quickly to infect the belief systems of top-tier Nazis.  Among other atrocities, Mengele used injections to attempt to change the eye color of his “patients” to blue to render them more Aryan.  When these experiments went sideways, the fiendish M.D. demonstrated a penchant for “tidying up.”  One person testified to having witnessed the diabolical doctor kill fourteen sets of twins in one night with chloroform injections to the heart in order to make comparative post-mortem observations.

After the Allies won the war, the Nuremberg Trials were convened to assess the astonishing breadth of the human tragedy as authored by Hitler and his henchmen and mete out punishment for their actions.

The cruelty and depravity of Mengele and others, including Adolf Eichmann, shocked the world, were almost beyond reckoning, and subsequently inspired the establishment of the Nuremberg Code — which was tacitly endorsed by nearly every nation on earth.

The ten points of the Nuremberg Code for human experimentation are as follows:

  1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is essential. This means that the person involved should have the legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved, as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that, before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject, there should be made known to him the effects upon his health or person, which may come from his participation in the experiment.
  2. The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature.
  3. The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation.
  4. The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.
  5. No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur.
  6. The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.
  7. Proper preparations should be made, and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability, or death.
  8. The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons. The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment.
  9. During the course of the experiment, the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible.
  10.  During the course of the experiment, the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill, and careful judgment required of him that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.

All COVID vaccines emergency authorized by the FDA have not yet been approved and are experimental, as they have undergone no long-term safety trials.  Safety data are being partially collected in real time as adverse events are reported to VAERS.  The tenets of the Nuremberg Code apply here as these vaccines are — by definition — a medical experiment being administered worldwide.

Given that, the explicit statement in #1 that subjects not be subject to coercion raises the question: does the threat of losing one’s job, not being able to attend college, or not being able to travel or attend a live event constitute coercion?

Does the president of the United States urging Americans to “get the shot” and then threatening to send emissaries door to door to “encourage” it constitute coercion?

Is it coercion to establish two Americas in which one half that chooses vaccination gets to eschew masks and move about freely, while the other half that doesn’t must stay masked and have their essential freedoms proscribed?

Later in #1, the text explicitly states that the subject must be made aware of “the effects upon his health or person.”

This is known as informed consent: patients need to be made fully aware of the potential dangers of a medical procedure in keeping with the Hippocratic oath.

There have been many reports of adverse events from the COVID vaccines, including Bell’s palsy, seizures, blood clotting, heart inflammation, and death.  How many people reading this who got the vaccine had these potential side effects explained to them before getting jabbed?  How many were afforded informed consent?

The second bullet point dictates the experiment (COVID vaccine) “should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation.”  In an alarming break with decades of convention, the Pfizer and Moderna animal trials were run concurrently with human trials.

The human trials were not a result of animal trials, giving the manufacturers a chance to make safety adjustments, which constitutes a violation of the Nuremberg Code.

The fifth bullet point states that no experiment (the experimental vaccine in this case) should be given if there’s reason to believe it could cause a disabling injury or death.

With over 400,000 adverse events and 9,000 unconfirmed deaths from COVID vaccines reported to VAERS, is there reason to believe the COVID vaccines violate the Nuremberg Code in yet another way?

The eighth bullet point emphasizes the “highest degree of skill and care” by “scientifically qualified persons” when administering the vaccine.  Do pharmacists fit that profile?  Do school nurses?  How about the folks jabbing people motoring through drive-thru clinics?

Does the fact that they all enjoy total liability protection from vaccine injury and death give pause?

The last bullet point emphasizes that the administering agent should exercise caution in fulfillment of the Hippocratic oath by terminating treatment if there is reason to believe that further treatment could cause “injury, disability or death.”

There are countless stories of people having an adverse reaction to the first of two shots — but being encouraged to continue with the second shot anyway.  Many of these unfortunates suffered debilitating, lifelong injuries — or death — after the second vaccine.

Meanwhile, instances of doctors or health care workers erring on the side of caution and advising against the second shot for these vulnerable patients are vanishingly rare.

It is increasingly clear that the powerful principles and precepts of the Nuremberg Code have been flouted, even decimated, by those seeking to push the COVID vaccines on every single person on Earth.  Foremost among these is the caution against coercion.

Those who resist the anti-American and anti-human idea of a one-size-fits-all medical treatment are freedom-fighters for the obvious and inherent right to choose for themselves.  That this is no longer self-evident is deeply alarming.

It is a well-worn aphorism that those who forget their past are condemned to repeat it.  Despite mounting evidence of serious adverse events and death, are we doing just that in our increasingly desperate attempts to use coercion to vaccinate absolutely everyone?

Are we nullifying the Nuremberg Code?

WORLD RENOWNED DOCTOR BLOWS LID OFF OF COVID VACCINE

 

February 15, 2021

A Doctor’s View About the New mRNA Vaccines

By Thomas Siler

It’s important to know both what we know about the new vaccines and what we don’t know.

I’ve practiced for 35 years. I am always honest with my patients, even if conversations are difficult or confrontational. I will also be honest about saying “I don’t know.” This happens when a diagnosis is not readily apparent or when there are limits to the help I can give. With the passage of time, I’ve learned that what we don’t know about medicine outweighs what we do know.

I’ve always been a proponent of older, more established vaccines. However, they are imperfect and, like all medical treatments, can have side effects. Unfortunately, in the conversation about the new COVID-19 vaccines, the tenets of honesty and a willingness to admit ignorance are being compromised.

Operation Warp Speed was remarkable, but it leaves an uncomfortable question: Is it a good thing to rush a vaccine (or medicine) to the public without the usual safeguards? Operation Warp Speed might be a great business objective or military goal, but is it great for a medical treatment?

The pharmaceutical industry, government health authorities, and the media insist the new vaccines are safe and effective. While the initial results are promising, this is not the whole truth. Both honesty and acknowledging ignorance require answering a few questions.

What do we know about the new TYPE of vaccine being given?

Pfizer and Moderna were the first COVID-19 vaccines to be approved. Both use a new technology called mRNA vaccine, which has never been broadly given to a human population to prevent any disease.

Let that sink in for a moment.

All previous vaccines take a weakened virus or a piece of the virus and inject it into humans to induce an immune response sufficient to prevent a disease. Pfizer’s and Moderna’s vaccines inject mRNA, which is a protein code that instructs the body to make a part of COVID-19’s spike protein that will then induce an immune response.

Our bodies daily use our own mRNA to carry instructions from DNA to make various proteins the body uses. While this new vaccine science sounds intriguing, it has never been tried in humans in this scope. It may be a breathtaking scientific advancement heralding a new path for all vaccines. It may also be less effective or have currently unknown side effects.

Is the mRNA vaccine for COVID-19 safe?

So far, the limited study of the vaccines approved for emergency use (one major study for each vaccine approved) has shown some short-term side effects. The vaccine is a two-shot series and side effects were prominent after the second shot. Side effects were more common if the recipient was younger than 65 years old.

Side effects 

Pain at the injection site has usually gone away in 4-5 days. The other side effects resolve, on average, in 2-3 days.

Early reports after giving the vaccine have also included allergic reactions ranging from mild to a few cases of anaphylaxis (serious allergic reaction). Allergy may be to mRNA itself or the lipid nanoparticles/PEG vehicle it is housed in. The long-term side effects are not currently known, as the main study length and follow up have only been four months.

Is the mRNA vaccine effective?

In the main study from Pfizer’s vaccine, 8/17,000 patients got symptomatic COVID-19 in the treatment group during the short follow up. In the placebo group, 162/17,000 patients got symptomatic COVID-19 during the study time. There was also a trend towards those getting the vaccine having a less severe disease and needing less hospitalization.

The Moderna study had 30,000 patients split into treatment and placebo arms. In the vaccine group, 11/15,000 patients came down with COVID-19. In the placebo group, 185/15,000 patients came down with COVID-19.

It was hard to ascertain death avoidance in these small studies. However, the two initial studies are favorable and show a 95% efficacy. Now that more information about the studies is known, Peter Doshi, associate editor of the British Medical Journal, wrote an editorial that the true efficacy may be much lower because the study excluded people with COVID-19 symptoms but a negative test and other factors.

How long does immunity last?

This is unknown.  Injected mRNA goes away in days, but it is thought that the immune response will be long lasting. Whether patients will need boosters at some point is not known.

What about mutations in the COVID-19 virus? Will the vaccine still work?

Viruses always mutate and scientists following COVID-19 estimate it mutates, on average, twice a month. Most of these mutations are minor and will likely not change the vaccine effectiveness. These mutations also usually do not make the virus more deadly.

What is antibody dependent enhancement?

COVID-19 is in the family of Coronavirus that causes the common cold. The pharmaceutical industry has been trying without success for the last two decades to make a vaccine against the common cold. A safe vaccine against the common cold would make some company a lot of money!

One problem in the animal studies on coronavirus family vaccines was “antibody dependent enhancement.” When animals were inoculated, they developed a robust immune response, which is a good result.

However, when the animals were later exposed to the coronavirus against which they were vaccinated, their immune system went into overdrive, and they developed an overwhelming, fatal immune response called a “cytokine storm.” Fatal cytokine storms also happened to some COVID-19 patients when their infection was severe.

Human responses do not always correlate to animal responses. So far, there have been no signs that humans have a cytokine storm when exposed to COVID-19 after receiving the vaccine. Obviously, this would be catastrophic for any vaccine.

Should we be concerned about other long term side effects from mRNA vaccines?

A concern that deserves mention is the possibility that a cross-reaction and immunity to other parts of the spike protein could cause auto-immune disease or other problems.

A former Pfizer VP, Dr. Michael Yeadon, who has over 30 years of experience in immunology and drug research, filed a Stay of Action petition with the European Medicine Agency (like our FDA) to halt the trials of mRNA vaccines over concerns it might affect sterility in women.

Yeadon is worried that the mRNA vaccine was coded for a region of the spike protein that was similar to Syncytin-1, which is a protein that is essential for the development of the placenta. If a woman’s body makes antibodies to this protein, she could become sterile when vaccinated for COVID-19. This is a theory, not a proven fact, and no one has studied it. Yeadon’s insistence on more studies to make sure this will not happen seems reasonable.

What to make of all these concerns?

Medicine is always about a risk/benefit analysis, subject to the first maxim of “do no harm.” Usually, new medicines or new vaccines are used only after multiple studies show over long periods of time (for vaccines, at least five years) prove they’re safe and better than the older treatments.

While the new mRNA vaccines have good initial results and may be a breakthrough, they should be viewed as experimental and would best be used in high-risk patients (older patients or those with health conditions raising COVID-19 mortality) until we know more. Patients should receive extensive informed consent to understand the risks and benefits. Patients also need to know that if they have a serious complication, Congress already protected the pharmaceutical companies from litigation around emergency vaccines.

The mantra of “safe and effective” is not only incomplete, but it also ignores other pathways out of the pandemic. For healthy people, early outpatient treatments are being developed to treat COVID-19. These would be a safer option than taking an experimental vaccine. Young people (<60 years old) who have very low mortality from COVID-19 should approach getting the new vaccine as if they were consenting to be in an experimental trial of a new vaccine.

Our history shows there are good reasons why new medicines and vaccines are not rushed into widespread use until we have multiple studies and time to assess the safety and efficacy of the new treatments. If the death rate from COVID-19 were much higher, it might make the risks acceptable to try an experimental vaccine. Given that the COVID-19 death rate is a little higher than a bad flu, my opinion is that younger and healthier people need a more rigorous risk/benefit analysis before taking the mRNA vaccines.

It’s Gene Therapy, Not a Vaccine

Portuguese mother, 41, dies two days after taking Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine

Sonia Acevedo did not experience any immediate side-effects to the vaccine, beyond the ‘normal’ soreness in the area where she received the shot. An autopsy is expected very soon.
Wed Jan 6, 2021 - 3:36 pm EST
Featured Image

PORTO, Portugal, January 6, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — A Portuguese health care worker and mother-of-two died two days after receiving the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine.

Sonia Acevedo, 41, was inflicted with “sudden death” on New Year’s Day, following her vaccination which happened on December 30th. An autopsy is expected very soon, the Daily Mail reports.

Acevedo, who worked in pediatrics at the Portuguese Institute of Oncology in Porto, did not experience any immediate side-effects to the vaccine, beyond the “normal” soreness in the area where she received the shot.

Her father, Abilio Acevedo, said she was quite healthy, and “hadn’t had any health problems.”

“She had the Covid-19 vaccine but she didn’t have any symptoms,” he said. “I don't know what happened. I just want answers … I want to know what led to my daughter’s death.”

Ms. Acevedo’s employer, for whom she had worked the past ten years, confirmed she had been vaccinated on December 30 and stated they had not been notified of any “undesirable effect” to the shot in her case. They also expressed their “sincere regret to family and friends in the certainty that this loss is also felt here.”

Her employer added, “The explanation of the cause of death will follow the usual procedures in these circumstances.”

The death of Ms. Acevedo comes in the wake of many concerns regarding these vaccines, which have been rushed through the process of development, testing, approval and now distribution, with a new “messenger RNA” technology, no industry-standard animal trials, nor any sufficient studies on long-term effects.

Indeed, in early December, a former vice president and Chief Scientist at Pfizer, Dr. Michael Yeadon, petitioned for the halting of all testing of coronavirus vaccine candidates in Europe due to the significant safety concerns of a growing number of renowned scientists.

These concerns included, “allergic” and “potentially fatal reactions,” risks that these vaccines may cause infertility in women, result in an increased vulnerability to the virus, and present unacceptable dangers of long-term effects due to a lack of proper testing.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration also drew up a document this fall listing the possible side-effects from a COVID-19 vaccine, including strokes, encephalitis, auto-immune disease, birth defects, Kawasaki disease and death.

Present reports reveal that hundreds of individuals injected with these vaccines have been admitted to the hospital while high rates of health care workers continue refusing to receive them.

RELATED

Former Pfizer VP: ‘No need for vaccines,’ ‘the pandemic is effectively over’

FDA: Death, heart attacks, stroke, blood disorders all possible side effects of COVID vaccine

Nurses, hospital staff refuse to take COVID vaccine in large numbers

Research scientist warns coronavirus vaccines have ‘terrible safety record’ historically

Doctor calls Fauci’s demand for mass COVID vaccinations ‘utter nonsense’

COVID-19 ‘warp speed’ vaccines likely not safe and not needed, medical expert says

Pfizer COVID jab warning: No breastfeeding, avoid pregnancy for 2 months, unknown fertility impacts

FDA: Death, heart attacks, stroke, blood disorders all possible side effects of COVID vaccin

5 questions about the coronavirus vaccine that should scare everyone

The future of the human race, civil society, and very basic freedoms are at stake.
Sat Dec 5, 2020 - 5:14 pm EST
Featured Image
Pregnant woman getting vaccinated

December 5, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — The United Kingdom has announced its approval of the Pfizer coronavirus vaccine. The U.S. is expected to approve a vaccine within weeks, as well.

The U.K.’s government-produced safety instructions indicate that the vaccine should not be used by pregnant or breastfeeding mothers, that it is unknown what effect the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine will have on fertility, and “women of childbearing age should be advised to avoid pregnancy for at least 2 months after their second dose.”

In light of the fact that despots around the world have suggested, some using stronger language than others, that their citizenries will be forcibly vaccinated, or that there should or will be penalties for not receiving the vaccine, one wonders:

  1. What happens if a woman receives the vaccine and does become pregnant within two months of receiving it? Will she be pressured to abort her child? What impact would such a vaccine have on the baby?
  2. Will “women of childbearing age” be pressured — or even forced — to go on birth control or forgo pregnancy in order to receive the vaccine, which has been touted as the all-important key to “going back to normal”? In what world would it be considered just or fair to tell women they mustn’t become pregnant so they can receive an optional medical intervention — which has no shortage of side effects and risks — for a disease the vast majority of people survive?
  3. Will new mothers be pressured to forgo breastfeeding so they can be vaccinated?
  4. Will Catholic bishops tell women they ought to forgo pregnancy so they can be vaccinated? The Catholic bishops of California say they are committed “to promoting and encouraging COVID-19 vaccinations in the communities we serve.” If they will tell women to forgo childbearing, at least temporarily, so they can receive the shot, how will that be squared with Church teaching that children are the primary end of marriage and contraception is intrinsically evil?
  5. According to the U.K. government’s guidelines, which will presumably be similar to Pfizer vaccine guidances in other countries, pregnant women shouldn’t receive the shot. Will unvaccinated pregnant women be discriminated against because of this, and denied access to airlines and other spaces?

The fact that these questions even need to be asked is chilling (not as chilling as the vaccine itself, which bizarrely has to be stored at -70°C — colder than Antarctia).

The future of the human race, civil society, and very basic freedoms are at stake here. The time to ask these questions is now. It’s not too late — but it will be soon.

Covid vaccines – like apples and oranges 

22 July 2020

Content Sections

By Robert Verkerk PhD, founder, executive & scientific director

The vaccine race is well and truly on as you’ll see from the Milken Institute’s Covid-19 Treatment and Vaccine tracker. But it could just as easily be described as a vaccine war – with the US having accused China of cyber-based espionage for stealing secrets from US vaccine companies that might give Chinese efforts an advantage. Hidden away in the 130-page supplementary appendix published in The Lancet alongside the Oxford/AstraZeneca Phase 1/2 trial, the British team have definitely got it in for the US team at Moderna/NIAID, stating: “Subunit vaccines [like Moderna’s] usually require the use of adjuvants and whilst DNA and RNA vaccines can offer manufacturing advantages, they are often poorly immunogenic requiring multiple doses, which is highly undesirable in the context of a pandemic.” [see Section 3.5 of supplementary appendix, p. 72]

Cooperation? Competition? Or war?

So much for the $18 billion global cooperation effort on vaccines, supposedly led by the World Health Organization (WHO) and Gates’ brainchild, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), that Gates threw nearly $100 million at in 2017.

The idea, agreed at an extraordinary virtual summit of the G20 on the 26th March, was that there would be no ‘profiteering’ over vaccines. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has also widely claimed its commitment to full transparency, including around clinical trials and data. Recognising reports that the US President has pressurised the FDA to cut corners on vaccine development and deployment, a US House of Representatives Oversight Committee has demanded transparency to allow independent scientific review of vaccine safety and effectiveness.

As we start to digest the flurry of Phase 1 and 2 clinical trial reports coming out in some of the world’s most prestigious journals, we’ve been increasingly shocked. It’s a million miles from the kind of transparency we believe is in the public interest that we outline in our Vaccine Transparency Manifesto.

Which data are hidden?

Here are our three top concerns:

  1. Data disclosure is definitely not transparent. Even in the case of the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine trial with its 130 pages of supplementary data, there are huge holes in the data – including about which subjects suffered which adverse reactions, and no breakdown of the adverse reaction data for the biggest groups tested.

  2. The trial designs are not standardised. Take the two non-replicating viral vector vaccines, the Chinese CanSino Biologics/Beijing Institute for Technology one and the Oxford/AstraZeneca one. Both trials are published in the same journal, The Lancet, one of the world’s most prestigious medical journals. The CanSino one is double blind, the Oxford one single blind. Adverse events for the two trials cover entirely different time periods: 14 days for the CanSino vaccine, and solicited adverse event reports in the first 7 days following vaccination in the case of the Oxford vaccine and 28 days for unsolicited reactions. Apples and oranges.

  3. Prestigious journals have dropped their standards for research reporting. Tell us how The Lancet allows the Methods in the CanSino trial to mention that the control involves only the adjuvant, yet fails to mention what it is – even broadly speaking, assuming some might argue for confidentiality to protect intellectual property. Wasn’t this all meant to be for the greater good, and open book? Why wasn’t the detailed data for the CanSino trial published in the The Lancet, when in the same journal, the Oxford trial included 130 pages of supplementary data? But in this, why is the detailed breakdown of adverse event reactions for the most important Group 2/4 plain missing? Why is it we can’t work out which subjects suffered from multiple adverse reactions?

 Many vaccine candidates are already in manufacture preparing for roll-out in early 2021 if given green light by regulators.

The contenders

The World Health Organization (WHO) tells us there are 24 candidate vaccines currently being evaluated clinically in humans. In case you thought the pipeline might be a little light, the WHO assures us there are a further 142 candidate vaccines in pre-clinical evaluation.

The contenders for commercial vaccines are publishing their preliminary data, and there’s huge political and public pressure for one or more of these to be rolled out by the end of this or early next. Among those at the front of the pack are the following 5:

  • Moderna/National Institute of Allergy mRNA-1273. We reported on this one last week. The work is being coordinated by Dr Anthony Fauci, head of the National Institute of Health’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. It’s a genetically engineered mRNA vaccine that’s delivered using a lipid nano particle (LNP) encapsulation system. The mRNA is encoded to instruct the muscle cells of the vaccinated person to express a stabilised form of the virus spike protein. It effectively turns your muscles into a vaccine factory and from there it triggers a humoral (antibody) and cell-mediated (T-cell) response. As we reported, even in a very small trial of just 45 people, it produced significant and severe side effects in some and moderately severe adverse reactions in 80% of those vaccinated.

  • Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine. This is a non-replicating viral vector vaccine. It’s based on a synthetic, genetically engineered chimpanzee adenovirus. Once injected, the synthetic code causes the vaccinated person’s body to produce the coronavirus spike protein. That in turn triggers the immune system, both the humoral (antibody) and cell-mediated (T-cell) side. A booster dose is required to trigger sufficient immune response to be potentially useful in the real world. The team at the Jenner Institute had already been working on finding relatively innocuous viruses that could act as vectors for Ebola, so they could quickly redirect their efforts to Covid-19 in January. Some argue that the Oxford vaccine is presently leading the vaccine race.

    While the trial results were promising from an immunogenicity viewpoint, the median age of the healthy participants was only 35, so we still don’t know much about how it might work on older people, including with comorbidities, who suffer the most serious cases of disease. Nor do we know much about how it affects those of non-white ethnicity, given 91% of subjects were white. The vaccine is non-adjuvanted which is a plus in terms of side effects, but the vaccine still showed more adverse reactions than the comparators, either Pfizer’s Nimenrix or GSK’s Menveo vaccines, both targeting meningitis (MenACWY). We also cannot deduce from the non-transparent data which subjects suffered different combinations of adverse events, and detailed adverse event data relates only to the initial Group 1 (n= 88) trial that also tested the effects of paracetamol. Surprisingly there were no comprehensive data on the Group 2/4 in which 489 volunteers were vaccinated with the genetically engineered chimpanzee virus vector. In short, the data are insufficient to allow independent evaluation of safety.

  • CanSino Biologics/Beijing Institute of Technology. Like the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine, this one is also based on a non-replicating viral vector vaccine. This time, the vector is a weakened, replication-defective human adenovirus (type 5) that causes the ‘common cold’ and does contain an adjuvant. Like Moderna, CanSino has never produced a vaccine before, but it’s very well funded and has the might of the Chinese government behind it. The project, as well as executives at CanSino, have strong ties with Canada. We know the vaccine is adjuvanted because the recently published Lancet paper with preliminary results of its double, not single, blind trials, tells us this much in its methods, the control being the same as the treatment (i.e. just so-called excipients) minus the genetically engineered sub-unit of the viral vector. But incredibly in our view, the Lancet paper omits to tell us what the adjuvant is. Is it an aluminium salt? Possibly, but we don’t know. The immune response looks good at face value, but it’s impossible to compare with other vaccines as no assessments are comparable. As far as adverse events are concerned, 9% suffered severe ones at the highest dose, 1% at the lower dose. Given that immunogenicity was comparable, they’re now going for the lower dose in the Phase 3 trial. Putting that in perspective, assuming a country the size of the UK, even the lower dose, if exposed to 70% of the UK population, would elicit 466,550 severe adverse events based on these preliminary results. That’s over one and a half times more than have been confirmed infected by Covid-19 in the UK to-date.

  • Pfizer-BioNtech’s BNT162b vaccine. Don’t discount this one – using the same lipid nano particle (LNP) platform as Moderna, with the world’s largest pharma company, Pfizer, in the mix for manufacturing and roll-out. Initial results are cited as promising in terms of immunogenicity and "lack of adverse events. The UK has ordered 30 million doses of one of two of the mRNA vaccines, whichever works best. But that’s dwarfed by a patriotic US order of 600 million doses.

  • Zydus Cadila - ZyCoV-D vaccine. Another candidate we should all keep our eyes on is the all-Indian vaccine project, based on a plasmid DNA vaccine. Details are sketchy, but apparently preclinicals yielded a strong immune response.

Transparency, or no trust

We’re moving rapidly towards a significant crossroads - one we can't afford to be sleeping at the wheel at when we arrive. Those who believe (and right now, it’s about belief and not scientific evidence) that vaccines are our only way out of this pandemic and into some semblance of normality, better soon realise that transparency is going to be a prerequisite. Many who have been denigrated as ‘anti-vaxxers’ or vaccine hesitants are simply those wanting more information, those who are concerned about the abominable lack of transparency around vaccine development and trials, or are parents or family members of those who have been vaccine-injured.

Hidden by a PR-machine intent on preparing people to roll up their sleeves is another critically important issue no one seems to be talking about. Where was the public debate on genetically engineered vaccines? Europeans have long been opposed to consuming genetically engineered foods – and many US states fought hard to force companies to label products containing genetically modified ingredients, albeit often unsuccessfully given the might of the pro-GMO lobby.

But at least foods are filtered through the digestive tract, including our very sophisticated intestinal mucosa and gut microbiome. Vaccines, including any adjuvants, other excipients and any free-loading contaminants bypass this sensing system. Many of the genetically engineered vaccines now heading the vaccine race do things we recently reserved for science fiction. They get our bodies to become the vaccine factories, having received information to do this from instructions issued by synthetic genetically coded material.

If you’re OK with all of this, that’s fine. But we believe you should be told and given all available information about the known risks and benefits, as well as about the composition of the medical treatment you’re being subjected to - before it’s given. That’s what medical consent is about - and it’s written into the rule book of every supposedly civilised nation, yet so often flouted in the case of vaccination.

We owe it to future generations to push the authorities to ensure we’re all provided with all the information we need to make an informed choice prior to being exposed to such an unproven medical procedure that breaks all the laws of nature that have preceded us for around four and half billion years. This issue will come to a head if the G20 countries get to produce their desired new, chip-enabled, machine-readable immunisation record that will be as important as your passport if you want to move from your country of residence.

Take action NOW!

Find out more about our Vaccine Transparency Manifesto and tell your elected representative why it’s so important for all of our futures by downloading the UK or international flyer below.

>> Download UK flyer as PDF
>>> Download international flyer as PDF

Which COVID-19 vaccines will be derived from aborted children’s cell lines?

There are now more than 120 COVID-19 vaccine candidates in development.

Navigating the ethics of using them will be a challenge.

Thu Jun 11, 2020 - 9:33 am EST

By Jonathan Abbamonte

June 11, 2020 (Population Research Institute) — The race is on to find a vaccine for COVID-19. The good news is that many of the world’s largest vaccine companies are developing promising vaccine candidates using ethically-derived cells. The bad news is that many of the leading vaccine candidates for the 2019 novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV2) are being developed using fetal cell lines that were originally derived from the tissues of aborted babies in the 1970s and 80s.

With more than 6.2 million reported cases so far and more than 375,000 deaths worldwide, the burden of disease from the 2019 novel coronavirus continues to mount. And so does the urgency to find a cure. From big pharma to small biotech companies and universities, researchers have been pushing out dozens of vaccine candidates and have fast-tracked promising vaccine candidates to clinical trials in record time. Pharmaceutical companies are sprinting to have a vaccine ready by the end of the year or by early 2021.

According to a tracker from the World Health Organization, there are now more than 120 vaccine candidates in development. Of these, 10 vaccine candidates have already advanced to clinical trials to test the vaccine candidate’s safety and efficacy. Several more candidates are expected to begin clinical trials before the end of the year.

Fetal Stem Cells Being Used

Several COVID-19 vaccine frontrunners, including those being developed by Moderna, Oxford University/AstraZeneca, CanSino Biologics/Beijing Institute of Biotechnology, and Inovio Pharmaceuticals, are using a human fetal kidney cell line called HEK-293 to develop their trial vaccines. HEK-293 was originally derived from kidney tissue taken from a baby girl who was aborted in the Netherlands in 1972 and later developed into a cell line in a lab in 1973.

Additionally, Janssen, the pharmaceutical division of consumer product giant Johnson & Johnson, is using the human fetal cell line PER.C6 to develop its vaccine. The PER.C6 fetal cell line was derived from retinal tissue taken from an 18-week-old baby boy who was aborted in the Netherlands in 1985 and later converted into a fetal cell line in 1995.

The U.S. government has made grants totaling nearly $2 billion in support of the development of COVID-19 vaccines using fetal cell lines. Most of this funding has been awarded through the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), a division within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

BARDA has awarded a $1.2 billion grant for AstraZeneca to fund research for the trial vaccine it is jointly developing with Oxford University. BARDA has also made grants for up to $483 million for Moderna’s vaccine and $456 million for Janssen Research and Development, LLC of Johnson & Johnson. Inovio has also received an unspecified grant for developing its vaccine candidate from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) at the Department of Defense.

On June 1st, BARDA issued a $628 million task order under a preexisting government contract with Emergent BioSolutions Inc. to accelerate development and manufacturing capacity for COVID-19 vaccines and drug treatments. Emergent BioSolutions is currently working with Janssen of Johnson & Johnson to manufacture their trial vaccines. BARDA’s funding for Emergent, however, was not awarded specifically for scaling up production of J&J’s vaccine candidate.

Worse still, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has been producing samples of the SARS-CoV2 virus for biotech and pharmaceutical companies to use for vaccine research using fetal HEK-293T cells (a decedent cell line of HEK-293).

Moderna is also receiving substantial research assistance for its COVID-19 vaccine from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) which helped develop the vaccine and conduct clinical trials. NIAID is a division of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) led by Dr. Anthony Fauci.

Ethically Produced COVID-19 Vaccines in the Pipeline

While many COVID-19 vaccines are being developed with fetal cell lines, a number of promising vaccine candidates, such as those being developed by Novavax, Sanofi Pasteur, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), and Sinovac, are using ethically derived cell lines.

Of particular note, rival pharmaceutical giants Sanofi Pasteur and GSK have teamed up in an unprecedented partnership to jointly develop a vaccine for SARS-CoV2. Sanofi Pasteur will be bringing to the table an ethically produced antigen for the vaccine and GSK will be contributing an adjuvant — an immune response booster that improves the effectiveness of a vaccine.

U.K.-based GSK and France-based Sanofi are the world’s #1 and #3 largest vaccine producers respectively by total revenue in 2017 according to FiercePharma.

A vaccine being developed by Maryland-based Novavax is using an ethically derived invertebrate cell line Sf9 to produce protein nanoparticle antigens that make its vaccine work.

In animal studies, Novavax’s candidate demonstrated that the vaccine produces antibodies to the SARS-CoV2 spike protein and produces neutralizing antibodies capable of isolating and destroying the SARS-CoV2 virus. Novavax’s vaccine has already been approved for a fast-tracked phase I/II stage clinical trial. Results for the vaccine candidate’s safety profile and immunogenicity (the ability to induce an effective immune response in the body) are expected by July.

Sinovac, a China-based biotech company, is also working on an ethically derived vaccine candidate called PiCoVacc. PiCoVacc uses a purified inactivated SARS-CoV2 as an antigen. Sinovac’s antigen is ethically grown in Vero (monkey kidney) cells. Sinovac’s vaccine is currently undergoing expedited phase I/II clinical trials.

Pharmaceutical giant Merck also recently jumped into the COVID-19 vaccine race with an announcement on May 26th that the company will be pursuing 3 vaccine candidates. Merck was the first company to develop a proven vaccine for Ebola. Merck’s Ebola vaccine was granted regulatory approval by the FDA last December.

As of the writing of this article, it is still too early to tell whether Merck’s COVID-19 vaccines will use fetal cell lines or ethically derived cells.

But one of Merck’s vaccine candidates for COVID-19 being developed in partnership with the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative (IAVI) will be utilizing the same platform Merck used in successfully developing its Ebola vaccine (V290). The company’s Ebola vaccine is manufactured using a cell line ethically derived from the kidney cells of an African green monkey.

Another vaccine candidate being developed by Merck through Themis, a biotech company recently acquired by Merck, is seeking to use the live measles vaccine as a viral vector. Merck’s measles vaccine is produced using chicken egg [Note: Merck’s MMR vaccine (measles-mumps-rubella) is manufactured using human fetal cell line WI-38 which was derived from the lung cells of an aborted baby]. 

How Do Vaccines Work? 

Cell lines are often used in vaccine production to grow viral proteins that make the vaccine work.

Vaccines produce immunity by training immune cells to fight off infection by exposing them to weakened or dead viruses or an isolated protein from the virus (or a synthetic look-alike). Providing immune cells the chance to fight off weakened viruses or viral fragments prepares the body to identify and neutralize the virus if encountered in the future.

Weakened viruses, inactivated viruses, and viral proteins used in a vaccine to produce immunity are called antigens. Antigens are any protein or molecule that triggers an immune response in the body, causing immune cells to produce antibodies. Antibodies are proteins the body’s immune cells produce to bind with and tag viruses and harmful bacteria with markers that help the immune system identify and destroy pathogens.

Traditionally, vaccines are manufactured by growing antigens in animal, plant, or fungi cells or tissues such as embryonated chicken eggs, yeast, or monkey kidney cells. After the antigens have been grown in these cells, the antigens are harvested, purified, and then added to a solution that is later injected or ingested as a vaccine.

Sometimes, however, vaccine manufacturers will use human fetal cells instead of animal cells to grow the antigens for their vaccines.

Several COVID-19 vaccines under development, such as those being developed by Oxford University, CanSino Biologics, and Johnson & Johnson, are utilizing a technology known as “non-replicating viral vector” vaccines.

Unlike traditional vaccines which involve injecting antigens into the body that were previously grown in chicken eggs or Petri dishes, viral vector vaccines grow the antigens in a person’s own cells.

In viral vector vaccines, a segment of DNA from the SARS-CoV2 virus is spliced into the genome of a benign carrier virus. The viral vector is also genetically modified to prevent the virus from replicating. When injected into the body, the viral vectors carry coronavirus DNA to the body’s cells that provide the cells with instructions on how to make antigens.

In order to make these vaccines, vaccine manufacturers must grow a sufficient number of these genetically modified viral vectors to induce immunity. Viral vector vaccines being developed by Oxford University, CanSino Biologics, and Johnson & Johnson are currently using fetal cell lines from aborted babies to grow their viral vectors.

A number of COVID-19 vaccine candidates under development are utilizing completely new vaccine platforms that require no cells at all. Several biotech and pharmaceutical companies are racing to develop vaccines that contain no viral proteins at all but only messenger RNA (mRNA) or DNA plasmids that provide the body’s cells with instructions on how to produce antigens.

Although no mRNA or DNA plasmid vaccine has yet received regulatory approval for normal use, the technology is promising. Experimental mRNA vaccines in recent years have shown promising results in clinical trials and in animal studies. mRNA vaccines could have distinct advantages over traditional vaccines because they can be developed much faster, cheaper, with a higher potency, and they can even be created without samples of the pathogen. The genome sequence is all that is needed to create these vaccines, slashing the amount of time it takes to produce a vaccine.

Additionally, mRNA- and DNA-based vaccines have the benefit that no fetal cells (or any cells for that matter) are needed to produce them.

Moderna is developing a mRNA COVID-19 vaccine candidate (mRNA-1273) in collaboration with NIAID. Meanwhile, Inovio Pharmaceuticals is developing a DNA plasmid vaccine for SARS-CoV2 (INO-4800).

Despite the fact that no fetal cell lines are needed to produce DNA plasmid vaccines, Inovio has chosen to test the immunogenicity and efficacy of its vaccine candidate using human fetal kidney cells (HEK-293T), sadly tainting what could otherwise have been a promising vaccine candidate.

As for Moderna’s vaccine, NIAID claims to have helped Moderna develop mRNA-1273.

In February, NIAID scientists working in collaboration with researchers at the University of Texas at Austin (UT) successfully identified and isolated the SARS-CoV2 spike (S) protein and its receptor binding domain using previous research it had on similar coronaviruses such as those which cause severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS). However, the scientists in this study used human fetal kidney cells (HEK-293) to culture the SARS-CoV2 virus before isolating the S protein. The results from this study were later published in the peer-reviewed journal Science.

In a news release on February 19th, NIAID claimed that the study “supports NIAID’s approach to a gene-based vaccine for COVID-19.” In the same new release, NIAID also mentioned that it was working with Moderna to produce a mRNA vaccine, presumably using the findings from its study using HEK-293 cells to help identify the genetic sequence for mRNA vaccine.

Moral and Ethical Issues with Using Fetal Cell Lines to Develop Vaccines

The use of fetal cell lines for vaccine production has long stirred significant controversy among ethicists and people of faith, particularly among Catholics and Protestants that have deep religious and moral objections against the use of cell lines that were originally derived from aborted babies.

The Catholic Church has long vocally opposed the development of vaccines using unethically derived fetal cell lines. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s 2008 Instruction Dignitas Personae states that the use of fetal cell lines for developing vaccines “gives rise to various ethical problems with regard to cooperation in evil and with regard to scandal” and that “everyone has the duty to make known their disagreement and to ask that their healthcare system make other types of vaccines available.”

Although it is not widely known or clearly disclosed by pharmaceutical companies, fetal cell lines have been used for decades in the development and manufacture of many widely used vaccinations including measles/mumps/rubella (MMR), rubella, varicella (chickenpox), polio, hepatitis A, rabies, and shingles. For some vaccines, such as MMR, chickenpox, and hepatitis A, no ethically produced alternatives exist in the U.S.

Why Are Fetal Cells Ever Used to Manufacture Vaccines?

Although alternative ethically derived cell lines exist for vaccine development, pharmaceutical companies often prefer to use fetal cell lines because the characteristics of fetal cell lines are well known and because they do not contain significant contaminating viruses or bacteria that are often found in cells derived from animals.

For example, the polio vaccine in the mid-20th century was once manufactured using primary cell cultures harvested from the kidneys of monkeys. However, it was later discovered that the vaccines were often contaminated with a common monkey virus known as Simian Virus 40 (SV40). Although SV40 is harmless to humans, the incident alarmed vaccine manufacturers. Since then, vaccine developers have relied more heavily on cell lines rather than cell cultures taken from live animals.

To provide a more contemporary example, the FDA is currently investigating whether there is any potential from harm in using primate cells for vaccines and biologics. Simian foamy viruses (SFV) are widespread among non-human primates and it is known that these viruses are sometimes able to cause infection in humans. Although no one is ever known to have become sick as a result of SFV, the FDA is investigating whether there could be long-term effects due to this.

With cell lines, it is possible for researchers to know the characteristics and inherent flaws in the cells they are working with. Cell lines have been rigorously inspected by scientists across the industry for contaminating virus DNA or genetic mutations, whereas tissues taken directly from live animals may have unknown contaminants that may potentially be harmful to humans.

But why use fetal cell lines instead of animal cell lines or embryonated chicken eggs which have an excellent track record and have been used for decades to manufacture vaccines? Many vaccines, including vaccines for the seasonal flu, are grown in embryonated chicken eggs.

However, there is a potential for supply issues when using chicken eggs to manufacture vaccines. If, for instance, there were a widespread outbreak affecting chickens that causes the supply of eggs to suddenly drop, it could impact the ability for manufacturers to make vaccines quickly. The supply issue could especially present problems in the event of a pandemic such as the current COVID-19 pandemic where the ability to produce hundreds of millions of vaccines quickly is paramount.

More significantly however, some viruses, such as chickenpox for instance, do not grow well in animal cells. In such cases, there are few other options available other than using human cell lines for vaccine production.

Researchers also often prefer to use human cells for experiments testing the effect of drugs or vaccines because they more closely resemble how a drug will work in humans.

But if human cells are better for manufacturing certain vaccines, why are fetal cell lines derived from aborted babies used instead of ethically derived adult cells?

Fetal cells are often preferred to adult cells because there are a limited number of splittings (passages) cells can undergo before they age and eventually die off. Fetal cell lines can be put through more passages than adult cells would and they are less prone to cell aging and senescence (when cells in a culture no longer divide and start dying off). Fetal cells are also less likely to be contaminated with human viruses or with genetic mutations or alterations that naturally occur as cells age.

Certain fetal cell lines such as PER.C6 are uniquely designed for manufacturing non-replicating viral vector vaccines. The viral vectors are genetically modified to prevent replication in the human body by deleting a portion of the viral vector’s genome. PER.C6 cells are designed to fill in this deleted genome gap. In this way, vaccine manufacturers can replicate viral vectors for their vaccines in the lab but such viruses are incapable of producing an ongoing infection in the body.

However, there is no need to derive cell lines from aborted babies. Human cell lines for vaccines could easily be produced in an ethical manner if they are derived from adult cells. Cell lines could be derived from tissue discarded during surgery or from organs donated after death. If fetal cells are needed, there are thousands of stillbirths and neonatal deaths in the U.S. every year. There is no reason why cell cultures cannot be derived from tissue donated from prematurely born infants that, despite the best medical technology, aren’t able to survive and die of natural causes while in a hospital setting. In these scenarios, developing a cell line would be no different from an ethical perspective than donating organs. In such context, however, it is imperative that any tissues obtained from naturally deceased neonates be strictly done in an ethical manner that respects the fundamental right to life of the child and the deceased child's bodily integrity. The procurement of tissue from the deceased could present a whole new set of ethical problems, particularly if the primary right to life of the donor is not sufficiently respected.

There is also the possibility that cell lines could be developed using cells ethically derived from human umbilical cord, cord blood, or placental tissue—tissues and organs that hospitals routinely discard as medical waste.

And ethical alternatives for human cell lines specially designed for producing viral vector vaccines may soon be available to vaccine manufacturers.

The John Paul II Medical Research Institute in collaboration with Cellular Engineering Technologies (CET) is currently in the process of developing an ethically-derived adult human cell line specially designed for growing viral vectors for vaccines that could replace ethically-fraught cell lines like HEK-293 and PER.C6.

But even so, it is not necessary for viral vector vaccines to be manufactured using fetal cell lines. Merck’s Ebola vaccine, for instance, is a viral vector vaccine that is grown in monkey kidney cells.

Immortalized adult human cell lines that were ethically derived from the cancer cells of cancer patients have also been available to researchers for decades. Immortalized human cancerous cell lines have some of the benefits of fetal cell lines in that they are high passage cells (in fact cancerous cell lines divide infinitely). However, the genetic mutations in these cell lines often change too much and there is concern that these cells could be contaminated with oncogenic viruses (i.e. viruses that induce the formation of cancerous tumors). There is fear that DNA from oncogenic viruses could find their way into vaccines if these cell lines are used for manufacturing vaccines.

However, fetal cell lines such HEK-293 and PER.C6 are also tumorigenic. There is concern that these cell lines too could be infected with oncogenic viruses or oncogenic DNA.

Although rigorous purification processes are used when manufacturing vaccines, purification is an arduous process and it is practically impossible to filter out all contaminants. The FDA is currently researching tests and methods to better determine whether certain cell lines are safe enough for vaccine production.

For the current ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, there is no reason for vaccines to be developed using unethically-derived fetal cell lines. Many of the world’s largest vaccine companies, including Sanofi, GSK, Merck, and Novavax, have demonstrated that it is possible to develop promising vaccine candidates using ethically-derived cells such as Vero, Sf9, and perhaps even embryonated chicken egg. Ethical alternatives exist. 

If pharmaceutical companies are not willing to use ethical alternatives, then they must be required to. 

Published with permission from Population Research Institute.

 

The 10-point vaccine transparency approach 

29 April 2020

ANH together with the British Society for Ecological Medicine calls on UK government to heed vaccine transparency

Content Sections

We’re told repeatedly by our governments that we’ll only be allowed to emerge from various degrees of restriction to our freedoms once a vaccine is ready. That might take 12 to 18 months. We’re being given the impression it’s a straightforward process, that’s why it can be fast-tracked at a rate that surpasses any other vaccine ever produced. Hindsight’s a fine thing, but surely we need to learn from what went wrong last time round - when vaccines were produced for the last pandemic, the influenza A/H1N1 ‘swine flu’ virus back in 2009/10? 

The solution has to be vaccine transparency. And we need to change the narrative from the World Health Organization (WHO)’s ‘vaccine hesitancy’, that the WHO rates as among the 10 greatest threats to global health, to vaccine transparency.

  • Find related articles, information and videos in our Covid Zone

So today, in conjunction with our medical doctor colleagues at the British Society for Ecological Medicine, we’ve sent an open letter to Matt Hancock, the UK Secretary of State for Health and Social Care calling on a new public narrative around vaccines. This narrative is about transparency, something that’s been sorely missing through the development and roll-out of a number of recent vaccines.

Download Open Letter to Matt Hancock that includes the 10-point vaccine transparency approach (the full letter can be found in text below)

The taboo that has been created around even debating vaccination is unacceptable in a world that is rushing ahead with the development of global vaccines for Covid-19, often relying on untried or embryonic technology platforms.

Instead of pitching the blame at those citizens who choose to not give their consent for their own or their children’s vaccination, the powers-that-be must recognise their own role in contributing to this situation through the withholding of data and information, as well as inadequate safety testing.  

Transparency must occur in multiple areas: clinical trial designs, the results from trials, raw data from trials to allow independent analysis, clarification around vaccine injury payments in the event of no-fault injuries, eligibility criteria for such payments, and, among other things, details of government indemnities, where applicable, for vaccine manufacturers.   

The aim is to avoid the mistakes of the past in which sponsorship bias, withholding of data by health authorities, incomplete communication of information to the public and the academic community, among other shortcomings, has led to unnecessary vaccine injury and public distrust of vaccines.   

Members of the public or academics who seek answers to questions around vaccine safety have been routinely vilified and labelled ‘anti-vaxxers’ and their communications are censored on social media.

If we are to establish a ‘new normal’, as our politicians seem intent to do, this approach is not tenable. Lack of transparency around the development and testing of Covid-19 vaccines will lead to further divisions in communities, at a time when division will only exacerbate the challenges facing societies since the pandemic arose. It will give governments more reason to deny citizens fundamental human rights and freedoms, as well as increase the risk of martial law being imposed.

The narrative around vaccines must fundamentally change. We must transition away from coercive public policy driven by vaccine protagonists that projects a view of the unassailable safety and effectiveness of vaccines. Doing so only misleads the public over the quality and certainty of the science on which mass vaccination programmes are justified, and denies the public the information needed for properly informed consent.

We call on our friends and colleagues in other parts of the world to also pressure their governments to heed vaccine transparency, using whatever parts of our letter to Matt Hancock that may be relevant. 

Open letter to the UK Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, Matt Hancock MP

Open letter to the Rt Hon Matt Hancock MP [By email and hard copy]

The Rt Hon Matt Hancock MP

Secretary of State for Health and Social Care
House of Commons

London,
SW1A 0AA

29 April 2020

Dear Secretary of State

RE THE CRITICAL NEED FOR TRANSPARENCY AROUND COVID-19 VACCINES

As a non-profit organisation representing diverse interests in natural and sustainable health, and a medical association of doctors who practice ecological (including nutritional and environmental) medicine, we hereby request that the Department of Health, the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JVCI), the UK Vaccine Network, Public Health England and the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) maintain a policy of full transparency around the development, testing and roll-out of vaccines targeting Covid-19.

The UK Government, other governments and health authorities, including the World Health Organization, have repeatedly made clear concerns over vaccine hesitancy and the potential impact on public health.

Two major drivers of vaccine hesitancy include:

  • Low levels of trust in the medical science behind vaccination safety and effectiveness, pharmaceutical companies who produce these vaccines, and government health agencies who promote vaccination (Xu et al, Health Comm. 2020; Apr 19: 1-14). Trust is readily eroded by misleading claims issued by health authorities which consistently refer to vaccines as ‘safe’ when it is clear that adverse events occur at varying, albeit low, frequencies. To-date, in the UK, around 1000 claims have been paid out to those who have been severely disabled (from over 6,000 claims) after establishing proof of causation through the Vaccine Damage Payment Act 1979. Furthermore, public trust in a pandemic vaccine will have been adversely affected by claims that vaccines targeting the influenza A/H1N1 ‘swine flu’ pandemic of 2009 had been “thoroughly tested” when this was more recently found to be false (Doshi P. BMJ 2018; 362: k3948);
  • Insufficient communication of relevant information, including trial designs and results by health authorities and vaccine manufacturers. Such inadequacies have been revealed around HPV vaccine trials (Doshi et al. BMJ Evid Based Med. 2020; pii: bmjebm-2019-111331) as part of the Restoring Invisible and Abandoned Trials initiative (RIAT) and in retrospective analysis of information and events surrounding the roll out of vaccines during the last pandemic (influenza A/H1N1, ‘swine flu’) in 2009 (Stephen W. BMJ2018; 362: k3948). 

Health authorities, as vaccine protagonists, must therefore take some responsibility for their role in creating an environment that fosters distrust and hesitancy over vaccination rather than always blaming citizens or scientists for being irrational when they express concerns about vaccine testing or safety. Coercive public policy on vaccination, coupled with the categorisation of comments by citizens, doctors and others that question vaccine safety as ‘fake news’, which then often leads to censorship, are therefore counter-productive.

Informed risk/utility decisions around mass vaccination require increasing public engagement (Williamson & Glaab. BMC Med Ethics. 2018; 19(1): 84) and benefit from clear disclosure of sponsorship bias and the capacity for re-analysis of raw data by independent researchers (Jefferson T. J R Soc Med. 2020; 113(4): 148-157). Full disclosure of results from clinical trials, including provision of raw data, is vital given data on fast-tracked vaccines will inevitably be uncertain and incomplete to some degree. It is important that the extent of such shortcomings are communicated to the public.

It is therefore in the public interest to ensure that all relevant data that could feed into properly informed decisions are placed in the academic and public domains. Public confidence in vaccination can only be re-established if there is much greater transparency and sharing of data than has been the case historically (Godlee F. BMJ 2018; 363: k4152). This is more relevant than ever with the prospect of Covid-19 vaccines, given their unprecedented rate of development.

Key areas for vaccine transparency

Having consulted with medical doctors, other health professionals, research scientists, lawyers and citizens in our various networks, we consider it imperative that the following information is released for public scrutiny prior to commercial release of any Covid-19 vaccines:

  1. Full disclosure of all raw data from safety studies of commercial Covid-19 vaccines. Disclosure of raw data allows independent researchers to analyse data and draw conclusions independently of health authorities, regulators and vaccine manufacturers. Such transparency and data sharing are essential if the aim is to establish confidence in mass immunisation using a novel vaccine developed in a fraction of the time typical of previous vaccines;
  2. Transparency in relation to safety and efficacy studies. Safety studies for any vaccine that is fast-tracked (6-18 months) prior to approval will be compromised as compared with those for which more time (several years) has been allowed for safety studies and regulatory approval. If the Government is planning to encourage vaccination, it is crucial that it is clear about the limitations in safety and efficacy studies supporting public roll-out as compared with those required for normal licensing of vaccines. Without such knowledge, it is neither possible for citizens to balance risk versus utility, nor can they determine “…if the safety of the product is not such as persons generally are entitled to expect” (Consumer Protection Act 1987);
  3. Transparency over the type of platform used for commercial vaccines. Currently there are several different platforms being investigated for candidate vaccines for Covid-19 and it appears that the most likely (and well funded) options involve platforms that have never been previously used on a global scale (Amanat & Krammer. Immunity. 2020; 52(4): 583-589). It is imperative that there is clear communication to the public over the nature of the platform(s) being used for Covid-19 vaccines prior to their commercial release, as well as the extent of their previous use, if relevant, for pre-existing commercial vaccines; 
  4. Conduct and transparency of studies to elucidate any risks associated with adjuvants as distinct from antigens. Given that commercial vaccines for Covid-19 are likely to be adjuvanted, it is essential that the safety of the adjuvanted vaccines are compared with non-adjuvanted vaccines and saline controls. Adjuvants may trigger specific side effects in susceptible individuals, which may include those with underlying conditions, including autoimmune diseases (e.g. Watad A, et al. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2017; 7: 150);
  5. Transparency in relation to vaccine composition. There is a significant public lack of confidence in the purity and composition of vaccines. It is essential that the detailed composition of Covid-19 vaccines are declared, this going beyond simply specifying added ingredients. It is also imperative that any impurities are also declared given some of these have the potential to trigger adverse reactions. Given there is a strong move towards transparency in labelling in the food sector, itself supported by the Food Standards Agency and Department of Health, it is even more important that such transparency occurs with vaccines given they are administered systemically;
  6. Full disclosure of cases and potential cases of vaccine injury. Recent history of UK government communication around legal cases linked to vaccine injury caused by Pandemrix® and seasonal flu vaccines discovered during trials or post-marketing surveillance has been grossly inadequate. This inadequacy has only been revealed through multiple freedom of information requests under the Freedom of Information Act. Only a handful of cases have been made public, while many others have received Vaccine Damage Payments after establishing proof of vaccine causation but without any public communication of the cases or the nature of the injuries (see special report in Independent, 18 April). This non-disclosure does not afford the public a balanced view of the risks associated with a given vaccine, nor does it allow them to determine if their own health condition might make them more or less susceptible to adverse reactions;
  7. The Government must clarify eligibility and criteria for no-fault vaccine injury payments for Covid-19 vaccines. We have noted that the Government no longer considers citizens eligible for vaccine injury payments in the event of proven damage caused by a “pandemic influenza virus”. This exclusion was made only after the Government recognised from post-marketing surveillance that narcolepsy was a significant, albeit uncommon, autoimmune side effect of Pandemrix®. The Government must ensure that vaccine injury payments will be made to individuals injured by any approved Covid-19 vaccines, while also clarifying the level of proof required to establish causation and the statutory time limit for making such claims in relation to Covid-19 vaccines, prior to their administration to the public;
  8. The Government must clarify indemnity offered to vaccine manufacturers. In a reply made by the Department of Health to a freedom of information request (Your Ref: DE-1029593), it was stated that in relation to GlaxoSmithKline’s Pandemrix®, Baxter International’s Celvapan® and Sanofi Pasteur’s Liquid Smallpox Vaccine, “The Authority shall fully and completely indemnify the Contractor against all claims, proceedings, actions, legal suits, damages, legal costs and expenses and any other liabilities in respect of any death or personal injury arising from the Authority’s use of the Goods.” The indemnity, if applicable to Covid-19 vaccines, must be made public prior to the commercial release of vaccines because, ultimately, the financial burden of such indemnity lies with the taxpayer;
  9. The public must be informed of the extent of naturally-acquired immunity prior to public release of Covid-19 vaccines. In order to balance risk and utility, the public must be made aware of the extent of population herd immunity, which will necessitate carefully conducted, stratified, random sampling of the UK population and testing with a validated serological (antibody) test. We are aware that the Department of Health is evaluating such tests, and it is of paramount importance that comprehensive, periodic evaluation of population immunity is conducted to determine the persistence of such immunity. This would be greatly facilitated by quarterly testing of randomised, stratified samples of the national population and would not necessitate ‘universal’ testing of all individuals that has been correctly declared as not feasible. The public should also have ready access to validated antibody tests so that individuals can assess their own state of immunity prior to giving consent for vaccination;
  10. Parliament must be engaged to ensure due democratic process if the Government is planning to consider making Covid-19 vaccines mandatory. While the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 technically allows for the mandatory treatment of persons who are, or may be, infected, the decision to apply these emergency measures to Covid-19, when it has not been applied to any previous infectious disease, is a matter of great public importance. It is therefore critical that due democratic process is followed so that the will of the people can be factored into any such decision.

As Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, we are extremely aware of how hard you and your team have been working in an effort to protect the public interest during the current pandemic. However, it is crucially important that in the drive to provide one or more vaccines to enhance the population’s immunity to SARS-CoV-2, corners are not cut that expose the population to unnecessary risks, especially if these are undisclosed.

We look forward to receiving information about your Department’s approach to transparency of information and data surrounding Covid-19 vaccine trials, including post-marketing surveillance once initiated. We especially request your response to specific points set out in the ten discrete areas we have highlighted above.

We greatly look forward to hearing from you, or a member of your Departmental team, at your earliest convenience. Our respective emails are given below.

Yours sincerely,

Robert Verkerk MSc DIC PhD FACN
Executive and scientific director
Alliance for Natural Health International

www.anhinternational.org

Dr Damien Downing MBBS MSB
President
British Society for Ecological Medicine
www.bsem.org.uk

 

 

George Orwell Quote

Search our Site...