Just the essential [controversial] links about COVID vaccination, compiled from the past 6 months of weekly links:
(believe it or not, this is just a small subset of the variety of links I have posted YTD, which is itself just a small subset of the variety of articles and posts and tweets I have read, but hopefully it is a reasonably representative sample of the musings and information that have caused me concerns regarding the COVID vaccination controversy)
Christian Elliot: 18 Reasons I Won't Be Getting a Covid Vaccine. April 6, 2021.
I'm not here to pick a fight with anyone, just to walk you through some of what I've read, my lingering questions, and explain why I can't make sense of these covid vaccines. …. I don't know everything, but so far no one has been able to answer the objections below. So here are the reasons I'm opting out of the covid vaccine. [mostly just the headline points listed here; go to his site for his further elaboration of each point]
#1: VACCINE MAKERS ARE IMMUNE FROM LIABILITY
#2: THE CHECKERED PAST OF THE VACCINE COMPANIES
The four major companies who are making these covid vaccines are/have either:
- Never brought a vaccine to market before covid (Moderna and Johnson & Johnson).
- Are serial felons (Pfizer, and Astra Zeneca).
- Are both (Johnson & Johnson).
Moderna had been trying to "Modernize our RNA" (thus the company name)--for years, but had never successfully brought ANY product to market--how nice for them to get a major cash infusion from the government to keep trying.
In fact, all major vaccine makers (save Moderna) have paid out tens of billions of dollars in damages for other products they brought to market when they knew those products would cause injuries and death--see Vioxx, Bextra, Celebrex, Thalidomide, and opioids as a few examples.
#3: THE UGLY HISTORY OF ATTEMPTS TO MAKE CORONAVIRUS VACCINES
The typical pattern in the studies mentioned above is that the children and the animals produced beautiful antibody responses after being vaccinated. The manufacturers thought they hit the jackpot. The problem came when the children and animals were exposed to the wild version of the virus.
#4: THE "DATA GAPS" SUBMITTED TO THE FDA BY THE VACCINE MAKERS
#5: NO ACCESS TO THE RAW DATA FROM THE TRIALS
#6: NO LONG-TERM SAFETY TESTING
#7: NO INFORMED CONSENT
#8: UNDER-REPORTING OF ADVERSE REACTIONS AND DEATH
While the problems with VAERS have not been fixed (as you can read about in this letter to the CDC), at the time of this writing VAERS reports over 2,200 deaths from the current covid vaccines, as well as close to 60,000 adverse reactions.
#9: THE VACCINES DO NOT STOP TRANSMISSION OR INFECTION
Why do you think we're getting all these conflicting messages about needing to practice social distancing and wear masks AFTER we get a vaccine? The reason is because these vaccines were never designed to stop transmission OR infection. If you don't believe me, I refer you again to the papers submitted to the FDA I linked to above.
#10: PEOPLE ARE CATCHING COVID AFTER BEING FULLY VACCINATED
#11: THE OVERALL DEATH RATE FROM COVID
According to the CDC's own numbers, covid has a 99.74% survival rate.
#12: THE BLOATED COVID DEATH NUMBERS
#13: FAUCI AND SIX OTHERS AT NIAID OWN PATENTS IN THE MODERNA VACCINE
Does anyone else see this as a MAJOR conflict of interest, or criminal even?
#14: FAUCI IS ON THE HOT SEAT FOR ILLEGAL GAIN-OF-FUNCTION RESEARCH
What is "Gain-of-Function" research?
It's where scientists attempt to make viruses gain functions--i.e. make them more transmissible and deadlier.
Sounds at least a touch unethical, right?
How could that possibly be helpful?
Our government agreed, and banned the practice.
So what did the Fauci-led NIAID do?
They pivoted and outsourced the gain-of-function research (in coronaviruses no less) to China--to the tune of a $600K grant.
You can see more details, including the important timeline of these events in this fantastically well-researched documentary.
#15: THE VIRUS CONTINUES TO MUTATE
#16: CENSORSHIP...AND THE COMPLETE ABSENCE OF SCIENTIFIC DEBATE
What has happened to the scientific method of always challenging our assumptions?
What happened to lively debate in this country, or at least in Western society?
Why did anyone who disagrees with the WHO, or the CDC get censored so heavily?
Is the science of public health a religion now, or is science supposed to be about debate?
If someone says "the science is settled" that's how I know I'm dealing with someone who is closed minded.
By definition science (especially biological science) is never settled.
If it was, it would be dogma, not science.
OK, before I get too worked up, let me say this...
I WANT TO BE A GOOD CITIZEN
I really do.
If lockdowns work, I want to do my part and stay home.
If masks work, I want to wear them.
If social distancing is effective, I want to comply.
But, if there is evidence they don't (masks for example), I want to hear that evidence too.
If highly-credentialed scientists have different opinions, I want to know what they think.
I want a chance to hear their arguments and make up my own mind.
I don't think I'm the smartest person in the world, but I think I can think.
Maybe I'm weird, but if someone is censored, then I REALLY want to hear what they think. Don't you?
#17: THE WORLD'S LEADING VACCINOLOGIST IS SOUNDING THE ALARM...
Here is what may be the biggest reason this covid vaccine doesn't make sense to me.
When someone who is very pro-vaccine, who has spent his entire professional career overseeing the development of vaccines, is shouting from the mountaintops that we have a major problem, I think the man should be heard.
In case you missed it, and in case you care to watch it, here is Geert Vanden Bossche, explaining: ….. If you want to see/read about a second, and longer, interview with Vanden Bossche, where he was asked some tough questions, you can check this out.
(And, finally, one that does not apply to me:)
#18: I ALREADY HAD COVID
…
· We all want to live in a world of freedom.
· We all want to do our part to help others and to live well.
· We all want the right to express our opinions without fearing we'll be censored or viciously attacked.
· We all deserve to have the access to the facts so we can make informed decisions.
Official Title: A PHASE 1/2/3, PLACEBO-CONTROLLED, RANDOMIZED, OBSERVER-BLIND, DOSE-FINDING STUDY TO EVALUATE THE SAFETY, TOLERABILITY, IMMUNOGENICITY, AND EFFICACY OF SARS-COV-2 RNA VACCINE CANDIDATES AGAINST COVID-19 IN HEALTHY INDIVIDUALS
Actual Study Start Date: April 29, 2020
Estimated Primary Completion Date: July 30, 2021
** Estimated Study Completion Date: January 27, 2023 **
It’s Gene Therapy, Not a Vaccine. Jan. 21, 2021.
…
Q: I have a friend that works in the school system. She got a letter suggesting that she’s an essential worker and that she needs to get this one of these new vaccines being developed against this COVID virus. What should she know before she goes for it?
A: Let’s start with your opening sentence. None of the words in the order that you use exist in reality. Let’s unpack that. First of all, there is no vaccine that is in development or contemplated that is a vaccine against the SARS-CoV-2 virus. That doesn’t exist. That hasn’t been developed. It isn’t even, in 2021, in contemplation. It’s one of the unfortunate things about what’s going on in the propaganda war, which is in February, the World Health Organization made it abundantly clear that SARS-CoV-2 or the virus and COVID-19, which is a series of clinical presentations of illness were two distinct things.
Q: You’re making an interesting distinction. I have heard that SARS-CoV-2 is “the virus” and that COVID-19 is the disease. Is that what you’re saying?
A: COVID 19 is not a disease. It is a series of clinical symptoms. It is a giant umbrella of things associated with what used to be associated with influenza and with other febrile diseases. The problem that we have is that in February, the World Health Organization was clear in stating that there should not be a conflation between the two of these things. One is a virus, in their definition and one is a set of clinical symptoms. The illusion in February was that SARS-CoV-2 caused COVID-19. The problem with that definition and with the expectation is that the majority of people who test positive using the RT-PCR method for testing, for fragments of what is associated with SARS-CoV-2 are not ill at all. The illusion that the virus causes a disease fell apart. That’s the reason why they invented the term asymptomatic carrier.
Q: In other words, I might get a positive result from this PCR test and the reason I’m not asymptomatic, what’s happening is I’m not sick at all. They’ve made a false assumption that SARS-CoV-2 causes COVID-19.
A: That’s never been the case, never has been the case and never will be the case. There is a causal statement that is made in the media where, for example, Johns Hopkins or the COVID tracker platform or any of these things has intentionally misled the people. There are not 5,000 new cases in Virginia. There potentially may be several thousand positive PCR tests but most of the people who have a positive test will never have a single symptom. Most of the people who have symptoms do not have positive tests.
Q: I know some individuals who said that thing. They were like, “I was feeling sick and I got a negative test. My sister-in-law, who was feeling great, got a positive test.”
It will always be the case. The causal link that the media, the CDC made and the COVID tracker, which is the collaboration between the Bloomberg Foundation, the Gates Foundation, Zuckerberg Foundation and others, the official numbers that we get traped across the screens every morning of our computers in our televisions, those numbers are willfully lying. They have been willfully lying since the inception of this. There is not a causal link between these things that have never been established. It has never even been close to established. We have a situation where the illusion of the problem is that people say, “I don’t want to get COVID-19.” What they mean is they don’t want to get infected with a virus. The problem is those two things are not related to each other.
A viral infection hasn’t been documented in the majority of what is called cases. There is no basis for that conflation other than the manipulation of the public. That’s the first half of the problem. The second half of the problem is that what is being touted as a vaccination, which as you well know when somebody says the word vaccination, the public understanding is that you are being treated with an attenuated or alive virus or a fragment of an attenuated and that the treatment is meant to keep you from getting an infection and it is meant to keep you from transmitting the infection that vaccine in the common definition of a vaccine is meant to do.
The problem is that in the case of Moderna and Pfizer, this is not a vaccine. This is gene therapy. It’s a chemotherapy agent that is gene therapy. It is not a vaccine. What is this doing? It’s sending a strand of synthetic RNA into the human being and is invoking within the human being, the creation of the S1 spike protein, which is a pathogen. It’s a toxin inside of human beings. This is not only not keeping you from getting sick, it’s making your body produce the thing that makes you sick.
Q: In that sense, it does sound like a vaccine?
A: No, not at all because a vaccine is supposed to trigger immunity. It’s not supposed to trigger you to make a toxin.
Q: That’s how this differs.
A: It’s not somewhat different. It’s not the same at all. This is a public manipulation of misrepresentation of clinical treatment. It’s not a vaccination. It’s not a prohibiting infection. It’s not a prohibiting transmission device. It’s a means by which your body is conscripted to make the toxin that then allegedly your body somehow gets used to dealing with, but unlike a vaccine, which is to trigger the immune response, this is to trigger the creation of the toxin.
Q: What you’re saying is different from what most of us have heard in the mainstream news and even from the press releases from big companies.
A: That’s because people aren’t reading the actual clinical trials. If you read the clinical trials, nothing that I’m saying is even remotely different. As a matter of fact, the companies themselves have said what I’m saying. They said, they could not test for the existence or absence of the virus and they could not test for the transmissivity because they said it would be impractical. The companies themselves have admitted to every single thing I’m saying but they are using the public manipulation of the word vaccine to co-opt the public into believing they’re getting a thing, which they are not getting. This is not going to stop you from getting Coronavirus. It’s not going to stop you from getting sick. In fact, on the contrary, it will make you sick far more often than the virus itself.
Q: How can you say that so definitively?
A:Because the data is nothing but that, for people receiving by the time they got the second shot, 80% of people had one or more clinical presentations of COVID-19, 80% of people who have an infection according to RT-PCR have no symptoms at all.
Q: People are getting it more from the “vaccine?”
A: Yes. You will get COVID-19 symptoms from getting the gene therapy passed off as a vaccine. You will get COVID symptoms from that 80% of the time. If you’re exposed to SARS-CoV-2 according to RT-PCR, 80% of the time, you will have no symptoms at all.
Q: What is the purpose of getting this vaccine or this gene manipulation as you call it?
A: It’s a gene therapy technology. That’s Moderna’s own definition. Let’s stick with what they say they are. The benefit is non-existent. A human being is going to be potentially exposed to unclassified, both short-term and long-term risks of altering their RNA and DNA from exposure to this gene therapy. This is important to understand, there is no clinical benefit except that in certain instances of CoV infection and/or COVID-19 exposure, there were a few. By that, I mean less than a few hundred out of nearly 40,000 in the clinical trial. A few hundred people had a few days less severe symptoms with the gene therapy when compared to the other control group. Even in that comparison, if you look at the methodology that’s in the published papers for the clinical trials, they play games with the data because what they’re doing is, they’re separating reactivity, meaning the way in which a person responds to being exposed to the gene therapy, they separate out adverse events from actual COVID symptoms.
The problem is that COVID symptoms include things like fever, body ache, muscle pain, muscle weakness and things like that. They got rid of a lot of what would have been considered to be COVID symptoms by calling them adverse events. If you pull that data out and you say, “Compare the population that got the gene therapy with the population that didn’t get the gene therapy.” The population that got the gene therapy had way more illness, including COVID-19 symptoms, than the population that didn’t get the gene therapy but because they classified an enormous number of things as adverse events, they technically wiggled themselves into what was this ridiculous 90% plus effectiveness. Effectiveness was not effective in blocking illness. It was effective in allegedly shortening the duration of symptoms.
Q: People are afraid that they are ready to believe what they want to believe and holding onto that one bit of information that you shared, that the likelihood with the flu vaccine, “At least it will tamp down my symptoms and limit the duration of my illness.” They held onto that one bit of information that was data manipulation, as you’re saying and they’re holding out hope that this will be their saving grace to help them avoid COVID-19.
A: Nothing about this will avoid COVID-19 and nothing about this will avoid SARS-CoV-2.
Q: We’ve been talking mostly about the Moderna and Pfizer vaccine that is gene therapy. Is there another one in the works or getting to the market that is not using gene therapy?
A: The AstraZeneca Oxford trial is using a viral fragment. It is more along the technological lines of what you and I might consider historically, to be a vaccine. The AstraZeneca Oxford trial has been an interesting one to watch because they have a methodology problem that is quite challenging in terms of trying to fool data and understand what’s happening either on the safety or efficacy side. The reason is simple, that in certain instances, the AstraZeneca Oxford trial has not used a saline control group. They’ve used another vaccine as the control. In other words, they’ve stacked the deck. They’re making it look like they are somehow neutral compared to another vaccination in several of their data collection efforts.
As a result of that, we have both a methodology problem, which by the way, has been criticized by a number of clinical scientists. The bigger problem is that they’re still not measuring viral susceptibility and viral transmission. Those are the two legs of the stool that is required for anyone to say that they are vaccinating a population for public health reasons. There is no means by which. This is a simple thing to wrap your head around. If I said, “Everybody needs to take chemotherapy for cancer they might get.”
Q: People would laugh in your face.
A: That’s exactly what is happening. This is not prophylactic. This is not helping us. We’re being told to take a treatment for a disease we don’t have and most likely will not have. We’re being told that using careful marketing manipulation and propaganda, calling these things vaccines for public health.
Q: Historically vaccines, we’ve taken them for that reason. “I don’t have the measles. I don’t want to get the measles, so I’m going to get this measles shot.” We’ve been primed to accept that approached.
A: That’s the narrative everybody expects.
Q: Why don’t you expect that though? What’s made you dive deep?
A: That’s not what’s being measured. That’s not what’s being done and that’s not what this technology is about. mRNA is not a vaccination. It’s a gene therapy that was originally developed for cancer treatment. That’s why I’m using the chemotherapy analogy. This is not a vaccination.
Q: I have colleagues, I’m sure you do too, friends and acquaintances who are going for it. What can we tell these people or share with them that might wake them up?
A: That’s a complex issue and I have chosen a long time ago to not engage in the energy of this waking-sleeping metaphor because the fact of the matter is if people are conditioned to react to fear, this is reflexive and it’s not conscious. If we examine our behavior and what we do is engage in self-harm because we are convinced that somehow or another, there’s a worse future ahead of us, that’s something that I don’t have an ability to say facts are going ever to overcome. I have yet to meet in my life someone who allowed a fact to overwhelm a belief. Once you’ve adopted a belief, facts are not welcome because what they do is, they not only indict your belief but they indict the energy that you hold that says, “I have to believe what I’m told.”
The minute you try to engage with facts, all you do is trigger conflict. What I do is I try to take the complex science and the complex reporting, and I try to make it accessible and easily understood. The goal is that in certain instances, people will go, “I can’t even believe that what he said was true.” The cool thing is you don’t have to believe what I’m saying is true because I don’t value belief. I value the objective reality of facts. It turns out that in this particular case, it is simple and straightforward to say to any person in Moderna’s own SEC filings, they make it abundantly clear that their technology is a gene therapy technology. In their clinical trial, they’ve made it abundantly clear that they could not measure the presence or absence of the virus and they could not measure the presence or the absence of the transmission of the virus. Every single thing that they represented to be doing that preys on the public understanding of what vaccination is, they explicitly said, “They’re not doing that.”
Q: I’ve interviewed Dr. Tom Cowan and Dr. Andy Kaufman, and they say the same thing. The person who came up with or developed the PCR test says that it’s not to be used to diagnose anything.
A: So does the FDA so does everybody else. The only reason we are using PCR tests is that governors and the Department of Health and Human Services are maintaining a state of emergency. The second that that state of emergency is lifted in any state or in the country, the PCR test won’t be allowed to be used. We’re maintaining a state of emergency so that manufacturers can keep selling a thing that would never be approved if it was subject to a clinical trial. It goes for what’s being called vaccines too. The gene therapy that Moderna and Pfizer are doing, both of those would be suspended immediately if the state of emergency got lifted. People don’t understand that if you lift the state of emergency, the whole house of cards falls.
Q: That is something else that you and your team are advocating for?
A: It’s because the emergency use authorization falls with the state of emergency.
Q: Is this one reason, do you think that they have cast aspersions on hydroxychloroquine or any other protocols that could possibly treat the symptoms of SARS-CoV-2?
A: There’s no question. If you look historically, for many years, Dr. Anthony Fauci at NIAID has held his annual advisory committee meeting. Every year he laments the fact that they’re trying to build this universal influenza vaccine, which he refers to using as an infant in-print vaccine. They’ve been trying to do this for years and it hasn’t worked. This happens to be an opportunity for Anthony Fauci to get what he has not been able to get through legal means, which is he wants to get to a place where he forces a vaccine on a population. He’s manipulating this situation to force a vaccine on a population. The fact of the matter is he forgot that if he’s going to force a vaccine on a population, it should at least be a vaccine.
Q: What would his motives be for that?
A: Always has been financial. There are billions of dollars at stake and NIAID is essentially the incubator for the pharmaceutical industry. He’s serving the paymasters that have let him manage $191 billion in his career at NIAID.
Q: There are lots to consider here. You’ve given us a lot of food for thought. We want to have another conversation with you again but let’s say I’m an individual that was reading all these facts and I’ve been persuaded. I do not want to get this gene therapy technology. I don’t want even to get the AstraZeneca vaccine. I don’t want to get any of this but I’m under pressure either because of my job or for travel purposes to do so, what would you advise me to do?
A: I can’t advise a person at all. That’s not my role but what I can tell you is that this is a decision that any human being is going to ultimately have to make based on whether or not they choose to live or they choose to be enslaved. This is like any point in history where you have to make decisions that are based on what is moral and ethical and right with respect to your own sense of responsibility and accountability. The fact of the matter is like wearing a seat belt, like doing a whole bunch of other things, your choice to engage in an activity is ultimately going to be a decision that you have to live with. I will not touch a thing and I will not allow my body to be invaded with a thing that is been developed in an unethical and illegal way. I am not going to let anybody have the opportunity to manipulate my genetic code. It’s not going to happen. If that means that it comes at a cost of a particular employer or a particular relationship or whatever else, my life happens to be worth more than that.
Synthetic mRNA COVID Vaccines: A Risk-Benefit Analysis. Feb. 22, 2021.
Two formulations have received interim approval from the FDA, and Health Canada: Pfizer/BioNtech and Moderna. Both these injections are employing the same technology, synthetic gene therapy (SGT), which is being dispensed to the populace for the first time in human history.
…
The Covid synthetic gene therapy injections employ synthetic, thermostable nucleotide sequences which are wrapped in a PEG (polyethylene glycol)-lipid nanoparticles to protect from destruction in the bloodstream and facilitate entry into the cells. The claim is that the cellular machinery will engage with these synthetic sequences and produce segments which code for the SarsCov2 S1 spike protein. It is believed that the immune system will mount a sufficient antibody response. Dr David Martin, emphasized that this technology does not meet the definition of a traditional vaccine as per the manufacturers’ claims. The trials do not test for reduction in transmission. These therapies do not prevent infection, merely reduction in one or more symptoms.
…
Media outlets, politicians, and public health officials have blared the 95% efficacy for both formulations. To the casual observer, this would denote 95% reduction in hospitalizations or deaths. When in fact the 95% is calculated, based upon the “Primary Efficacy Endpoints.”In the trial literature these endpoints are described by both companies as non-severe cold/flu SYMPTOMS coupled with a positive PCR.
…
Furthermore, people are not being informed that “95%” or so efficacy, is calculated based on a useless metric of relative efficacy and is therefore very misleading.
Eg.Pfizer/BioNtech:
8 “cases” in vaccine group
162 “cases” in placebo group
8/162 = 5%
100%-5%= 95%
Therefore, they are claiming that the synthetic gene therapy injections are 95% efficacious. What they are not factoring in is the size of the denominator. If it is large, then with 8 vs 162, the difference becomes less significant. It matters how many people were in each group, for example, whether this be 200, 2,000, or 20,000.
This is the absolute risk reduction for Pfizer/BioNtech, each group had over 18,000 people!
Injection Group: 8/18,198 = 0.04%
Placebo Group: 162/18,325= 0.88%
Therefore, the absolute risk reduction for Primary Efficacy Endpoint is 0.84%. (ie. 0.88-0.04)
…
The British Medical Journal has reported:
Hospital admissions and deaths from covid-19 are simply too uncommon in the population being studied for an effective vaccine to demonstrate statistically significant differences in a trial of 30 000 people. The same is true of its ability to save lives or prevent transmission: the trials are not designed to find out.”
…
According to the data, and elaborated by Tal Zaks (CMO of Moderna)the trials are not designed to demonstrate a reduction in transmission, due to “operational realities”… The manufacturers have also made it clear that efficacy beyond 2 months or so is unknown.
…
When Health Canada shockingly agreed to interim authorization of the Pfizer/BioNtech injection, it came alongside a caveat: The company must submit 6 months of trial data when it is available. … it is difficult to embark on a comprehensive risk-benefit analysis, as there is no safety data beyond a couple of months. New vaccines typically take about 7 to 20 years of research and trials before going to market.
…
Yet, the more disconcerting side effects are the potential mid-long term effects. Many doctors and researchers around the world have promulgated concerns about the well-documented phenomena referred to as Antibody Dependent Enhancement (ADE) seen in some viruses such as coronaviruses. In previous SARS, MERS, Dengue fever and RSV virus vaccine trials the exposure of wild viruses to vaccine recipients resulted in severe disease, cytokine storms, and deaths in some animal and human trials. The phenomenon of ADE did not present initially in vaccine recipients, rather it presented after vaccine recipients were exposed to wild viruses. This is the reason we do not have a vaccine for the common cold, MERS and SARS which is 78% homologous with SarsCov2 (based on analysis of the digital genome). Immunology Professor Dolores Cahill warnedthat this disease enhancement may cause many vaccine recipients to die months or years down the road. Esteemed German infectious disease specialist, Dr Sucharit Bhakdi opined: “This vaccine will lead you to your doom.”
Researchers in The International Journal of Clinical Practice stated: “The absence of ADE evidence in COVID-19 vaccine data so far does not absolve investigators from disclosing the risk of enhanced disease to vaccine trial participants, and it remains a realistic, non-theoretical risk to the subjects. Unfortunately, no vaccines for any of the known human CoVs have been licensed, although several potential SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV vaccines have advanced into human clinical trials for years, suggesting the development of effective vaccines against human CoVs has always been challenging.”
Traditional vaccines involve injection of the pathogen/toxin in whole/part to elicit an immune reaction. For the first time in history, the recipients’ cells will manufacture the pathogen, the S1 spike protein of SarsCov2 virus.
In a presentation for Emergency Use Authorization to the FDA, Moderna reps explained that the mRNA stays in the cytoplasm of the cells, manufactures the S1 Spike Protein and then is destroyed. As Dr Sucharit Bhakdi and others have queried: “Where else do these packages go?”
Also, based on a couple of months of safety data, we do not know that these mRNAs last long enough to manufacture the protein but not long enough to exert deleterious effects. This nascent technology is risky.
Firstly, the RNA sequences are synthetic. Therefore, we do not know how long they will last in the cells. Dr Judy Mikovits has expressed concerns in that they may not be degraded immediately, and perhaps linger for days, months, years.
Moderna previously tried to use this same technology to treat Crigler-Najjar syndrome and was not able to strike the balance between therapeutic dose and toxic side effects.
It’s encased in nanolipid to prevent it from degrading too rapidly, but what happens if the mRNA degrades too slowly, or not at all? What happens when you turn your body into a “viral protein factory”, thus keeping antibody production activated on a continual basis with no ability to shut down?
So, taking a synthetic messenger RNA and making it thermostable — making it not break down — [is problematic]. We have lots of enzymes (RNAses and DNAses) that degrade free RNA and DNA because, again, those are danger signals to your immune system. They literally drive inflammatory diseases.
Moderna boldly claims that these synthetic mRNAs will not integrate with the host cell DNA. The discovery of epigenetics has revealed that DNA expression is in flux and constantly interacts with environmental signals. Dr Lanka explained that RNA-DNA is also a two-way process, dynamic.
There is the potential for this synthetic RNA to integrate into human DNA via the enzyme, reverse transcriptase. This may lead to mutagenesis, possibly cancer. It may lead to birth defects if it integrates into the germ cells of the injected. Reassurances cannot be made based on such limited safety data.
…
Whilst natural infections are benign and self-limiting for the vast majority of affected people, autoimmune diseases are mostly irreversible. This is even more terrifying with the mRNA treatment.
If the translation of SarsCov2 S1 spike protein persists there is potential to cause amplification of the expression of autoimmunity. As the SGT recipients’ cells are now producing the viral spike proteins, there is the potential for explosion of auto-immune diseases in coming years.
Syncytin-1’s primary function is in the placenta as well as sperm. Dr Wodarg and Yeadon’s Stay of Action, included concerns that the potential for antibodies against Syncytin-1 proteins (part of the placenta) may result in permanent infertility in women and possibly men as well. The manufacturers give the caveat: “It is unknown whether COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 has an impact on fertility.”
…
In the longer term, she suspects we’ll see a significant uptick in migraines, tics, Parkinson’s disease, microvascular disorders, different cancers, including prostate cancer, severe pain syndromes like fibromyalgia and rheumatoid arthritis, bladder problems, kidney disease, psychosis, neurodegenerative diseases such as Lou Gehrig’s disease (ALS) and sleep disorders, including narcolepsy. In young children, autism-like symptoms are likely to develop as well, she thinks.
Heart attacks are another documented side effect. Loved ones of the deceased have shared on social media that these deaths are not considered vaccine reactions and are therefore not recorded as such.
Cardiothoracic surgeon and researcher, Dr Hooman Noorchashm, wrote a letter of warning to the FDA. His concern, the spike protein will cause inflammation, clot formation and heart attacks in SGT recipients who previously were exposed to SarsCov2:
“So if a person with a recent or active COVID-19 infection is vaccinated, the highly effective and antigen specific immune response incited by the vaccine will, very likely, attack the inner lining of the blood vessel and cause damage, leading to blood clot formation. This could result in major serious problems like strokes and heart attacks, at least in some people…Additionally, if the immunological risk I am prognosticating herein is in reality material, over the next months as millions more Americans are immunized, it will become quite visible to the public..Thromboembolic complications, 10–20 days following activation of a vaccine induced antigen specific immune response, in elderly frail vasculopaths, will not register as classical “vaccine related complications.”
…
Dr Whelan expressed concern that the spike protein alone is sufficient to cause injury: “I am concerned about the possibility that the new vaccines aimed at creating immunity against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein have the potential to cause microvascular injury to the brain, heart, liver and kidneys in a way that does not currently appear to be assessed in safety trials of these potential drugs.”
There are many avenues of potential harm and death, many are unknown as this experiment is only a few months old.
In contemplation of risk-benefit analysis, one must also consider low-risk efficacious treatments. It is well established that vitamin D deficiency is linked to presentation of severe respiratory distress, and cytokine storm sequelae, which also includes Covid.
…
Pfizer has projected a profit of 15 billion for 2021. A very lucrative start for all companies benefitting from the Covid Industrial Complex.
Sadly, people are not being informed that Phase 3 trials are ongoing. The FDA and Health Canada have not approved these injections for licensure. The injections are highly experimental. These SGTs were designed and “assessed” at a record speed of less than a year and then given interim approval based on 2 months of safety data.
…
Dr Michael Yeadon, former Vice-President of Pfizer has also stated: “All vaccines against the SARS-CoV-2 virus are by definition novel. If any such vaccine is approved for use under any circumstances that are not EXPLICITLY experimental, I believe that recipients are being misled to a criminal extent.”
The American Frontline Doctor’s white paper reports: “An Experimental Vaccine Is Not Safer Than a Very Low IFR.”
…
The new normal breeds hysteria; “safe and effective” are the cacophonous mantras. Only a heretic dare analyze the actual data or initiate rational query. The unscrupulous message proclaimed from on high: “Covid is extremely fatal, the injections are extremely safe and effective. Full stop”.
Two formulations have received interim approval from the FDA, and Health Canada: Pfizer/BioNtech and Moderna. Both these injections are employing the same technology, synthetic gene therapy (SGT), which is being dispensed to the populace for the first time in human history.
…
The Covid synthetic gene therapy injections employ synthetic, thermostable nucleotide sequences which are wrapped in a PEG (polyethylene glycol)-lipid nanoparticles to protect from destruction in the bloodstream and facilitate entry into the cells. The claim is that the cellular machinery will engage with these synthetic sequences and produce segments which code for the SarsCov2 S1 spike protein. It is believed that the immune system will mount a sufficient antibody response. Dr David Martin, emphasized that this technology does not meet the definition of a traditional vaccine as per the manufacturers’ claims. The trials do not test for reduction in transmission. These therapies do not prevent infection, merely reduction in one or more symptoms.
…
Media outlets, politicians, and public health officials have blared the 95% efficacy for both formulations. To the casual observer, this would denote 95% reduction in hospitalizations or deaths. When in fact the 95% is calculated, based upon the “Primary Efficacy Endpoints.”In the trial literature these endpoints are described by both companies as non-severe cold/flu SYMPTOMS coupled with a positive PCR.
…
Furthermore, people are not being informed that “95%” or so efficacy, is calculated based on a useless metric of relative efficacy and is therefore very misleading.
Eg.Pfizer/BioNtech:
8 “cases” in vaccine group
162 “cases” in placebo group
8/162 = 5%
100%-5%= 95%
Therefore, they are claiming that the synthetic gene therapy injections are 95% efficacious. What they are not factoring in is the size of the denominator. If it is large, then with 8 vs 162, the difference becomes less significant. It matters how many people were in each group, for example, whether this be 200, 2,000, or 20,000.
This is the absolute risk reduction for Pfizer/BioNtech, each group had over 18,000 people!
Injection Group: 8/18,198 = 0.04%
Placebo Group: 162/18,325= 0.88%
Therefore, the absolute risk reduction for Primary Efficacy Endpoint is 0.84%. (ie. 0.88-0.04)
…
The British Medical Journal has reported:
Hospital admissions and deaths from covid-19 are simply too uncommon in the population being studied for an effective vaccine to demonstrate statistically significant differences in a trial of 30 000 people. The same is true of its ability to save lives or prevent transmission: the trials are not designed to find out.”
…
According to the data, and elaborated by Tal Zaks (CMO of Moderna)the trials are not designed to demonstrate a reduction in transmission, due to “operational realities”… The manufacturers have also made it clear that efficacy beyond 2 months or so is unknown.
…
When Health Canada shockingly agreed to interim authorization of the Pfizer/BioNtech injection, it came alongside a caveat: The company must submit 6 months of trial data when it is available. … it is difficult to embark on a comprehensive risk-benefit analysis, as there is no safety data beyond a couple of months. New vaccines typically take about 7 to 20 years of research and trials before going to market.
…
Yet, the more disconcerting side effects are the potential mid-long term effects. Many doctors and researchers around the world have promulgated concerns about the well-documented phenomena referred to as Antibody Dependent Enhancement (ADE) seen in some viruses such as coronaviruses. In previous SARS, MERS, Dengue fever and RSV virus vaccine trials the exposure of wild viruses to vaccine recipients resulted in severe disease, cytokine storms, and deaths in some animal and human trials. The phenomenon of ADE did not present initially in vaccine recipients, rather it presented after vaccine recipients were exposed to wild viruses. This is the reason we do not have a vaccine for the common cold, MERS and SARS which is 78% homologous with SarsCov2 (based on analysis of the digital genome). Immunology Professor Dolores Cahill warnedthat this disease enhancement may cause many vaccine recipients to die months or years down the road. Esteemed German infectious disease specialist, Dr Sucharit Bhakdi opined: “This vaccine will lead you to your doom.”
Researchers in The International Journal of Clinical Practice stated: “The absence of ADE evidence in COVID-19 vaccine data so far does not absolve investigators from disclosing the risk of enhanced disease to vaccine trial participants, and it remains a realistic, non-theoretical risk to the subjects. Unfortunately, no vaccines for any of the known human CoVs have been licensed, although several potential SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV vaccines have advanced into human clinical trials for years, suggesting the development of effective vaccines against human CoVs has always been challenging.”
Traditional vaccines involve injection of the pathogen/toxin in whole/part to elicit an immune reaction. For the first time in history, the recipients’ cells will manufacture the pathogen, the S1 spike protein of SarsCov2 virus.
In a presentation for Emergency Use Authorization to the FDA, Moderna reps explained that the mRNA stays in the cytoplasm of the cells, manufactures the S1 Spike Protein and then is destroyed. As Dr Sucharit Bhakdi and others have queried: “Where else do these packages go?”
Also, based on a couple of months of safety data, we do not know that these mRNAs last long enough to manufacture the protein but not long enough to exert deleterious effects. This nascent technology is risky.
Firstly, the RNA sequences are synthetic. Therefore, we do not know how long they will last in the cells. Dr Judy Mikovits has expressed concerns in that they may not be degraded immediately, and perhaps linger for days, months, years.
Moderna previously tried to use this same technology to treat Crigler-Najjar syndrome and was not able to strike the balance between therapeutic dose and toxic side effects.
It’s encased in nanolipid to prevent it from degrading too rapidly, but what happens if the mRNA degrades too slowly, or not at all? What happens when you turn your body into a “viral protein factory”, thus keeping antibody production activated on a continual basis with no ability to shut down?
So, taking a synthetic messenger RNA and making it thermostable — making it not break down — [is problematic]. We have lots of enzymes (RNAses and DNAses) that degrade free RNA and DNA because, again, those are danger signals to your immune system. They literally drive inflammatory diseases.
Moderna boldly claims that these synthetic mRNAs will not integrate with the host cell DNA. The discovery of epigenetics has revealed that DNA expression is in flux and constantly interacts with environmental signals. Dr Lanka explained that RNA-DNA is also a two-way process, dynamic.
There is the potential for this synthetic RNA to integrate into human DNA via the enzyme, reverse transcriptase. This may lead to mutagenesis, possibly cancer. It may lead to birth defects if it integrates into the germ cells of the injected. Reassurances cannot be made based on such limited safety data.
…
Whilst natural infections are benign and self-limiting for the vast majority of affected people, autoimmune diseases are mostly irreversible. This is even more terrifying with the mRNA treatment.
If the translation of SarsCov2 S1 spike protein persists there is potential to cause amplification of the expression of autoimmunity. As the SGT recipients’ cells are now producing the viral spike proteins, there is the potential for explosion of auto-immune diseases in coming years.
Syncytin-1’s primary function is in the placenta as well as sperm. Dr Wodarg and Yeadon’s Stay of Action, included concerns that the potential for antibodies against Syncytin-1 proteins (part of the placenta) may result in permanent infertility in women and possibly men as well. The manufacturers give the caveat: “It is unknown whether COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 has an impact on fertility.”
…
In the longer term, she suspects we’ll see a significant uptick in migraines, tics, Parkinson’s disease, microvascular disorders, different cancers, including prostate cancer, severe pain syndromes like fibromyalgia and rheumatoid arthritis, bladder problems, kidney disease, psychosis, neurodegenerative diseases such as Lou Gehrig’s disease (ALS) and sleep disorders, including narcolepsy. In young children, autism-like symptoms are likely to develop as well, she thinks.
Heart attacks are another documented side effect. Loved ones of the deceased have shared on social media that these deaths are not considered vaccine reactions and are therefore not recorded as such.
Cardiothoracic surgeon and researcher, Dr Hooman Noorchashm, wrote a letter of warning to the FDA. His concern, the spike protein will cause inflammation, clot formation and heart attacks in SGT recipients who previously were exposed to SarsCov2:
“So if a person with a recent or active COVID-19 infection is vaccinated, the highly effective and antigen specific immune response incited by the vaccine will, very likely, attack the inner lining of the blood vessel and cause damage, leading to blood clot formation. This could result in major serious problems like strokes and heart attacks, at least in some people…Additionally, if the immunological risk I am prognosticating herein is in reality material, over the next months as millions more Americans are immunized, it will become quite visible to the public..Thromboembolic complications, 10–20 days following activation of a vaccine induced antigen specific immune response, in elderly frail vasculopaths, will not register as classical “vaccine related complications.”
…
Dr Whelan expressed concern that the spike protein alone is sufficient to cause injury: “I am concerned about the possibility that the new vaccines aimed at creating immunity against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein have the potential to cause microvascular injury to the brain, heart, liver and kidneys in a way that does not currently appear to be assessed in safety trials of these potential drugs.”
There are many avenues of potential harm and death, many are unknown as this experiment is only a few months old.
In contemplation of risk-benefit analysis, one must also consider low-risk efficacious treatments. It is well established that vitamin D deficiency is linked to presentation of severe respiratory distress, and cytokine storm sequelae, which also includes Covid.
…
Pfizer has projected a profit of 15 billion for 2021. A very lucrative start for all companies benefitting from the Covid Industrial Complex.
Sadly, people are not being informed that Phase 3 trials are ongoing. The FDA and Health Canada have not approved these injections for licensure. The injections are highly experimental. These SGTs were designed and “assessed” at a record speed of less than a year and then given interim approval based on 2 months of safety data.
…
Dr Michael Yeadon, former Vice-President of Pfizer has also stated: “All vaccines against the SARS-CoV-2 virus are by definition novel. If any such vaccine is approved for use under any circumstances that are not EXPLICITLY experimental, I believe that recipients are being misled to a criminal extent.”
The American Frontline Doctor’s white paper reports: “An Experimental Vaccine Is Not Safer Than a Very Low IFR.”
…
The new normal breeds hysteria; “safe and effective” are the cacophonous mantras. Only a heretic dare analyze the actual data or initiate rational query. The unscrupulous message proclaimed from on high: “Covid is extremely fatal, the injections are extremely safe and effective. Full stop”.
New Study of Coronavirus Variants Predicts Virus Evolving to Escape Current Vaccines, Treatments. March 8, 2021.
"Our study and the new clinical trial data show that the virus is traveling in a direction that is causing it to escape from our current vaccines and therapies that are directed against the viral spike,” … “If the rampant spread of the virus continues and more critical mutations accumulate, then we may be condemned to chasing after the evolving SARS-CoV-2 continually, as we have long done for influenza virus,”
Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche on Vaccination Policy Risks. March 12, 2021.
My initial reaction was to dismiss Bossche as yet another whack job / conspiracist / anti-vaxxer / pandemic denier. After reviewing Bossche’s credentials and thinking carefully about what he’s saying I concluded his concerns are worthy of consideration and may prove to be serious.
His message is a little difficult to understand because the topic is inherently complex, is not intuitive without some understanding of biology, and he speaks fast with an accent.
My objective of this post was to make it easier to understand Bossche’s key points, and to make all of his source information easily accessible.
In case any readers are wondering why I am distrustful of the authorities, it is because the biggest issue by far that we face, the danger of which far exceeds the virus, is human overshoot, the symptoms of which are climate change, non-renewable resource depletion, unsustainable debt, habitat destruction, and species extinction, which is completely ignored by our leaders, and the policies they have chosen are making much worse the future suffering that will be experienced when it is no longer possible to deny human overshoot. If our leaders don’t have a clue about the important issues, why would we trust them on lesser issues?
……
...
What does Bossche think individuals should do?
· Promote a strong immune system with good diet, exercise, sleep, and some light exposure to the virus to train the immune system.
· If you are young and/or healthy, delay being vaccinated until there is scientific consensus on Bossche’s concerns.
What do I think an individual should do?
· Stay healthy as Bossche suggests, also take Vitamin D.
· Have some Ivermectin on hand for self-treatment if required.
· Prepare for the possibility in a few months of a more serious pandemic in which we might choose a self-imposed lockdown without access to grocery stores for some period of time.
International Alert Message about COVID-19. United Health Professionals. March 16, 2021.
We are health professionals of the international collective : United Health Professionals, composed of more than 1,500 members (including professors of medicine, intensive care physicians and infectious disease specialists) from different countries of Europe, Africa, America, Asia and Oceania and, on August 26, 2020, we addressed to governments and citizens of countries around the world an alert message regarding the COVID outbreak.
First, let’s start with the conclusions of the 2010 report of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe on the management of the H1N1 epidemic :
« The Parliamentary Assembly is alarmed about the way in which the H1N1 influenza pandemic has been handled, ot only by the World Health Organization (WHO) but also by the competent health authorities at the level of the European Union and at national level. It is particularly troubled by some of the consequences of decisions taken and advice given leading to distortion of priorities of public health services across Europe, waste of large sums of public money and also unjustified scares and fears about health risks…grave shortcomings have been identified regarding the transparency of decision-making processes relating to the pandemic which have generated concerns about the possible influence of the pharmaceutical industry on some of the major decisions….unregulated or secret lobbying may be a danger and can undermine democratic principles and good governance ».
Know that the same mistakes made in the H1N1 epidemic are being repeated today in the COVID epidemic. You are the victims of the biggest health scam of the 21st century regarding the real danger of the virus, the measures to be taken, the figures, the tests and the treatments, and this was done with the same techniques of manipulation used during the epidemic of H1N1 or the Iraq war. Experts, professors of medicine as well as scientific and medical collectives began to alert others of this as early as March 2020.
The countries of the world (except rare cases like : Sweden, Belarus or Tanzania), without thinking, have only imitated and blindly followed others.
This epidemic is amplified, dramatized and instrumentalised by criminals who take advantage of it to achieve economic, political and ideological goals and agendas that are harmful to humanity and we will prove this to you. You must stop this global scam quickly (because it is a serious danger to your people and your country in terms of : health, economy, education, ecology and human rights) by immediately taking the following actions :
1-Lift all restrictions
….
9-Stop the vaccination campaigns and refuse the scam of the pseudo-health passport which is in reality a politico-commercial project
– « We don’t need it [the vaccine] at all…All this is about purely commercial goals » (Prof. Christian Perronne, June 16, 2020).
– « It is an old marketing principle of pharmaceutical companies : if they want to sell their product well, consumers must be afraid and see it as their salvation. So, we create a psychosis so that consumers crack up and rush on the vaccine in question » (Prof. Peter Schönhöfer).
– « As a doctor, I do not hesitate to anticipate the decisions of the government ; we must not only refuse these vaccines [against COVID-19], but we must also denounce and condemn the purely mercantile approach and the abject cynicism which guided their production » (Dr Pierre Cave, August 7, 2020).
– The COVID vaccine is « so, so unnecessary » (Prof. Sucharit Bhakdi, December 2, 2020).
– « I have never seen in the history of medicine that we urgently develop vaccines to vaccinate millions, billions of individuals for a virus that no longer kills except people at risk that we can identify, that we can treat…I have never seen a vaccine coming out after 2 months !…it takes years ! » (Prof. Christian Perronne, December 2, 2020).
– « We’re going too fast. If there was an emergency,…if today COVID-19 kills 50% of people, I will say let’s take risks…but here we have a virus that kills 0,05% and we will take all the risks ! I know there are billions behind this…Be carefull, this is very dangerous ! » (Prof. Christian Perronne, December 2, 2020).
New Study of Coronavirus Variants Predicts Virus Evolving to Escape Current Vaccines, Treatments. March 8, 2021.
"Our study and the new clinical trial data show that the virus is traveling in a direction that is causing it to escape from our current vaccines and therapies that are directed against the viral spike,” … “If the rampant spread of the virus continues and more critical mutations accumulate, then we may be condemned to chasing after the evolving SARS-CoV-2 continually, as we have long done for influenza virus,”
We are health professionals of the international collective : United Health Professionals, composed of more than 1,500 members (including professors of medicine, intensive care physicians and infectious disease specialists) from different countries of Europe, Africa, America, Asia and Oceania and, on August 26, 2020, we addressed to governments and citizens of countries around the world an alert message regarding the COVID outbreak.
First, let’s start with the conclusions of the 2010 report of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe on the management of the H1N1 epidemic :
« The Parliamentary Assembly is alarmed about the way in which the H1N1 influenza pandemic has been handled, ot only by the World Health Organization (WHO) but also by the competent health authorities at the level of the European Union and at national level. It is particularly troubled by some of the consequences of decisions taken and advice given leading to distortion of priorities of public health services across Europe, waste of large sums of public money and also unjustified scares and fears about health risks…grave shortcomings have been identified regarding the transparency of decision-making processes relating to the pandemic which have generated concerns about the possible influence of the pharmaceutical industry on some of the major decisions….unregulated or secret lobbying may be a danger and can undermine democratic principles and good governance ».
Know that the same mistakes made in the H1N1 epidemic are being repeated today in the COVID epidemic. You are the victims of the biggest health scam of the 21st century regarding the real danger of the virus, the measures to be taken, the figures, the tests and the treatments, and this was done with the same techniques of manipulation used during the epidemic of H1N1 or the Iraq war. Experts, professors of medicine as well as scientific and medical collectives began to alert others of this as early as March 2020.
The countries of the world (except rare cases like : Sweden, Belarus or Tanzania), without thinking, have only imitated and blindly followed others.
This epidemic is amplified, dramatized and instrumentalised by criminals who take advantage of it to achieve economic, political and ideological goals and agendas that are harmful to humanity and we will prove this to you. You must stop this global scam quickly (because it is a serious danger to your people and your country in terms of : health, economy, education, ecology and human rights) by immediately taking the following actions :
1-Lift all restrictions
….
9-Stop the vaccination campaigns and refuse the scam of the pseudo-health passport which is in reality a politico-commercial project
– « We don’t need it [the vaccine] at all…All this is about purely commercial goals » (Prof. Christian Perronne, June 16, 2020).
– « It is an old marketing principle of pharmaceutical companies : if they want to sell their product well, consumers must be afraid and see it as their salvation. So, we create a psychosis so that consumers crack up and rush on the vaccine in question » (Prof. Peter Schönhöfer).
– « As a doctor, I do not hesitate to anticipate the decisions of the government ; we must not only refuse these vaccines [against COVID-19], but we must also denounce and condemn the purely mercantile approach and the abject cynicism which guided their production » (Dr Pierre Cave, August 7, 2020).
– The COVID vaccine is « so, so unnecessary » (Prof. Sucharit Bhakdi, December 2, 2020).
– « I have never seen in the history of medicine that we urgently develop vaccines to vaccinate millions, billions of individuals for a virus that no longer kills except people at risk that we can identify, that we can treat…I have never seen a vaccine coming out after 2 months !…it takes years ! » (Prof. Christian Perronne, December 2, 2020).
– « We’re going too fast. If there was an emergency,…if today COVID-19 kills 50% of people, I will say let’s take risks…but here we have a virus that kills 0,05% and we will take all the risks ! I know there are billions behind this…Be carefull, this is very dangerous ! » (Prof. Christian Perronne, December 2, 2020).
See the 10min to 13min portion of:
Michael Yeadon Interview - Former Pfizer VP Speaks Out On Dangers Of mRNA Vaccines & COVID Illusion. April 12, 2021.
(and for his explanation of difference between mRNA "vaccines" and traditional vaccines, see the 21min mark)
Abstract
Since the start of the COVID-19 outbreak, the race for testing new platforms designed to confer immunity against SARS-CoV-2, has been rampant and unprecedented, leading to emergency authorization of various vaccines. Despite progress on early multidrug therapy for COVID-19 patients, the current mandate is to immunize the world population as quickly as possible. The lack of thorough testing in animals prior to clinical trials, and authorization based on safety data generated during trials that lasted less than 3.5 months, raise questions regarding the safety of these vaccines. The recently identified role of SARS-CoV-2 glycoprotein Spike for inducing endothelial damage characteristic of COVID-19, even in absence of infection, is extremely relevant given that most of the authorized vaccines induce the production of Spike glycoprotein in the recipients. Given the high rate of occurrence of adverse effects, and the wide range of types of adverse effects that have been reported to date, as well as the potential for vaccine-driven disease enhancement, Th2-immunopathology, autoimmunity, and immune evasion, there is a need for a better understanding of the benefits and risks of mass vaccination, particularly in the groups that were excluded in the clinical trials. Despite calls for caution, the risks of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination have been minimized or ignored by health organizations and government authorities. We appeal to the need for a pluralistic dialogue in the context of health policies, emphasizing critical questions that require urgent answers if we wish to avoid a global erosion of public confidence in science and public health.
References
1. McCullough PA, Alexander PE, Armstrong R, et al. Multifaceted highly targeted sequential multidrug treatment of early ambulatory high-risk SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19). Rev Cardiovasc Med (2020) 21:517–530. doi:10.31083/j.rcm.2020.04.264
2. Arvin AM, Fink K, Schmid MA, et al. A perspective on potential antibody- dependent enhancement of SARS-CoV-2. Nature (2020) 484:353–363. doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2538-8
3. Coish JM, MacNeil AJ. Out of the frying pan and into the fire? Due diligence warranted for ADE in COVID-19. Microbes Infect (2020) 22(9):405-406. doi:10.1016/j.micinf.2020.06.006
4. Eroshenko N, Gill T, Keaveney ML, et al. Implications of antibody-dependent enhancement of infection for SARS-CoV-2 countermeasures. Nature Biotechnol (2020) 38:788–797. doi:10.1038/s41587-020-0577-1
5. Poland GA. Tortoises, hares, and vaccines: A cautionary note for SARS-CoV-2 vaccine development. Vaccine (2020) 38:4219–4220. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2020.04.073
6. Shibo J. Don’t rush to deploy COVID-19 vaccines and drugs without sufficient safety guarantees. Nature (2000) 579,321. doi:10.1038/d41586-020-00751-9
7. Munoz FA, Cramer JP, Dekker CL, et al. Vaccine-associated enhanced disease: Case definition and guidelines for data collection, analysis, and presentation of immunization safety data. Vaccine (2021) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2021.01.055
8. Cardozo T, Veazey R. Informed consent disclosure to vaccine trial subjects of risk of COVID-19 vaccines worsening clinical disease. Int J Clin Pract (2020) 28:e13795. doi: 10.1111/ijcp.13795
9. Bolles D, Long K, Adnihothram S, et al. A double-inactivated severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus vaccine provides incomplete protection in mice and induces increased eosinophilic proinflammatory pulmonary response upon challenge. J Virol (2001) 85:12201–12215. doi:10.1128/JVI.06048-11
10. Weingartl H, Czub M, Czub S, et al. Immunization with modified vaccinia virus Ankarabased recombinant vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome is associated with enhanced hepatitis in ferrets. J Virol (2004) 78:12672–12676. doi:10.1128/JVI.78.22.12672-12676.2004272
11. Tseng CT, Sbrana E, Iwata-Yoshikawa N, et al. Immunization with SARS coronavirus vaccines leads to pulmonary immunopathology on challenge with the SARS virus. PLoS One (2012) 7(4):e35421. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0035421
12. Iwasaki A, Yang Y. The potential danger of suboptimal antibody responses in COVID-19. Nat Rev Immunol (2020) 20:339–341. doi:10.1038/s41577-020-0321-6
13. Vennema H, de Groot RJ, Harbour DA, et al. Early death after feline infectious peritonitis virus challenge due to recombinant vaccinia virus immunization. J Virol (1990) 64:1407-1409
14. Lambert PH, Ambrosino DM, Andersen SR, et al. Consensus summary report for CEPI/BC March 12-13, 2020 meeting: Assessment of risk of disease enhancement with COVID-19 vaccines. Vaccine (2020) 38(31):4783-4791. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2020.05.064
15. de Alwis R, Chen S, Gan S, et al. Impact of immune enhancement on Covid-19 polyclonal hyperimmune globulin therapy and vaccine development. EbioMedicine (2020) 55:102768. doi:10.1016/j.ebiom.2020.102768
16. Folegatti PM, Ewer KJ, Aley PK, et al. Safety and immunogenicity of the ChAdOx1 nCoV[1]287 19 vaccine against SARS-CoV-2: a preliminary report of a phase 1/2, single-blind, randomised controlled trial. Lancet (2020) 396:467–783. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31604-4
17. Polack FP, Thomas SJ, Kitchin N. Safety and efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 vaccine. N Engl J Med (2020) 383:2603–2615. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2034577
18. Ramasamy MN, Minassian AM, Ewer KJ, et al. Safety and immunogenicity of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine administered in a prime-boost regimen in young and old adults (COV002): a single-blind, randomised, controlled, phase 2/3 trial. Lancet (2021) 396:1979–93. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32466-1
19. Chu L, McPhee R, Huang W, et al. mRNA-1273 Study Group. A preliminary report of a randomized controlled phase 2 trial of the safety and immunogenicity of mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Vaccine (2021) S0264-410X(21)00153-5. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2021.02.007
20. Liu L, Wei Q, Lin Q, et al. Anti-spike IgG causes severe acute lung injury by skewing macrophage responses during acute SARS-CoV infection. JCI Insight (2019) 4(4):e123158. doi:10.1172/jci.insight.123158.
21. Ioannidis PA. Infection fatality rate of COVID-19 inferred from seroprevalence data. Bull WHO (2021) 99:19–33F. http://dx.doi.org/10.2471/BLT.20.265892
22. Martines RB, Ritter JM, Matkovic E, et al. Pathology and Pathogenesis of SARS-CoV-2 Associated with Fatal Coronavirus Disease, United States Emerg Infect Dis (2020) 26:2005-2015. doi:10.3201/eid2609.202095
23. Wu Z, McGoogan JM. Characteristics of and Important Lessons From the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Outbreak in China: Summary of a Report of 72 314 Cases From the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention. JAMA (2020) 323:1239-1242. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.2648
24. Xu Z, Shi L, Wang Y, et al. Pathological findings of COVID-19 associated with acute respiratory distress syndrome. Lancet Respiratory Med (2020) 8:420-422 doi:10.1016/S2213-2600(20)30076-X
25. Negro F. Is antibody-dependent enhancement playing a role in COVID-19 pathogenesis? Swiss Medical Weekly (2020) 150:w20249. doi:10.4414/smw.2020.20249317
26. Lei Y, Zhang J, Schiavon CR et al., Spike Protein Impairs Endothelial Function via Downregulation of ACE 2. Circulation Res (2021) 128:1323–1326. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.121.318902
27. Lyons-Weiler J. Pathogenic priming likely contributes to serious and critical illness and mortality in COVID-19 via autoimmunity, J Translational Autoimmunity (2020) 3:100051. doi:10.1016/j.jtauto.2020.100051
28. An H, Park J. Molecular Mimicry Map (3M) of SARS-CoV-2: Prediction of potentially immunopathogenic SARS-CoV-2 epitopes via a novel immunoinformatic approach. bioRxiv [Preprint]. 12 November 2020 [cited 2020 April 19] https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.11.12.344424
29. Greinacher A, Thiele T, Warkentin TE, Weisser K, Kyrle PA, Eichinger S. Thrombotic Thrombocytopenia after ChAdOx1 nCov-19 Vaccination. N Engl J Med (2021). doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2104840
30. Othman M, Labelle A, Mazzetti I et al. Adenovirus-induced thrombocytopenia: the role of von Willebrand factor and P-selectin in mediating accelerated platelet clearance. Blood (2007) 109:2832–2839. doi:10.1182/blood-2006-06-032524
31. Ortel TL. Acquired thrombotic risk factors in the critical care setting. Crit Care Med (2010) 38(2 Suppl):S43-50. doi:10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181c9ccc8
32. Grubaugh ND, Petrone ME, Holmes EC. We shouldn’t worry when a virus mutates during disease outbreaks. Nat Microbiol (2020) 5:529–530. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41564-020-0690-4
33. Greaney AJ, Starr TN, Gilchuk P, et al. Complete Mapping of Mutations to the SARS-CoV[1]339 2 Spike Receptor-Binding Domain that Escape Antibody Recognition. Cell Host Microbe (2021) 29:44–57.e9. doi:10.1016/j.chom.2020.11.007.
34. Lauring AS, Hodcroft EB. Genetic Variants of SARS-CoV-2—What Do They Mean? JAMA (2021) 325:529–531. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.27124
35. Zhang L, Jackson CB, Mou H, et al. The D614G mutation in the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein reduces S1 shedding and increases infectivity. bioRxiv [Preprint]. June 12 2020 [cited 2021 Apr 19] https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.06.12.148726
36. Korber B, Fischer WM, Gnanakaran S et al. Sheffield COVID-19 Genomics Group. Tracking changes in SARS-CoV-2 spike: evidence that D614G increases infectivity of the COVID-19 virus. Cell (2020) 182:812-827.e19. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2020.06.043
37. Francis T. On the doctrine of original antigenic sin. Proc Am Philos Soc (1960) 104:572–578.
38. Vibroud C, Epstein SL. First flu is forever. Science (2016) 354:706–707. doi:10.1126/science.aak9816
39. Weisblum Y, Schmidt F, Zhang F, et al. Escape from neutralizing antibodies by SARS[1]354 CoV-2 spike protein variants. Elife (2020) 9:e61312. doi:10.7554/eLife.61312
40. Vanden Bossche G (March 6, 2021) https://dryburgh.com/wp-356content/uploads/2021/03/Geert_Vanden_Bossche_Open_Letter_WHO_March_6_2021.pdf
41. Coish JM, MacNeil AJ. Out of the frying pan and into the fire? Due diligence warranted for ADE in COVID-19. Microbes Infect (2020) 22(9):405-406. doi:10.1016/j.micinf.2020.06.006
The Grandest Human Experiment In History May 10, 2021.
Let’s not beat around the bush any longer, but call things for what they are: we are in the middle of the grandest medical and genetic experiment in the history of mankind, by a mile and a half. The experiment is already so advanced that we can only wait and see its consequences. We don’t know what these will be, and that is exactly the problem with it: we normally run elaborate tests in advance of such experiments to minimize their potential negative effects and their adverse outcomes for our species. This time around, we did not.
There are well-established procedures to test novel substances before they are used in human experiments, which take years – for good reason. We have decided to almost entirely neglect these procedures in the case of Covid “vaccines”, in the same way that we have neglected to look for alternative ways to defend ourselves from the virus. And these two things are closely connected: in case ivermectin or Budesonide or even just vitamin D had shown efficacy in Covid trials, the vaccines could not have received emergency authorization.
Moreover, you will now be punished – in access to travel, work, other activities- for NOT having received a dose of never approved chemicals. The world is upside down, but after months upon months of lockdowns, people think upside down is just how they like it. Anything is better than being locked up/down. Stockholm syndrome writ large.
Mitteldorf: Unthinkable Thoughts.
The spike protein is the part of the virus structure that interfaces with the host cell. SARS 1 and SARS 2 viruses both have spike proteins that bind to a human cell receptor called ACE-2, common in lung cells but also present in other parts of the body. Binding to the cell’s ACE-2 receptor is like the wolf knocking at the door of Little Red Riding Hood’s grandmother. “Hello, grandmama. I’m your granddaughter. Please let me in.” The virus is a wolf wearing a red cape and hood, pretends to be an ACE-2 enzyme molecule seeking entrance to the cell. In order to enter the cell, the virus must break off from the spike protein and leave it at the doorstep, so to speak. This is an important and difficult step, as it turns out. Unique to the SARS-CoV-2 virus is a trick for making the separation. Just at the edge of the protein is a furin cleavage site.
Furin is an enzyme that snips protein molecules, and it is common in our bodies, with legitimate metabolic uses. A furin cleavage site is a string of 4 particular amino acids that calls to furin, “hey — come over here. I’m a protein that needs snipping.” The most compelling evidence for a laboratory origin of COVID is that coronaviruses don’t have furin cleavage sites, and until last year, this trick has never evolved naturally. The classical understanding of a viral or bacterial disease is this: A parasite is an organism that uses the host’s resources for its own reproduction. It is evolved to reproduce efficiently. If it has co-evolved with the host, it may be evolved to spare the host’s health, or even to promote it, because this is the optimal long-term strategy for any predator or parasite.
But newly-emerged parasites can do well for awhile even if they disable or kill their hosts, and this is the kind of disease that is most damaging to us. The damage is done because the (young) virus’s strategy is to reproduce rapidly and disperse itself into the environment where it can find new hosts. The virus has no interest in harming the host, and was not evolved to this end, but this is a side-effect of commandeering the body’s resources for its own reproduction. A bioweapon virus is designed to cause a certain kind of harm. What kind of harm? It depends on the projected use for the weapon. Doesn’t the virus have to reproduce? Probably, for most weapon applications; but a bioweapon is not necessarily designed for rapid reproduction. A bioweapon can be designed as a “sleeper” to remain dormant for months or years, or to cause incremental disability over a long period.
If COVID had evolved naturally, we would expect that its spike protein would be adapted to mate well with the human ACE-2 receptor. There’s no reason to suspect it being otherwise biologically active. But if COVID is engineered, it may be that the spike protein itself has been designed to make us sick. One reason this is significant is that the vaccines have all been designed around the spike protein, assuming that the spike protein were metabolically neutral. If the virus had been naturally evolved, this is a reasonable assumption. But if it came from a laboratory (whether it leaked or was deliberately released) the spike protein might be actually be the agent of damage. There are several reasons to suspect that this is the case.
…
Even doing what the spike protein is supposed to do — tying up ACE2 — can be a problem for our lungs and arteries, which are routinely protected by ACE2.
The most dangerous possibility, suspected but not verified, is that the spike protein causes a prion cascade. Prions are paradoxical pathogens, in that they are misfolded proteins that cause misfolded proteins. Their evolutionary etiology is utterly mysterious, so much so that it took Stanley Prusiner a decade after describing the biology of prions before the scientific community would take prion biochemistry seriously. But prions make potent bioweapons, which laboratories can design outside of natural evolutionary dynamics. The possibility of prion-like structures in the spike protein was noted very early in the pandemic based on a computational study. This recent review combines theoretical, laboratory, and observational evidence to make a case for caution. Once again, I find it disturbing that this possibility is being dismissed on theoretical grounds rather than investigated in the lab and the field.
Where did the idea come from that all vaccines are automatically safe? Why do so many journalists dismiss the suggestion that vaccines should be placebo-tested individually, like all other drugs? Why has it become routine to ridicule and denigrate scientists who ask questions about vaccine safety as politically-motivated luddites, or “anti-vaxxers”? How did we get to a situation where the “precautionary principle” means pressuring young people who are at almost no risk for serious COVID to accept a vaccine which has not been fully tested or approved? I don’t have answers, but I do know who benefits from this culture.
VanDenBossche: Predictions on outcome of mass vaccination during a pandemic of more infectious Sars-2-CoV variants. May 12, 2021.
Overall conclusion: Covid-19 vaccination campaigns that are rolled out in the heat of a pandemic will inevitably breed variants that are more infectious and ultimately become resistant to vaccines. The smaller the population and the faster mass vaccination campaigns are rolled out, the faster infection, morbidity and mortality rates will rise. Based on how the pandemic is currently evolving in a number of smaller countries/ islands (e.g., Seychelles, Maldives, Bahrain), it is reasonable to assume that over the next coming months, or weeks, several other countries are going to show a dramatic increase in these rates as well.
160+ experts slam COVID vaccines as ‘unnecessary, ineffective and unsafe’ in powerful letter. May 19, 2021.
Doctors for COVID-19 Ethics emphasized serious health implications of the vaccines for both the healthy and ill, saying that the shots “are not safe, either for recipients or for those who use them or authorize their use.”
They pointed to risks of “lethal and non-lethal disruptions of blood clotting including bleeding disorders, thrombosis in the brain, stroke and heart attack,” “antibody-dependent enhancement of disease,” autoimmune reactions, and potential effects of “vaccine impurities due to rushed manufacturing and unregulated production standards.”
“Contrary to claims that blood disorders post-vaccination are ‘rare’, many common vaccine side effects (headaches, nausea, vomiting and hematoma-like ‘rashes’ over the body) may indicate thrombosis and other severe abnormalities,” the experts said. “Clotting events currently receiving media attention are likely just the ‘tip of a huge iceberg.’ Due to immunological priming, risks of clotting, bleeding and other adverse events can be expected to increase with each re-vaccination and each intervening coronavirus exposure,” Doctors for COVID-19 Ethics added. “Over time, whether months or years, this renders both vaccination and coronaviruses dangerous to young and healthy age groups
… “Just as smoking could be and was predicted to cause lung cancer based on first principles, all gene-based vaccines can be expected to cause blood clotting and bleeding disorders, based on their molecular mechanisms of action,” they said. “Consistent with this, diseases of this kind have been observed across age groups, leading to temporary vaccine suspensions around the world.” “Since vaccine roll-out, COVID-19 incidence has risen in numerous areas with high vaccination rates. Furthermore, multiple series of COVID-19 fatalities have occurred shortly after the onset vaccinations in senior homes,” the doctors said. “These cases may have been due not only to antibody-dependent enhancement but also to a general immunosuppressive effect of the vaccines, which is suggested by the increased occurrence of Herpes zoster in certain patients.”
“Regardless of the exact mechanism responsible for these reported deaths, we must expect that the vaccines will increase rather than decrease lethality of COVID-19,” they continued. The group stressed that the jabs remain technically experimental – a fact that legally precludes mandatory vaccination in many cases: “The vaccines are experimental by definition. They will remain in Phase 3 trials until 2023. Recipients are human subjects entitled to free informed consent under Nuremberg and other protections
Message To Doctors By Ontario College of Physicians & Surgeons Shows Desperation to Silence Them. May 22, 2021.
We are a broad and diverse group of Canadian physicians from across Canada who are sending out this urgent declaration to the Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons of our various Provinces and Territories and to the Public at large, whom we serve.
On April 30, 2021, Ontario’s physician licensing body, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO), issued a statement forbidding physicians from questioning or debating any or all of the official measures imposed in response to COVID-19. 1
The CPSO then went on to threaten physicians with punishment – investigations and disciplinary action.
We regard this recent statement of the CPSO to be unethical, anti-science and deeply disturbing.
As physicians, our primary duty of care is not to the CPSO or any other authority, but to our patients.
When we became physicians, we pledged to put our patients first and that our ethical and professional duty is always first toward our patients. The CPSO statement orders us to violate our duty and pledge to our patients in the following ways:
1. Denial of the Scientific Method itself: The CPSO is ordering physicians to put aside the scientific method and to not debate the processes and conclusions of science.
We physicians know and continue to believe that throughout history, opposing views, vigorous debate and openness to new ideas have been the bedrock of scientific progress. Any major advance in science has been arrived at by practitioners vigorously questioning “official” narratives and following a different path in the pursuit of truth.
2. Violation of our Pledge to use Evidence-Based Medicine for our patients: By ordering us not to debate and not to question, the CPSO is also asking us to violate our pledge to our patients that we will always seek the best, evidence-based scientific methods for them and advocate vigorously on their behalf
The CPSO statement orders physicians for example, not to discuss or communicate with the public about “lockdown” measures. Lockdown measures are the subject of lively debate by world-renown and widely respected experts and there are widely divergent views on this subject. The explicitly anti-lockdown Great Barrington Declaration (PDF ) was written by experts from Harvard, Stanford and Oxford Universities and more than 40,000 physicians from all over the world have signed this declaration. Several international experts including Martin Kuldorf (Harvard), David Katz (Yale), Jay Bhattacharya (Stanford) and Sunetra Gupta (Oxford) continue to strongly oppose lockdowns.
The CPSO is ordering physicians to express only pro-lockdown views, or else face investigation and discipline. This tyrannical, anti-science CPSO directive is regarded by thousands of Canadian physicians and scientists as unsupported by science and as violating the first duty of care to our patients.
3. Violation of Duty of Informed Consent: The CPSO is also ordering physicians to violate the sacred duty of informed consent – which is the process by which the patient/public is fully informed of the risks, benefits and any alternatives to the treatment or intervention, before consent is given. …
Healthcare Workers Refusing Covid Vaccines: A Medical Doctor Explains Why. May 27, 2021.
According to the New York Post and Newsday, around 30 percent of healthcare workers were refusing Covid vaccines. More recently, at the end of April, we learned that 40 percent of marines are also wary of getting vaccinated.
Thirty percent of healthcare workers refusing Covid vaccines
Everyone in the world — quite literally— is well aware by now of the several vaccines to slow the spread of Covid-19. But in our rush to vaccinate, we seem to have forgotten that the Food and Drug Administration has not approved any of these Covid-19 vaccinations. A main reason that we see thirty percent of healthcare workers refusing Covid vaccines is that these vaccines are all unapproved.
Indeed, all the Covid-19 vaccinations in the United States are administered under the FDA’s Emergency Use Authorization. This means that the Covid vaccines are unapproved medical products used in an emergency. Healthcare workers refusing Covid vaccines feel concerned about getting unapproved vaccines.
Developing safe vaccines takes years
It typically takes many years to create a new vaccine. Even after years of research and development, success sometimes eludes scientists’ best efforts.
For example, despite many years of trying, we have no vaccines, yet, against HIV, hepatitis C, malaria, or the common cold. We also never developed a safe and effective vaccine against SARS or MERS, two other potentially lethal respiratory viral infections.
Messenger RNA technology
The vaccines used for the first Covid-19 inoculations, brought to market by Pfizer and Moderna, employ a messenger RNA (mRNA) technology. Significantly, this is the first time mRNA technology has been used in a vaccine. However, mRNA technology has been used in cancer therapy. And has shown success in producing various proteins to attack and disrupt certain cancer cells.
Health experts have asserted that it was not too much of a leap to use mRNA in developing vaccinations. Normally, the DNA in the nucleus of a human cell produces mRNA. The mRNA acts as an instruction manual to create proteins. The mRNA is released from the cell’s nucleus into the cytoplasm of the cell where it travels to the ribosomes to deliver its instructions.
The idea behind its use in an anti-Covid-19 vaccine was to produce a synthetic mRNA to instruct the cell’s ribosome protein factory to create a SARS CoV-2 spike protein.
As the CDC explains, the appearance of a spike protein then stimulates our own immune system to create an anti-spike antibody. Technically, then, the use of mRNA in this way is not a true vaccine, but rather a type of immunologic or gene therapy.
AstraZeneca’s vaccine against Covid-19
The vaccine developed by AstraZeneca for Covid-19 uses a different strategy. It takes a piece of genetic material from the SARS CoV-2 virus and inserts it into a common cold virus — an adenovirus. The genetics of the adenovirus vector are altered so it is not infectious. The adenovirus then enters the cell to stimulate the creation of the spike protein.2
The good news is that clinics can store the AstraZeneca vaccine at normal refrigerator temperatures for up to six months. The bad news is it seems to be less effective than either Pfizer or Moderna.
AZ’s vaccine may become preferred in less developed countries because of ease of storage. But it has shown significant side effects. In particular, the vaccine seems to cause clotting disorders. So much so that many European Union countries (including Germany, France, Italy, Spain, and most recently Denmark) have banned its use.
Healthcare workers refusing Covid vaccines are concerned about these side effects. As frontline workers, they treat people with Covid-19 and people with Covid-19 vaccine side effects. Many worry that, in some instances, the vaccine side effects are actually more severe than the disease itself.
Johnson & Johnson Covid-19 vaccine
The Johnson & Johnson Covid-19 vaccine also uses an adenovirus transport mechanism. This allows it to get the SARS CoV-2 DNA into our cells in order to create the desired spike protein antibody response. J&J’s single shot has the advantage of being “one and done.” However, the FDA and CDC recently paused its use. Their concern was a potentially dangerous blood clot reaction occurring a week or so after the vaccine.
Following the 11-day “pause,” the FDA resumed allowing the use of this vaccine. They simply added a warning about a rare but serious type of blood clot. As of mid-April, the UK did not approve the Johnson & Johnson vaccine. But the European Medicines Agency (EMA) decided that a warning about unusual blood clots would suffice on its labels, just as the health agency did for AstraZeneca’s Covid-19 vaccine.
Healthcare workers refusing Covid vaccines have concerns
Here are some of the concerns that healthcare workers refusing Covid vaccines have. The public, too, needs to consider these issues.
1. Asymptomatic carriers. Could the vaccines in use now create asymptomatic carriers who unknowingly transmit the virus to others?
2. Other variants. Are the vaccines protective against the new SARS CoV-2 variants — from the UK, South Africa, and Brazil? An Israeli study has shown the Pfizer vaccine may put patients at higher risk for Covid-19 variants. The CDC now reports over 7,000 fully vaccinated people have contracted Covid-19 and over 500 of them required hospitalization. We have now vaccinated over 125,000,000 people in the US. Information about the various variant strains of SARS CoV-2 are still emerging. Some variants may prove dangerous, others not so much.
3. No animal trials. Most other vaccine development programs have first used lengthy animal studies to better assure safety in humans. This was not done with any of the new Covid-19 vaccines. Healthcare workers refusing Covid vaccines are concerned that the clotting problems and other side effects now being studied are the consequence of limited animal and inadequate safety testing.
4. Integration into the human genome. Is it possible for the synthetic SARS CoV-2 mRNA to be integrated into the human host’s cell genome? Keep in mind that this has happened before. Scientists at Harvard and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology produced findings about wild coronaviruses that raise questions about how viral RNA operates. This DNA-to-mRNA pathway is not always a one-way street. An enzyme called reverse transcriptase can convert RNA back into DNA allowing the latter to be integrated into the DNA in the cell nucleus.
5. Inaccurate efficacy estimates. The high efficacy of a controlled study may prove to be very different from the real-world experience with massive numbers of people. For example, data from the CDC show that the influenza vaccination efficacy for the 2017-18 season was approximately 38 percent. Only 20 percent was achieved in the 2018-19 season; and 39 percent for the 2019-20 season. When the influenza vaccination was first introduced in 1938, the efficacy was expected to be much higher than the current numbers.
6. Not appropriate for children. The CDC data show that the survival rate of those contracting the disease goes up as age goes down. If you are less than 70 years old — the survival rate is 99.5 percent; if you are less than 50 years old — the rate jumps to 99.98 percent; and if you are under 20 years old, the chance of surviving Covid-19 is 99.997 percent. Why then would we consider vaccinating children without long term safety data?
7. Covid not as dangerous as the flu for kids. In fact, parents should know that seasonal influenza is a greater risk to the very young than Covid-19. Weighing the benefits versus the risks of accepting the Covid-19 vaccine could be a very difficult choice, especially for the young. It is unlikely, therefore, that I will recommend vaccinations for my young patients to protect them against a virus that more than 99 percent of them would survive should they contract it.
8. Companies have no liability. The same companies (and their executives) that look to profit from the vaccines are also immune from all liability. In 1986, Congress passed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA). It provides immunity from liability to all vaccine manufacturing companies. Crony capitalism at its best — no liability to the company or its executives should something go wrong while mandating purchase of the product by the public. Many people are working to change this law.
Additional concerns
· Minorities tend to be skeptical of the government and especially of vaccinations administered by the U.S. Public Health Service. Why? The USPHS and the CDC carried out 40 years of secret experiments in a study of syphilis, using black residents as test subjects. Can we overcome such a history to get the vaccine to the most vulnerable in the minority communities?
· There is no long-term safety data for these new Covid-19 vaccines. How do we know in a few years we will not see significant problems? We clearly don’t.
· Industry executives are now suggesting a 3rd shot may be necessary and then annual jabs to follow. Have we really studied these vaccines thoroughly?
· In 1976 we attempted a mass vaccination program against the swine flu with a newly created vaccine. The government aborted this vaccine program after 40 million doses. Why? Because over 500 people developed Guillain-Barré syndrome, a rare neurological disorder. In addition, there were 25 deaths following swine flu vaccination.
· Pregnant women and small children are currently participating in vaccine trials. This could be potentially dangerous. We simply do not know what the long-term effects of mRNA vaccines or the artificial creation of Covid-19 spike protein antibodies will be on children or during pregnancy.
· Could a phenomenon known as antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) occur with the Covid-19 vaccination? This problem occurs when viral exposure following vaccination causes a more severe reaction than if the patient did not get the vaccine.
· A recent study published in JAMA showed SARS CoV-2 antibodies in breast milk. Healthcare workers refusing Covid vaccines wonder what the long term implications could be for these infants.
Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System
The United States has a Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System. The CDC and the FDA run the VAERS website. VAERS is showing an alarming rise in reported side effects, more than we have seen with any other vaccine. This includes over 4,000 deaths and tens of thousands of ER visits associated with the Covid-19 vaccinations.
This VAERS website requires doctors or patients to voluntarily report side effects. It is a passive reporting system. Studies show that only 1% to 10% of all the adverse events are reported to this site. Most people, even physicians, are unaware of the website’s existence.
No long-term safety data
Healthcare workers refusing Covid vaccines point out that we have no long-term data on the safety of these vaccines. At the same time, we are getting better at treating Covid-19. The death rate from the disease continues to fall. Hospital stays for Covid-19 are getting shorter. And hospital mortality from Covid-19 has plummeted. Early multi-drug outpatient treatment with repurposed medications is showing great success. Informed physicians are embracing this approach. Even the press and social media are reporting on effective treatments. The media have finally allowed this message to get through its gauntlet.
A Covid-19 vaccine may be one of many tools to combat the pandemic. But it is not the savior that many believe has arrived. Skepticism is important in science. Healthcare workers refusing Covid vaccines are skeptical about safety, efficacy, and necessity.
I believe their skepticism is warranted
The Real Efficacy of Covid-19 Vaccines – a Medical Researcher Debunks the Claims.
…
Absolute Risk Reduction (ARR) and Relative Risk Reduction (RRR)
Why are ARR and RRR very important? Very simply, let’s assume you have 100 people in a Treatment group and another 100 people in a Control or placebo group. Then, let’s say that 2 people get Disease X in the Control group while one person gets Disease X in the Treatment group. The Relative Risk Reduction or RRR in this example is 50% because one diseased person is 50% or half of 2 diseased people. However, the Absolute Risk Reduction (ARR) is only 1% because in the treatment group, only one fewer people out of 100 participants got Disease X. You can also work it out using these formulas:
1) In the Treatment group, 1/100 got Disease X = 1% which is the EER (Experimental Event Rate)
2) In the Control or placebo group, 2/100 got Disease X = 2% which is the CER (Control Event Rate)
3) ARR (Absolute Risk Reduction) = CER – EER = 2% – 1% = 1%
In a subtraction the % signs carry through the equation and are kept.
4) RRR (Relative Risk Reduction) = ARR divided by CER = 1% divided by 2% = 1/2
In a division, the % signs cancel each other out and are not kept, but 1/2 is the same as 50%.
Let’s say the Treatment in this example had side effects, as most treatments do. If a patient were offered this Treatment and was told that the “efficacy” (how well the treatment works) was only 1% (the ARR) which is the true efficacy, this patient would be much less likely to accept the Treatment and its side effects than if he or she were told the efficacy was 50%. Fifty percent sounds a lot more promising than 1% but it reflects only the comparison between the diseased people of each group. The ARR or 1% efficacy is much more accurate as it reflects how many more people out of 100 will be protected from Disease X as a result of the Treatment. To just say that the Treatment is 50% effective in this scenario by ignoring the ARR is to introduce outcome reporting bias.
…
Analysis of Pfizer’s Data
1) In the vaccine group, 8/18,198 got Covid-19 infection (not death) = 0.044% This is the EER (Experimental Event Rate)
2) In the Control (placebo) group, 162/18,325 got covid-19 infection (not death ) = 0.884% This is the CER (Control Event Rate)
3) ARR (Absolute Risk Reduction) = CER – EER = 0.884% – 0.044% = 0.84% = 0.84/100 = 0.0084
4) RRR (Relative Risk Reduction) = ARR divided by CER or 0.84% divided by 0.884% = 0.95
As this formula involves division, the percentage signs cancel out. 0.95 is the same as 95% which is what the Pfizer study reports for “efficacy.” An “efficacy” of 95% gives the impression that one is 95% less likely to catch Covid-19 if one is vaccinated with Pfizer’s Covid-19 vaccine. However,
5) the ARR or Absolute Risk Reduction, which is 0.0084 or 0.84%, is actually less than 1%
As shown under the ARR and RRR heading above, the ARR (of any study) is far more accurate than the RRR, but clearly, 95% sounds much more compelling than <1%. Referring to the “efficacy” of the Pfizer vaccine as 95% is not technically incorrect, but it is very misleading as this value does not properly inform the vaccine recipient. Such misrepresentation is at the very least unethical and at most illegal in many countries which require informed consent. Unfortunately, it is easy for outcome reporting bias to escape detection since the average individual, including the average doctor, does not understand ARR and RRR and will automatically assume that “95% efficacy” means 95% less likely to get Covid-19 in the real world.
Another way of understanding the ARR is by calculating the number needed to treat, or the NNT. The NNT in this case would be the number of people who would need to be vaccinated to prevent ONE case of Covid-19 infection (not death, since the study did not measure death)
Here is the calculation:
NNT = 1/ARR = 1 divided by 0.84% = 1/0.0084 = 119 people.
Note how 1/119 is also less than 1%
If we extrapolate an NNT of 119 to a population of 330 million, assuming the entire population of the USA were vaccinated with the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine, 2.77 million Covid-19 infections (not deaths) would be prevented.
To date, there have been 33,217,718 Covid-19 recorded cases in the US and 593,282 recorded Covid-19 deaths. These statistics can be found here https://covidusa.net/ and their validity assumes that Covid cases have not been underestimated and Covid deaths have not been overestimated. If 2.77 million Covid-19 cases had been prevented by fully vaccinating every US citizen, the US would still have experienced approximately 30,447,780 Covid infections and by extrapolation 543,810 Covid deaths, a reduction of 49,472 deaths or 1.78% fewer Covid-19 deaths.
…
A similar analysis of Moderna’s raw data which can be found in their product monograph here https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/covid-19-vaccine-moderna-pm-en.pdf, shows a Relative Risk Reduction of 94%, an Absolute Risk Reduction of 1.2%, and a NNT of 83. In other words, Moderna’s Covid-19 case prevention is only marginally better than Pfizer’s.
From experience, we already know that self-isolation (staying home) when symptomatically ill, appropriate distancing and appropriate masking are more effective than less than 1%, the protection afforded by a Covid-19 vaccine. Otherwise, countries would not have been able to control this pandemic to any extent prior to the introduction of any vaccine.
Compared to providing Covid-19 protection, these mRNA vaccines are much more effective in enriching their already wealthy pharmaceutical producers, or those who have heavily invested in them.
For the public good, it would have made more sense, saved more money, more time and possibly more lives to have put research efforts into other potential Covid-19 treatments, such as Ivermectin, Melatonin, Vitamin D, even the highly controversial Hydroxychloroquin, or anything else that has shown any indication of being helpful either as a prevention or a cure. Unfortunately, these are all inexpensive drugs with no hope of any appreciable returns for the pharmaceutical industry which relies on new innovations to garner profits, even if those innovations are of minimum benefit with the potential to cause great harm.
Here, I am not referring to harm from side effects, but harm from misplaced trust in a product that provides more side effects than it does protection. Justification for any treatment is found only when the benefits outweigh the risks. A quick look at the side effect rates in the tables of Pfizer’s and Moderna’s product monographs shows that although not life threatening in the studies, mild, moderate and severe side effects occurred with greater frequency than the <1% protection afforded by the Covid-19 Pfizer vaccine or the 1.2% protection afforded by the Moderna vaccine.
Having executed this exercise, it no longer puzzles me that governments and public health departments continue to recommend social distancing, mask wearing, business closures and all the usual restrictions even for those who have had both doses of a Covid-19 vaccine. The public has also been told that there is no evidence that vaccination guarantees the prevention of Covid-19 spread or prevention. We now understand why this is true. At least the public is not being lied to all the time.
Historically, pandemics eventually run out of steam, killing off the vulnerable, not affecting those who are resistant and rendering natural immunity to the rest. Could some drug companies possibly be trying to profit as much as possible while this pandemic is still with us, and when it’s all over, take the credit for ending it? After all, we are being told that the only long-term solution to this pandemic is – immunization – but… is that true even with a <1% or 1.2% effective vaccine? Absolutely not.
Does this mean we will be required to re-immunize everyone indefinitely to prevent this pandemic from resurfacing? With vaccines that have such low efficacy, that is precisely what we may be required to do. In fact, it has already begun. Having barely finished giving our citizens their second dose, new recommendations are already emerging for booster doses of Covid-19 vaccines for the upcoming fall season. The public is already being forewarned that booster shots may be needed for a long time yet to come. Indeed, reaching herd immunity with any vaccine that has such a low efficacy would take a very, very long time. The natural infectivity of Covid-19 will achieve herd immunity much sooner and when the end of this pandemic finally comes – the vaccine will take a bow.
…
Conclusions:
Vaccination with a poor vaccine is not the panacea that will end the pandemic and bring us all back to normal. I could go on forever about the socioeconomic, ethical and legal implications of a highly ineffective vaccine that is being touted as a world savior by playing on public ignorance, fear and fatigue.
The bottom line is: If people are properly informed that their ineffective protection from a Covid vaccine is actually 1% or less, and not 95% as advertised, vaccine uptake would drop dramatically, and in this particular instance, it should. Then, we can free ourselves, our energies, time and resources, to pursue better public health recommendations that utilize good scientific research to focuses on other more meaningful breakthroughs, including but not limited to any other much better vaccine in the fight against this, and any future pandemic.
As a medical researcher, a purist who searches for factual truths, I find this type of large-scale public exploitation and manipulation by the pharmaceutical industry for personal gain, utterly deplorable. What is even more alarming is how the vast majority of my well-intentioned but misguided medical colleagues have fallen hook, line and sinker for the vaccine rhetoric and are now falling over each other to immunize one another and thousands of equally poorly informed individuals with a vaccine that has an ARR of 1% or less. Words cannot express my dismay for our centers of medical research, licensing bodies and other medical bodies, have abandoned evidence-based medicine in favor of “trust” in a misguided rhetoric, even threatening disciplinary action against any physician who refuses a Covid-19 vaccine.
As I watch my once very reliable, logical and evidence-based scientific world disintegrate, sinking into ignorance and mass madness, my only hope is that ….. [non-scientific mumbo jumbo]
Why Subject Our Children To The Risk Of Death From Vaccination? June 6, 2021.
AS TCW reported yesterday, the regulator MHRA has approved the Pfizer Covid vaccine for children as young as 12. Originally, it was argued that vaccines were needed to protect children against severe Covid. However, even the most ardent pro-vaxxers now recognise that the illness poses only a tiny risk to children, so they’ve adopted a new strategy: they claim that we must vaccinate children to achieve herd immunity against SARS-CoV-2. This claim reveals a shocking ignorance about the virus.
Here’s the simple fact: we will never achieve full herd immunity against SARS-CoV-2.
The most important thing to remember is that none of the present vaccines confers sterilising immunity; in other words they do not prevent infection or the ability to transmit the virus; they only protect against severe cases. Both the regulatory agencies and the vaccine manufacturers admit this. This is because the vaccines do not produce mucosal antibody responses in the airways. Thus, we have a significant number of ‘breakthrough cases’ in double-vaxxed subjects, including seven members of the New York Yankees who recently tested positive after being fully vaccinated.
Thus, even if we vaccinated everyone on earth with the present Covid vaccines, we would not achieve full herd immunity. The virus would still spread between people, and those with weak immune systems, including the elderly and those with comorbidities, would continue to develop covid from time to time.
But let’s imagine that scientists developed a vaccine that did confer something like full sterilising immunity. We might be able to hunt down human clusters of Covid, but what are we going to do with the animal reservoirs of SARS-CoV-2? According to the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the following animals can be infected with the virus: cats, dogs, voles, ferrets, fruit bats, hamsters, mink, pigs, rabbits, raccoon dogs, tree shrews and white-tailed deer. So, are we going chase down all the domestic and wild animals around us and vaccinate them?
Smallpox is the only virus that humanity has fully eliminated from the world. We were able to do this because it infects only humans (i.e. it has no animal reservoir), and we have a smallpox vaccine that confers full sterilising immunity. We have not been able to eliminate any of the other viruses for which we receive regular vaccinations. Even polio still exists, despite a 32-year vaccination campaign, despite a nearly perfect vaccine, and despite the fact that polio does not infect other animals.
So let’s face it: complete herd immunity is a pipe dream. So is ‘zero Covid’ or full elimination of the virus. Any attempts to achieve these things will cause massive economic harm and involve severe violations of human rights and individual freedoms. And they will fail.
All non-corrupted scientific commentators have known from the very start that this pandemic only ends one way: SARS-CoV-2 is going to become an endemic virus. It will always be with us. The sooner most of us are exposed to it, ideally in childhood, the sooner it will cease to be a major problem. High-risk individuals can choose to take a vaccine. Ivermectin and vitamin D can be used to prevent infection and treat confirmed cases. As we have seen, the argument that children must take vaccines so that we can achieve herd immunity is utterly false. Only those completely ignorant of virology and immunology would even attempt to make it. That brings us back to the original argument for vaccinating children against Covid: to protect them from the severe disease.
If this is the only reason to vaccinate children, there is only one calculation that parents should make: Is the risk from Covid greater than the risk from the vaccine? The present Covid vaccines being administered in the West are based on experimental technologies that are being used under emergency use authorisations (EUAs). Full safety studies will not be completed until 2023. The Covid vaccines were all created in the last year and we have no medium-term or long-term data on them. We don’t know if they will have an effect on children’s reproductive organs and fertility. We don’t know if they will produce auto-immune diseases. And we don’t know if they will lead to ADE (antibody-dependent enhancement) upon re-exposure to the virus (causing more severe illness).
We do know that the vaccines produce a range of cardiovascular and neurological events including strokes, myocarditis, pericarditis and paralysis in a significant number of people. In the small US state of Connecticut at least 18 children and young adults have come down with myocarditis, an extremely serious and sometimes fatal condition involving inflammation of the heart muscle (and they’ve only just started vaccinating children there). The Israel Ministry of Health has reported that the incidence of myocarditis for vaccine recipients is between 1 in 3,000 and 1 in 6,000 in young men. In Canada (population 38 million) only 11 children have died from Covid since the start of the pandemic. In the UK (pop 68 million) 32 children have died. It is nearly certain that all of them had one or more severe comorbidities. The fact is, most children brush off Covid without even knowing they’ve had it. For all intents and purposes, Covid poses zero risk to healthy children.
It is clear that for children the risk of death or injury from the vaccine is at least an order of magnitude greater than the risk of death or injury from the virus. So since herd immunity or zero Covid is clearly an impossible goal, why in God’s name are we subjecting our children to the risk of death or life-changing injury? I’ll tell you why: Because this really isn’t about health at all. It’s being driven mostly by two things: the profit motives of Big Pharma and Big Tech, and a cult-like religious movement in which masking and vaccinations are the sacraments by which one demonstrates their virtue.
So, let’s get back to reality. If you’re an adult and you trust the safety of the vaccines, then you’ve taken yours, or you will soon, and you’re protected. You don’t need to worry about whether others are vaccinated. If you’ve got an umbrella, you don’t need to worry if others go out without them. If they get wet, that’s their problem, not yours.
If you’re a parent, like I am, I want to speak directly to you. I know you love your children. I know you worry when your children are ill. Just imagine if you made a decision – a completely optional decision, with no benefit to your child or the rest of society – that resulted in your child being injured, killed or rendered infertile. And you did it simply because you wanted to appear virtuous, or because it was the easy thing to do. How would you feel? How would you explain your decision to your child if they were injured or infertile?
Let’s all remember the injunction of the Hippocratic Oath: First, do no harm.
In light of everything our officials have taught us about how this virus spreads, it defies reality that Florida, a fully open and popular travel destination with one of the oldest populations in the country, currently has lower hospitalizations and deaths per million than California, a state with much heavier restrictions and one of the youngest populations in the country. While it is true that, overall, California does slightly better than Florida in deaths per million, simply accounting for California's much younger population tips the scales in Florida’s favor.
Florida has zero restrictions on bars, breweries, indoor dining, gyms, places of worship, gathering sizes, and almost all schools are offering in-person instruction. California, on the other hand, retains heavy restrictions in each of these areas. At the very least, Florida's hospitalizations and deaths per million should be substantially worse than California's.
Crimes of Covid Vaccine Maker Pfizer Documented. Nov. 18, 2020.
Here’s a brief glimpse of Pfizer’s track record for safety and ethics. This is a short list, by no means inclusive of the company’s entire rap sheet.
Some key findings from the report:
· Big pharmaceutical companies are not responsible for most major breakthroughs in new drugs. Rather, innovation is driven in small firms, which are often spun off of taxpayer-funded academic research. These small labs are then purchased by giant firms after they've assumed the risk needed to develop a blockbuster drug;
· Instead of producing lifesaving drugs for diseases with few or no cures, large pharmaceutical companies often focus on small, incremental changes to existing drugs in order to kill off generic threats to their government-granted monopoly patents; and
· Mergers in the pharmaceutical industry have had an overall negative effect on innovation, taking what little competition existed in the industry and completely destroying it.
Ian Welsh: The Simplest Explanation For Not Breaking Covid Vaccine Patents
… if Covid is cured, well, you can’t make money off Covid any more, can you?
Chronic Covid, mutating constantly, means more and more vaccines, and more and more and more money for vaccine makers.
Ghastly, and I know that many readers are probably, “that’s absurd”, but consider, does it have both explanatory and predictive power?
Does, “Covid makes the rich, richer so they want it to keep going” have explanatory and predictive power?
Qui Bono? Who benefits? Since the people who run our societies profit from Covid, why would they actually want it over (remember, billionaires have become vastly richer.)
Book: Pandemic Blunder: Fauci and Public Health Blocked Early Home COVID Treatment.
A huge amount of data and information not covered by mainstream media are in Pandemic Blunder that tells the story of how over 300,000 Americans have died from COVID-19 unnecessarily because the government has blocked early home treatment and prevention.
With 500,000 COVID deaths, learning about safe and effective early home treatment/prevention more important than ever.
About the Book: Pandemic Blunder contains considerable medical information and data to support a number of proven safe, cheap generic medicines and protocols that knock out the coronavirus when given early. Read about the pioneering, courageous doctors who have been using innovative approaches to prevent their COVID patients from needing hospital care and facing death.
The book includes many expert opinions from doctors who support the view that 70 to 80 percent of COVID deaths could have been prevented—and still can be. Don’t be victimized by disinformation and propaganda from leftist media. Learn how corrupt forces are aiming to make billions of dollars from expensive medicines and vaccines, and how hundreds of thousands of deaths could have—and should have—been prevented! Pandemic blunder is defined as the failure of the United States public health system and federal agencies to support and promote early home/outpatient treatment for the COVID-19 pandemic disease.
Considerable medical information and data convincingly show that when given early a number of proven safe, cheap generic medicines and protocols knock out the coronavirus. Early means within the first few days of getting symptoms or a positive test. Some pioneering and courageous doctors have been using innovative approaches to prevent their covid patients from needing hospital care and facing death. Many expert views of doctors support the view that 70 percent to 80 percent of covid deaths could have been prevented – and still can for future victims of the disease. Learn how hundreds of thousands of deaths could have and should have been prevented.
This book does more than describe the pandemic blunder, particularly in terms of the influence of Dr. Anthony Fauci. It can help Americans protect their lives by not being victimized by disinformation and propaganda from leftist media. Pandemic management has failed because of corrupt forces aiming to make billions of dollars from expensive medicines and vaccines. There has been a widespread dereliction of duty on the part of many local, state, and federal government officials.
No Vax? Alternatives:
A guide to home-based COVID treatment.pdf. Feb. 1, 2021.
... Ivermectin has a remarkably broad safety profile, and has been served up about as many times as McDonald’s hamburgers, to man and beast alike, for various forms of worms and parasites. It does cause birth defects in rats, when given at high doses, so don’t use it in pregnancy, please. Like most medicines to treat coronavirus illness, ivermectin does different things against the virus, than it does on regular days. Ivermectin inhibits the transport of the viral RNA into the cell nucleus, where it would be transcribed, manufacturing new viruses. It does other things, like reduce inflammation during cytokine-storm, in the second and third weeks of illness, helping the people who get really badly sick. Ivermectin is effective in prophylaxis, in early illness and also in later, severe illness, and through multiple mechanisms. Ivermectin is what I prescribe since last August.
Ivermectin is now available mail-order from India, and from a reliable source.
The preventive, “prophylactic” dose of ivermectin is based upon body weight, and it can be taken weekly, once an initial level inside of the cells is established. Ivermectin leaves the cells very slowly, so it can just be topped-off once per week. There are some slight variations on this, but I’ll describe the one I prescribe. ...
Antihistamines and azithromycin as a treatment for #COVID-19 on primary health care – A retrospective observational study in elderly patients
The latest international testing of hydroxychloroquine treatment of coronavirus shows countries that had early use of the drug had a 79% lower mortality rate than countries that banned the use of the safe malaria drug:
HCQ for COVID19. Studies galore; also Ivermectin. Vitamin D. Zinc. Vitamin C. Remdesevir.
No comments:
Post a Comment