Following on Augusto’s efforts to get the Argentine state to look at what happened to him and others in the Pfizer Comirnaty Trial – See News Flash – over the next few weeks, this blog will show some trial results from the Buenos Aires site, which do point to issues that need to be clarified.
In preparation for presenting these data and questions, it seemed a good idea to lay out the basics of how the immune system and mRNA ‘vaccines’ work. I was originally going to call this post – mRNA for dummies. The dummy being me. I thought my first draft was reasonably sensible.
I availed of a possibility to interview Aditi Bhargava, a Professor of Molecular Biology at UCSF – the University of California San Francisco, who has made a delivery platform for RNA, DNA and small molecures. Turns out my original draft was pretty dumb in lots of ways. It is now hugely improved thanks to Aditi but of course I’ve fiddled with it since and added bits which she hasn’t had a chance to review, so all errors are mine but there are much less than there would once have been.
Our naive immune system begins its training to differentiate between “self and non-self” soon after birth. It needs constant exposure to a multitude of non-self or foreign material to be better trained and develop robust immunity. Bacteria and viruses provide ample non-self-material.
One way is innate immunity – train some immune cells (T and B Cells) to remember these pathogens, which can then produce antibodies right away when they re-encounter the pathogen. Adapative immnity is another defence to these invading pathogens; this means having circulating less specific antibodies (IgA, IgE, IgG, and IgM a memory antibody) produced by B Cells.
Natural replicating viruses train immune cells to remember infections and produce antibodies to neutralize it on a repeat contact using both innate and adaptive arms of the immune system.
A dead virus inoculum (vaccine) generates a variety of antibodies to different parts of the virus but it doesn’t train immune cells to remember infection. Vaccination in that sense is less effective than natural immunity.
One advantage to the a dead virus inoculum is that it stays in the arm and relies on the local immune cells to do the job. Any inflammatory reactions generated are largely local to the arm.
The new mRNA technologies utilize RNA, a messenger that shuttles between the nucleus and protein making areas of cells. RNA is very unstable. It can be degraded by various agents found in our sweat and hands. This can be solved by encasing it in a liposome/lipid nanoparticle (LNP) for stability. Freezing slows down the degradation of RNA molecules.
Encasing in a liposome/LNP, however, can create uncertainties about the dose:
There are ways to control the dose, but it is not clear how good a job Pfizer did in this respect. They did add to sucrose to the mix which will help and may have added more sucrose or sorbitol when they changed the buffer to Tris when preparing a children’s version. All of a sudden, when running their children’s trials, they claimed there was no more need for freezing. This seemed very odd after all the fuss about the need for -80 C – but it may be trivial.
Do these variations in dose count?
Almost anything injected into an arm will generate immune (antibody) and inflammatory responses (cytokines). Even if the mRNA degrades, it will generate antibodies and a cytokine response.
The placebo in these trials may have generated antibodies unless it contained absolutely only saline. We know that with old style inactive vaccines (measles, HPV), tiny residues of other substances that get into saline that has the same adjuvants as are in the vaccine can lead to damaging immune responses.
Katherine Eban’s Bottle of Lies makes a compelling case that contaminants are more likely to be the rule rather than an accidental exception. See Obama Kills Millions.
An ideal trial design would have four arms:
The antibodies generated by mRNA vaccines are largely IgM and IgG rather than IgA (mucosal antibodies found in the lining of lung and gut, which is where a virus is more likely to enter the body). IgA are most likely to be neutralizing antibodies generating a rapid defense against infection.
There may be IgE antibodies; these generate allergic responses.
The antibodies that count in terms of subsequent infection can act in various ways. In terms of COVID infections, the Spike protein binds to ACE-2 receptors (and perhaps several other receptors), through which it enters the cell. ACE-2 receptors have featured in lots of recent PSSD posts on RxISK – see Holy Grail and PSSD Research Fund.
A number of treatments that are proposed to help in combatting COVID, such as SSRI antidepressants, metformin and isotretinoin, destabilize ACE-2 receptors or other structurally related receptors and if they actually are antiviral in the case of COVID it may be through this action. See RxISK posts.
Naturally occurring Coronaviruses found to date are not known to enter cells through ACE-2 receptors. This is one pointer to the possible gain-of-function research that some believe played a part in the emergence of SARS-CoV-2.
The vaccine mRNA entering the cell comes in mRNA fragments wrapped in liposomes/LNP. CDC state ‘these fragments can generate harmless pieces of what is called the Spike protein’ CDC and vaccines
The CDC vision is very different to the apocalyptic vision of billions of bristling full scale Spikes travelling around the body and wreaking havoc that some of the literature on these issues can generate.
The fragments vary in size from 25 amino acids to the full 150 amino acids. No one knows exactly what is produced. The immune cells will make antibodies against any fragments they encounter, short or long. As a result, depending on a production of antibodies, after vaccination, can give the false impression that the mRNA vaccines produce a robust vaccine-induced immunity.
The data pointing to rapdily waning immunity – if the initial benefit is appropriately described as immunity – do not obviously support robuts immunity. On top of that, each injection given can potentially produce different responses.
While mRNA is injected into the arm, its encasement in liposomes/LNP means it is more likely to travel around the body than dead viruses are. This means it can lodge in various parts of the body.
If it lodges in heart cells that normally specialize in predominantly producing myosin for muscle, and if it then diverts even a small percentage of resources to producing Spike protein, quite aside from any risks from the Spike protein fragments, the diversion of cardiac muscle cell activity from what they should be producing can cause its own problems – less contractile muscle fibres available when exercising vigorously.
One of the upshots of all this is that traditional vaccines likely produce somewhere between 25 and 50 percent of the immunity we develop naturally on exposure to these agents. We just don’t know what if any immunity we get from mRNA agents and it is now widely conceded that these agents do not block transmission of the virus.
Most people have had a Rapid Antigen test in the last two years. These are based on a polymerase chain reaction and are often called PCR tests as a result. They are sometimes called NAATs – nucleic acid amplification tests.
PCR tests for viral infection (asymptomatic or symptomatic). The various tests are patented often on the basis of detecting a different set of viral genomic sequences (nucleic acids) but all must target the wild type of the virus. They will typically aim at detecting Spike and nucleocapsid proteins (antigens) and ideally should also have a housekeeping control – a gene not part of the viral genome. They are usually engineered so that only the viral genome from the infection will trigger a positive response and not the viral genomic material in the vaccine.
Depending on the amplication threshold set, PCR tests can turn up a positive result even in those who are not infected. A low threshold is problematic. So people who need a confirmation they have been infected or are not now infected may be asked for serology tests (blood tests). These detect antibodies in blood. They are often referred to as N antibody tests (NABs).
NABs aim at detecting elements of the nucleocapsid protein marking prior infection rather than prior vaccination. N antibody tests for COVID in combination with RT-PCR tests are more specific than each of those tests in isolation. A positive RT-PCR or antibody test in absence of any symptoms is meaningless. RT-PCR cannot be used to confirm active infection whereas a NAB indicates past and/or present (active) infection but may not be specific as it can detect infection by a related pathogen/virus.
The view that mild infections only give rise to a weak NAB response is inadequate. Limited antibody responses in measles, COVID, and other conditions are often linked to significant immunity.
In the Comirnaty trial, the per protocol outcome measure was not clinical infection. The outcome that counted for Pfizer was PCR tests, of which volunteers had several – some conducted Centrally and some Locally.
The key outcome measure in the trial was the Central PCR Test. Central means a Pfizer laboratory in New York. The samples were couriered there from Buenos Aires, Ankara and Pretoria as well as Houston and Sacramento. We do not know what cycle thresholds were used as cutoffs or whether these thresholds were applied uniformly between vaccine and placebo groups or in the presence or absence of clinical symptoms – without which they are strictly speaking meaningless.
Volunteers also had to have a local test done – in Buenos Aires, Sao Paolo, Hamburg and Dallas – to check for treatment purposes in case of infection. We know there were regular mismatches between the Local and Central results. The trial protocol states that in the event of a mismatch the Central result prevails but it is not always clear that this was the case.
The N antibody tests were carried out in Houston. They were done at the start of the study to exclude people who had evidence of a prior infection. They were then repeated 5 weeks after Dose 2 to see whether anybody had had an infection in the period after Dose 1. But there was no NAB specific to the 5 weeks after Dose 2 – which is where the question of whether the vaccine worked or not arises. If there had been 3 tests, one taken with Dose 2, a positive NAB 5 weeks later might clarify if you got infected after Dose 2.
While almost universally done at the start, we know in many cases that follow-up NAB tests were not done. We also know that in many cases, NAB results were negative when the PCR was positive.
This might be explained by a NAB test not detecting ‘weak’ but effective immunity from a prior infection. Many sources view NAB results as less likely to give a false positive result than PCR results. We don’t know this for sure and we don’t know if the vaccine could interfere with the N antibody result.
At present the documents made public by Pfizer give a positive or negative or not done result for NAB tests in the trial for most subjects but we do not have documents giving the actual results, which might help reconcile the differences between NAB and PCR results.
Reconciling differences like this or the link between these tests and clinical infection is a matter of discretion. While PCR tests are the outcome measure, this is a surrogate for clinical infection. Deciding whether there has been an infection requires input from a review panel. There was a 3-person review panel – all Pfizer employees – who decided whether you had been infected post Dose 2 of the vaccine or placebo.
The adeno-associated viruses (AAV) (AstraZeneca and Johnson and Johnson) are DNA based vaccines.
These AAV vectors have the potential to integrate into our genomes. The mRNA therapies were touted as being unable to integrate with the genome. But recent evidence and the slide above suggests caution about this – protein replacement therapies is another way of saying Gene Therapy.
Our genome is 80% non-coding, 30-40% of which contains sequences left over from many thousands of years of viral infections. These serve as hotspots for a virus to integrate thereby protecting us from disrupting functioning of our essential genes.
The AAV agents were initially developed for gene therapy. The AAV vectors delivered genes that needed correction and provided for the expression of good genes in cells, leaving the bad copy in place in the genome. This therapy provides an additional copy of the gene that is free from mistakes and can code for missing (or defective) proteins which will cure a disease or ameliorate symptoms, allowing for a better quality of life.
This initially worked but the AAV vector instead of remaining episomal, integrated randomly in patients’ genome thereby and, in some cases, this produced lethal problems in other areas, leading to a moratorium on gene therapies.
Efforts were made to solve the problem by removing integrase enzymes from AAV vectors but these mutated AAV vectors can scavenge integrase from other adeno viruses already embedded in the genome from natural infection. Modified AAV vectors similar to those used in gene therapy are used in COVID vaccines, but there is no rigorous monitoring or follow-up being done for these vaccines.
If you want to know about these issues in more detail, Aditi has a wonderful walk through all of these subjects and more in the light of a trial that infected Healthy Volunteers with COVID. The slides in this post come from her article. It should be noted that all slides and points come from authoritative rather than alternative sources.
A lot of other issues came up in my tutorial with Aditi.
Some of my key positions on psychotropic and other drugs are outlined in Shipwreck and in many of the interviews with Psychopharmacologists on the Shipwreck site – such as Peter Waldmeier, Solomon Snyder, Silvio Garattini and others, who played important roles in the discovery of receptors – the locks to which we think drugs and vaccines are the key.
Much of how we view health now hinges on ideas of specificity and Magic Bullets, which date back 130 years to ideas first put forward by Paul Ehrlich that hinge on antibodies and antigens. The idea was the True Bullet would only hit its target and nothing else.
Most of the best psychotropic and other drugs and vaccines we have, however, came from discoveries in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s that arose from looking at the effects of these drugs in people – and in animals. While there can be ethical concerns about testing drugs on animals, it says something that many of our best drugs had clearly visible effects in animals.
In the 1980s, things changed. Pharmaceutical companies were handed new methods to screen thousands of compounds per day in automated receptor testing systems. They were able they thought to realize Ehrlich’s vision and produce real Magic Bullets. The idea of testing drugs in animals seemed antediluvian and was jettisoned. How could animal tests compete with being able to precisely target therapeutic keys to the locks of disease?
Receptor profiling didn’t work out. Company insiders made jokes about the company having great new treatments which they now had to find diseases to fit. Discoveries of chemicals that bind to receptors is a different matter to discovering new drugs or vaccines. Companies, now run by managers rather than scientists or doctors, got out of the business of discovering new drugs that really made a difference.
By the time it became clear we were not getting better drugs, the old way of discovering drugs – in animals and by building on the unexpected effects in people taking drugs – had been junked. This brought with it a company need to make sure no-one, especially doctors, would recognise or agree that unexpected (adverse) effects were happening – see Harmatology.
There is a very similar story with vaccines. From the 1990s, the older drugs were viewed as Dirty Drugs compared with modern Cruise Missiles. We think this way even though the hardest clinical trial evidence shows the Dirty Drugs (TCA antidepressants and clozapine for instance) work better.
The older dead virus vaccines similarly are viewed as Dirty and antedeluvian compared to the precision missiles that mRNA and DNA represent.
Except it now looks less than clear agents aren’t even Vaccines. The evidence that these agents inhibit transmission isn’t there. The evidence that these agents save lives or reduce hospitalizations isn’t there.
Forthcoming posts will give readers the chance to decide if the evidence claiming that the trials have showns that agents like Comirnaty have shown 95% efficacy is a conclusion they agree with.
For people more used to drugs than vaccines, I can bring this back to SSRIs and Withdrawal and PSSD. Paroxetine is the SSRI that has the tightest binding to the SSRI reuptake site. Paroxetine is the SSRI that causes the worst withdrawal and has very high rates of PSSD. Really tight binding from a precision missile appears to cause more damage than the less potent binding from Dirty Drugs.
One possibility is that tight binding is more likely to damage. Dirty Drugs touch on receptors enough to get a helpful effect. They then drop off the receptor allowing the system to recover. This is not what happens with precision missiles, which risk destroying rather than opening the lock.
With the pandemic, Blogs have been replaced by Substacks, which often note a subscription would help keep things going.
Published by Samizdat, Shipwreck of the Singular. Healthcare’s Castaways rolled out with the Vaccines. Its descriptions of a dystopian medical future seem all too present now.
It is priced at $18.95, and $8.99 in kindle from each of which Samizdat gets $5, and even less as El Naufragio de lo Singular.
Samizdat aims at the middle ground in health, enabling conversations to happen. A copy of any of its books for you or a friend, in lieu of an hypnotic, might help us all find a way to wake up.
Copyright © Data Based Medicine Americas Ltd.
Liz Trust has been ousted already – who knows if R Sunak incoming PM will be interested
To: the new British Prime Minister
26th September 2022
The Rt Hon Liz Truss
Dear Ms Truss,
Re: Covid-19 Vaccines for Children
Firstly, congratulations on becoming our new Prime Minister.
You will no doubt have many pressing matters as you take up office. But what can be more important than the health and well-being of the nation’s children?
We, the undersigned health professionals and scientists, have huge concerns about the safety and necessity of Covid-19 vaccines for children, for reasons detailed in the letters enclosed. Between us, we have written numerous letters to the regulators, copied to your predecessor, regarding use of these mRNA products in children. We call upon you, urgently, to pause the Covid-19 vaccine rollout for healthy under 18s, while a thorough and independent safety review is undertaken. We urge you to reconsider their deployment for the following reasons:
• Covid-19 was always a much milder illness in children, with a risk of death for otherwise healthy children of around 1 in 2 million. Successive variants have become less virulent, reducing the risk still further.
• In addition, there is considerable evidence of rapidly waning vaccine efficacy, and increasing concerns over immediate vaccines injuries (such as myocarditis with its known potential for severe and possibly permanent cardiac damage).
• There is still a total lack of long-term safety data and the worrying rise in excess non-Covid deaths in young males aged 15-19 years has yet to be explained.
• Lastly, the vast majority of children have already been exposed to SARS-CoV-2 repeatedly and have achieved demonstrably effective immunity, which is far superior to vaccine-induced immunity.
In short, the balance of benefit and risk, used to support the rollout of mRNA vaccines to the elderly and vulnerable in 2021, is inappropriate and inapplicable for children in 2022.
Below are links to all the fully referenced letters we have written to the MHRA, the JCVI and the CMOs over the past sixteen months. The detailed questions posed have never been properly addressed by these regulators. You may be aware that members of the Pandemic Response All Party Parliamentary Group also wrote to the JCVI in January 2022, regarding the documented increase in all-cause mortality in 15-19-year-old males, again with no satisfactory reply addressing their concerns.
• 30th June 2022 – https://childrensunion.org/6-month-to-4-years-covid-vaccines/
• 14th February 2022 – https://childrensunion.org/ccvac-pause-covid-roll-out/
• 19th January 2022 – https://www.hartgroup.org/open-letter-to-the-mhra-regarding-child-death-data/
• 7th January 2022 – https://www.hartgroup.org/gmc-reply-07-12-2021/ (reply to letter of 10/12/21)
• 10th December 2021- https://www.hartgroup.org/open-letter-to-the-gmc/ re consent
• 14th November 2021- https://www.hartgroup.org/open-letter-to-mhra-14-11-2021/ re safety
• 23rd August 2021- https://www.hartgroup.org/open-letter-to-mhra-23-08-2021/ re safety
• 6th June 2021 – https://www.hartgroup.org/open-letter-to-mhra-06-06-2021/ re safety
• 17th May 2021- https://www.hartgroup.org/open-letter-to-mhra-17-05-2021/ re safety
• 17th May 2021 – https://www.hartgroup.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Covid-19_Vaccine_in_Children_FULL_document.pdf appendix to above letter.
Groups of health professionals from around the world have similar concerns and indeed some countries have already paused children’s Covid-19 vaccines, particularly for those who have already had SARS-CoV-2 infection. The Danish Minister of Health recently declared that vaccinating children had been a mistake and has withdrawn it for healthy children. It is gratifying to see that in the UK the vaccine rollout for healthy 5-11s has been discontinued last week, but this leaves 12-17-years-olds still in an unnecessary programme.
The health of the nation’s children is of paramount concern and must surely be a high priority for an incoming Prime Minister. You will no doubt be aware of Sir Christopher Chope’s tireless work on a Covid-19 Vaccine Damage Bill, pushing for proper and fair compensation for thousands of vaccine-damaged adults. You cannot allow the risk of Covid-19 vaccine injuries in children, who stand to gain zero benefit from vaccination due to the overwhelming majority having already been infected, and who have therefore already acquired natural immunity.
We entreat you to apply the precautionary principle to the use of these products, which still have no long-term safety data and remain in Phase 3 clinical trials. The evidence of damage that this rushed policy is causing for children mounts daily.
In addition to concerns about the physical risk to children posed by these mRNA products, we would also remind you of the acknowledged and significant psychological and educational damage to children which resulted from the school closures and masking requirements implemented by your predecessor. We would ask that, as a matter of urgency, you make clear that school closures and masking of schoolchildren will not be repeated under your watch.
At the beginning of your term as Prime Minister, you have a critical opportunity to prevent avoidable damage to children, and the inevitable outcry and backlash that will follow, by pausing the rollout with immediate effect, as well as bringing to an end all harmful covid restrictions in schools. This is a risk-free action. Until then, the political and health risks of these damaging policies will only escalate.
We eagerly await your response.
Wishing you well in the challenging job you have ahead.
Also from Medical Freedom
1 of 1
UKMFA in the Media, Vaccine Safety, Paypal Latest and Other News
UK Medical Freedom Alliance firstname.lastname@example.org via mlsend.com
11:20 AM (5 hours ago)
View in browser
facebook twitter telegram
UKMFA in the Media
1st October 2022
UKMFA on GB News on Halting Children’s COVID Vaccines
UKMFA Director, Dr Elizabeth Evans, was interviewed on GB News by Neil Oliver to discuss why it is ethically imperative that the rollout of COVID-19 vaccines to children is halted immediately, as requested in the CCVAC open letter to Liz Truss delivered at the end of September.
16th October 2022
UKMFA on GB News Discussing Pfizer Admission
Dr Evans was also interviewed on GB News by Calvin Robinson following the Pfizer Executive’s admission in the EU Parliament that Covid jabs were never tested for their effect on transmission of the virus.
Dr Evans and Laura Dodsworth discussed with Calvin the moral and ethical implications, following the admission that the public were knowingly and deliberately misled by Governments and Health Authorities, in order to unethically coerce them into taking a Covid vaccine, that they may not have wanted or needed, but took solely to protect others or access basic human rights e.g. work and travel.
UKMFA are yet to have their PayPal account reinstated and continue to call on our supporters to #BoycottPayPal by closing their accounts, to make your views clear that this behaviour cannot be tolerated.
We also support the efforts of the FSU to work with supportive MPs to get a bill or amendment passed in Parliament to prevent financial companies cancelling businesses or individuals on a political whim in an attempt to curb lawful campaigning and free speech.
A documentary producer named Phil Harper may have found the smoking gun in the Pfizer Data Dump. A document with the unprepossessing file name adva.zip contains data on nucleocapsid antibodies, which you cannot get from the vax — you can acquire these only from actual viral infection.
The file weighs in at a whopping 170 megabytes (for calibration, that’s approximately eighty-five times the size of Tolstoy’s War and Peace), but Harper provides detailed instructions for downloading the file and extracting the relevant data from it.
According to Harper about 160 patients in the placebo arm seroconverted, as opposed to seventy-five in the treatment arm. If this be true, then Pfizer’s much-touted “90 percent efficacy” would drop to something like fifty-four percent — barely within the range needed for FDA approval.
It gets worse. A Moderna Phase I/II study looked at patients with PCR-confirmed covid infection and found that only forty percent of those cases in the treatment arm had measurable levels of nucleocapsid antibodies, as opposed to ninety-three percent in the placebo arm.
In plain English, Pfizer’s much-touted “more than ninety percent efficacy” figure is now looking closer to zero percent efficacy. Maybe even negative efficacy.
Now I don’t code, so I cannot vouch for any of this, but here is the url for Harper’s blog post, for anyone who wants to check:
Keep an Eye on the Markets…
Could This News from Pfizer Equal Billions for Moderna?
Adria Cimino – 49m ago
Pfizer (NYSE: PFE) and Moderna (NASDAQ: MRNA) both have generated billions of dollars of revenue from their coronavirus vaccines. The two companies dominate the market. But in recent times, investors have worried about vaccine revenue once the pandemic ends.
While Pfizer has a vast portfolio of products across therapeutic areas, Moderna still depends on its coronavirus vaccine and booster for all of its revenue. Moderna’s share performance reflects these concerns: The stock has dropped about 50% so far this year.
But Pfizer recently said something that could signal more billion-dollar revenue — not only for itself, but for rival Moderna. Let’s take a closer look.
The vaccine revenue equation
It’s been difficult for investors to truly pinpoint future vaccine revenue. There are two main factors that make up the equation: vaccine prices and demand from the public.
Since the earlier days of the pandemic, governments have ordered vaccine doses at prices they’ve negotiated with the manufacturers. But in the not-too-distant future, coronavirus vaccines will enter the private market. This means vaccine makers will sell vaccines directly to distributors to be administered in pharmacies and other healthcare settings.
When this happens, vaccine makers no longer have to offer the same lower prices given to governments during an emergency. And this is where Pfizer’s news comes in. The big pharma player last week said it aims to sell its vaccine within the range of $110 to $130 per dose in the U.S. private market next year. This is higher than some Wall Street estimates of about $50 per dose. And it’s at least three times higher than the price the U.S. government pays per dose today.
So how does this impact Moderna? Moderna already has said that it plans to charge between $64 and $100 per dose for its vaccine in the U.S. private market. But the latest news from Pfizer could spur Moderna to further increase its vaccine price to fall in line with its larger rival.
A bigger market than expected?
Moderna predicted the U.S. coronavirus vaccine market could be worth as much as $13 billion. That’s if half of the U.S. adult population gets vaccinated and shots cost $100. That market size increases to more than $16.7 billion if doses are priced at $130.
Related video: Moderna to develop a personalized cancer vaccine with Merck
This offers Moderna — and Pfizer — an opportunity to generate billion of dollars more than planned. And we haven’t even added in potential revenue from international markets.
Of course, there are some “ifs” here. It’s reasonable to expect about half of the U.S. population to go for annual coronavirus shots. That’s about the same percentage of Americans who go for flu shots every year. The Affordable Care Act ensures vaccines are covered by insurance — so the cost likely won’t be a problem for individuals hoping to get vaccinated.
Still, we won’t truly know whether uptake will be strong until we enter a post-pandemic world — and see whether people continue to prioritize coronavirus prevention. Also, Pfizer and Moderna have shared their plans for pricing, but nothing is set in stone just yet, so this is another unknown.
What does this mean for investors?
If Moderna doesn’t raise its vaccine price to fall in line with Pfizer, it still may generate significant revenue from its vaccine well into the future — even if demand for its vaccine falls a bit short of expectations. But if Moderna lifts the price and uptake is strong, the picture could be even brighter.
All of this means there’s reason to be optimistic about Moderna’s vaccine revenue — whether it prices its vaccine at the highest level or not.
But here’s what’s even more important. Moderna may not be a one-product company for long. The biotech player has three potential blockbusters in phase 3 trials right now — investigational vaccines for cytomegalovirus, respiratory syncytial virus, and influenza.
It’s essential to look at its prospects over the long term. Between this long-term view and the shift to a private vaccine market, Moderna looks like a very promising stock to buy right now.
Dr. Anthony Stephen Fauci
NIAID Director|Funder of Gain of Function Research|Responsible for The AIDS Epidemic in the 1980s & Covid-19 Pandemic|I AM SCIENCE, DO NOT QUESTION ME
Get Vaccinated with the Moderna/Pfizer/J&J Shot we really need to sterilize & Depopulate the world, There too many useless eaters in the world & poor people who are raping the earth, and we have to maintain humanity at 500,000,000 according to the first Luciferian Commandment
Pfizer has been accused of ‘daylight robbery’ after it emerged the company plans to sell its Covid shot with an estimated 10,000 percent markup in the US next year — despite enjoying extraordinary surges in profits during the pandemic.
CEO pocketing $50m during Covid crisis…
Other board members that have significantly benefitted from the rise in stock price include Dr Scott Gottlieb, former head of the Food and Drug Administration who signed on to Pfizer after leaving the agency in 2017.
When he made the move, Sen Elizabeth Warren, a Massachusetts Democrat, said it ‘smacks of corruption’ and was a signal that ‘Big Pharma’ and leading federal regulators were in too-close contact.
Susan Desmond-Hellmann serves as a board member at the Bill & Melinda Gates Medical Research Institute alongside her post at Pfizer.
The amount of power Mr Gates and his institutions have had over the rollout of the vaccines and the pandemic in general has been criticized by some leading experts because of a lack of oversight.
Joseph Echevarria serves on Pfizer’s board as well. He also serves as an advisor to the Obama Foundation and as chair emeritus of Obama’s My Brother’s Keeper Alliance.
Dr Sahin is also among an illustrious group of pharma and biotechnology moguls who made out well from the pandemic.
Oxfam includes him among its nine ‘vaccine billionaires’, nine people who reached the status because of their firm’s success selling the shots.
His $4billion net worth makes him second on the list, only to Moderna CEO Stephane Bancel who is worth an estimated $4.3billion.
Dr. Anthony Stephen Fauci
Most people think this is About “Money” or “Control” This is really all about what it has ever been since the Tower of Babel Returning To The “One World Order” Like at Babel but we call it “New World Order” because in the present it is New
“the increase in boosters is now, for many people, counterproductive, and for some people it’s also dangerous.”
Dr Aseem Malhotra
‘A few MPs have raised concerns in parliament about the possible side effects of vaccines, including what some described as data showing a correlation with increased levels of cardiovascular problems’
The dial is shifting after the APPG last week
COVID-19: Inquiry focusing solely on safety of vaccines will not be opened, govt says
A few MPs have raised concerns in parliament about the possible side effects of vaccines, including what some described as data showing a correlation with increased levels of cardiovascular problems.
Tuesday 25 October 2022 06:50, UK
The government is not planning to open an inquiry solely into the safety of coronavirus vaccines, a health minister has said.
Caroline Johnson added the vaccines will be reviewed as part of the wider UK COVID-19 inquiry.
However, Dr Johnson insisted the jabs are safe and encouraged those eligible to come forward for autumn boosters.
She was speaking during a Westminster Hall debate in parliament – held in response to a petition calling for a public inquiry into COVID-19 vaccine safety, which has been signed more than 107,000 times.
A few MPs raised concerns during the debate about the vaccines’ possible side effects, including what some described as data showing a correlation with increased levels of cardiovascular problems.
The NHS website says “reports of serious side effects are very rare” and the “COVID-19 vaccines approved for use in the UK have met strict standards of safety, quality and effectiveness”.
Scottish National Party MP Steven Bonnar said the vaccine programme saved “millions of lives”, adding almost 28,000 of those were in Scotland.
But he added: “Despite this, there has been a significant increase in heart attacks and other related illnesses since the COVID-19 vaccinations started to be distributed in 2021.
“To determine if there is any potential connection with the COVID-19 (vaccine) rollout, I believe this government must conduct an immediate and complete scientific investigation and ensure that the prescribed medical interventions of its response to coronavirus are indeed safe.”
But Mr Bonnar also said he would take his booster when called, and said people can “safely receive” their flu and COVID jabs at the same time as part of the autumn booster plan, saying they have been shown to be effective and “acceptably safe”.
Conservative former minister Sir Christopher Chope said: “I agree with the legitimate concerns of the 100,000-plus people who signed this petition and I share their belief that the recent and increasing volume of data relating to cardiovascular problems is enough of concern to warrant an inquiry into safety.”
Sir Christopher chairs the COVID-19 Vaccine Damage All-Party Parliamentary Group, which has five members: four Conservative and one Labour.
He acknowledged the wider COVID inquiry “is going to cover, I think, a lot of this ground”, but said: “That won’t be for many years.
“And in the meantime people are being encouraged to have more and more boosters, and they want to know, understandably, what the impact of those boosters is upon their health and what the potential risks and rewards are.
“The government seems to be in denial about the risks of these vaccines,” the MP for Christchurch said, saying the booster vaccines “are not perfectly safe, and there’s a question about whether they are effective”.
He warned the vaccine damage payment scheme is “not fit for purpose”, and said: “Many people now would not touch a booster with a barge pole, and I include myself amongst those.
“I am not anti-vax, I had my first two vaccines, but from all that I’ve seen and know about this, I think that the increase in boosters is now, for many people, counterproductive, and for some people it’s also dangerous.”
Conservative MP Elliot Colburn led the debate, but said: “I do not think that the government should be launching a public inquiry into vaccine safety. I think it would be a waste of taxpayers’ money and I do not think it is necessary.
“We know that vaccines are the best way to protect against COVID-19 and it has already saved tens of thousands of lives.”
Dr Johnson, a health minister, said: “The government has already commissioned a public inquiry into the pandemic, and COVID vaccines will be reviewed as part of this inquiry. There are no plans for an inquiry solely on vaccine safety.
“We are facing a tough winter ahead, and collectively we must do everything we can to protect those most vulnerable and to reduce pressure on the National Health Service.
“I would encourage everyone eligible to step forward for their COVID and flu vaccines as soon as they are available.”
She said: “There is no evidence that people are at an increased risk of cardiac arrest in the days and weeks following the vaccine, and the risk of getting myocarditis or pericarditis after the vaccine remains very low.”
FDA urged to publish follow-up studies on covid-19 vaccine safety signals
BMJ 2022; 379 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.o2527 (Published 25 October 2022)
Cite this as: BMJ 2022;379:o2527
Maryanne Demasi, investigative journalist
The FDA has been criticised for taking more than a year to follow up a potential increase in serious adverse events in elderly people receiving Pfizer’s covid-19 vaccine, Maryanne Demasi reports
In July 2021 the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) quietly disclosed findings of a potential increase in four types of serious adverse events in elderly people who had had Pfizer’s covid-19 vaccine: acute myocardial infarction, disseminated intravascular coagulation, immune thrombocytopenia, and pulmonary embolism.1 Little detail was provided, such as the magnitude of the increased potential risk, and no press release or other alert was sent to doctors or the public. The FDA promised it would “share further updates and information with the public as they become available.”
Eighteen days later, the FDA published a study planning document (or protocol) outlining a follow-up epidemiological study intended to investigate the matter more thoroughly.2 This recondite technical document disclosed the unadjusted relative risk ratio estimates originally found for the four serious adverse events, which ranged from 42% to 91% increased risk. (Neither absolute risk increases nor confidence intervals were provided.) More than a year later, however, the status and results of the follow-up study are unknown. The agency has not published a press release, or notified doctors, or published the findings by preprint or the scientific literature or updated the vaccine’s product label.
The BMJ has also learnt that the FDA has not publicly warned of similar signals detected in a separate observational cohort study it conducted of the third dose (first booster dose) in the elderly,3 nor has the agency publicly acknowledged other published observational studies or clinical trial reanalyses reporting compatible results. Experts spoke to The BMJ about their concerns about the data and have called on the FDA to notify the public immediately.
“To keep this information from the scientific community and prevent us from analysing it ourselves, is irresponsible. It presumes that these organisations are perfect and cannot benefit from independent scrutiny,” says Joseph Fraiman, an emergency medicine physician in New Orleans, who recently carried out a reanalysis of serious adverse events in Pfizer’s and Moderna’s randomised trials.3
Unearthing safety data
The FDA’s July 2021 findings came from a “near real time surveillance” system called Rapid Cycle Analysis (RCA) that the agency has in place to monitor a list of 14 adverse events of special interest. The RCA study is not capable of establishing a causal relation but rather is intended to detect potential safety signals rapidly. The agency said the associations were not identified for the other two covid-19 vaccines authorised in the US made by Moderna and Janssen (Johnson & Johnson). The July 2021 follow-up study protocol states that there is a “manuscript in preparation” for the original RCA study, but to date nothing has been published for either study.2
“The fact that the FDA found these four safety signals means they should have followed up on the results and I don’t understand why we haven’t had more information since then. It has been over a year,” says Tracy Høeg, epidemiologist and physician currently conducting covid-19 vaccine research with the Florida Department of Health and California’s Marin County Department of Health and Human Services.
In 2022 details regarding the results of a separate (third) safety study were disclosed inside another study protocol for evaluating boosters. Buried within that protocol the FDA stated, “In a cohort study of the third dose safety in the Medicare population where historical controls were used, we detected a statistically significant risk for immune thrombocytopenia (incidence rate ratio 1.66, confidence interval 1.17 to 2.29) and acute myocardial infarction (IRR 1.15, CI 1.02 to 1.29) among people with prior covid-19 diagnosis as well as an increased risk of Bell’s palsy (IRR 1.11, CI 1.03 to 1.19) and pulmonary embolism (IRR 1.05, CI 1.0001 to 1.100) in general.”4
Again, the FDA has made no public statement regarding these results. “It’s disturbing that they have not released any of these data. If the FDA is stating publicly that they’re collecting it, then they should be publicly reporting it. They shouldn’t be burying the results in protocols as they’ve done. It’s sneaky,” said Fraiman.
“The protocols say that they’re looking into these data further, but I’d like to know the results now, it’s been long enough. They need to view this from a public health perspective, they need to consider a person’s right to informed consent. As physicians, we recommend medical therapies and we need to explain the full risks and benefits to the patient. This is not happening,” adds Fraiman.
Dick Bijl, physician epidemiologist in the Netherlands, says, “The FDA managed to determine the efficacy of the vaccines in a short period of time, but they have not analysed the pharmacovigilance data with the same speed. If they found signals in July 2021, they should have been analysed and published within months.”
As president of the International Society of Drug Bulletins, Bijl has campaigned for years to have drug safety data communicated to doctors in a timely manner. He credits his organisation for prompting the World Health Organization to begin publishing regular updates about drug safety signals. These are possible safety problems that circulated only in pharmacovigilance centres and have been incorporated in the WHO Pharmaceuticals Newsletter since 2012, so that all doctors can take note of them.
“The FDA should have informed doctors about any early safety signals from the vaccines,” says Bijl. “Most doctors are not trained to, nor are they focused on, recognising side effects, especially because vaccines are generally regarded as quite safe. It’s important that doctors are told what to look out for.”
Other research groups, including Fraiman’s, have produced results that are compatible with the FDA’s surveillance data.3 An observational study from three Nordic countries—Denmark, Finland, and Norway—found statistically significant increases in thromboembolic and thrombocytopenic outcomes following both Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines.5
“Nordic countries have very good, nationalised health systems so they have good medical records of these events,” said Høeg, who was not involved in the study. “What stood out to me with the mRNA vaccines was the risk ratios of intracranial haemorrhage for Pfizer and for Moderna. It was 2.2 for Moderna, and it’s statistically significant. I’ve heard that people have seen it clinically but a robust analysis like this is much more convincing than anecdote.”
Christine Stabell Benn, a vaccinologist and professor in global health at the University of Southern Denmark, highlights two studies that analysed the data from the phase 3 randomised controlled trials of covid-19 vaccines—one by Fraiman and colleagues3 and the other a preprint6 by her own research group. “The safety signal seems to be gathering around cardiovascular and cerebral vascular events, things to do with circulation and our larger organs, and these are the same signals that appear to be popping up in the FDA surveillance data as well,” says Stabell Benn.
According to Stabell Benn, the underlying problem with documenting adverse events is that the covid-19 vaccines “were not tested properly.” She says, “The phase 3 trials offered vaccines to the control groups just a few months after the randomisation, so it doesn’t allow for assessment of the long term adverse events—but it’s the best evidence we have so far, since no phase 4 trials were carried out. Now, we largely have to rely on poorer quality data and studies.”
Adding to the difficulty is the type of adverse events being documented. “Myocardial infarction and thrombosis are events that occur often in the elderly and so doctors are less likely to report them as potentially linked to the vaccine, unlike vaccine induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia which is so dramatic and rare and also affected younger age groups, so it was easier to pick up,” says Stabell Benn.
To disclose or not to disclose?
Tom Frieden, former US Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) director, says it’s a challenge for public health agencies to balance the release of contentious information. “There’s a valid concern that reports of adverse events will be misinterpreted as causal when they’re not causal to the treatment or vaccine given, and another concern is if you don’t present the information, you may be seen as hiding something, which is also problematic. So, this is not an easy area,” says Frieden.
He believes that the FDA and CDC have done a good job at publicly communicating the safety signals of covid-19 vaccines, pointing to the decision to pause the Johnson & Johnson vaccine after six reported cases of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis.7 “That was exactly the right decision at the time, it was just kind of ‘stop, look, and listen,’ and then come to a conclusion. Frankly, it was a judgment call whether to reintroduce the Johnson & Johnson vaccine at all. I think they were shared promptly. They were shared openly. I don’t see a lot to criticise in how they were shared. The reality is that it’s a very difficult thing to do—to share information well, in a way that will lead to people making the right conclusions.”
Earlier this year, the CDC admitted to withholding deliberately critical data on boosters and hospital admissions. Kristen Nordlund, CDC spokesperson, told the New York Times that the agency had been slow to release data to the public on breakthrough infections “because they might be misinterpreted as the vaccines being ineffective.”8
In addition, CDC director Rochelle Walensky acknowledged that the agency had not conducted a disproportionality analysis that the agency had indicated it would conduct in 2021 to analyse spontaneous adverse event reports.9 When asked about his thoughts on Walensky’s admission, Frieden said, “I don’t know what the reality is. I can’t comment.”
Cody Meissner, a paediatrician and member of the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee, said he did not think that the FDA was “deliberately” withholding data from the public but did agree that sharing data is key to establishing trust. “I fully concur that transparency is key, and everyone should know all the information that is available. One of the great tragedies of this pandemic is likely to be the loss of confidence in public health authorities. One of the great problems was the suppression of opposing voices to various recommendations and that’s going to cause extraordinary harm,” says Meissner. “Everyone is aware that there are going to be side effects from any vaccine and as time goes by, we’re going to find out more and more about those side effects. Whether it’s an association with myocarditis or association with a pulmonary embolus, it’s going to take time,” he adds.
The Pfizer and Moderna clinical trial reanalysis by Fraiman and colleagues indicated the mRNA vaccines were associated with an additional serious adverse event for every 800 people vaccinated,3 far more than the 1-2 for each million reported for vaccines in general.10 Fraiman says he and his colleagues asked the FDA to warn the public based on their reanalysis, and replicate their study, but this has not happened.
“It seems to me that doctors have a much higher tolerance for covid vaccine side effects because there’s been this sense that if you don’t take the vaccine, you die. Obviously, that is completely the wrong way to think about it,” says Stabell Benn.
“We don’t want to create a lot of unnecessary anxiety and we can’t say there is now proof that the vaccines cause these events because the data are of poor quality, but we can say there is a danger signal, and the medical profession needs to be alerted to this,” she adds.
The BMJ has learnt that the FDA’s medical record review and statistical analyses have recently been completed, and the overall study results are currently under internal review. “The findings to date from the fully adjusted epidemiologic study on the primary series vaccinations do not provide strong support for an association between the vaccine and any of the four outcomes described in the posting to the FDA website. Additional analyses, including evaluation of booster doses, are still being conducted. Release of the study findings is expected later this fall,” said the FDA.
Peter Doshi, a senior editor at The BMJ, is co-author with Fraiman of a recent reanalysis of serious adverse events in Pfizer’s and Moderna’s randomised trials, published in Vaccine.3
RFK Tells Megyn Kelly COVID Jabs May be Causing More Deaths Than They are Averting “The insurance industry is panicked about this because they’re seeing a 40% rise in unexplained, excess deaths. And they’re occurring in young people in 2022, over 2021. So the number of people who are dying since mass vaccination is much higher than the people who were dying from COVID.”
“There is a deliberate obfuscation —–
Dr Aseem Malhotra
Even mild Covid linked to heart disease and strokes
Dr Clare Craig (not one of her impersonators)
This paper has been spun to get these headlines.
What did it really show?
Vacunas covid19: la seguridad después de las ventas. “The FDA should have informed doctors about any early safety signals from the vaccines,” especially because vaccines are generally regarded as quite safe.
Calling it “arbitrary and capricious,” the New York State Supreme Court on Monday struck down New York City’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate for public workers, ruling in favor of 16 unvaccinated city workers who had sued following their termination.
‘The Dominos are Falling’ …
Here are some simple questions one reader sent in by email:
Once in the cell the mRNA generates proteins which are antigens, do these stimulate antibody production in that cell or do the antigens have to get out into the blood stream and encounter immune cells before generating antibodies?
Do antibodies subsequently find antigens by simply bumping into them or by chemo-attraction? And do the antibody-antigen complexes end up in phagocytes?
Good question. Here’s an article in Science which assures us that the spike protein remains on the cell surfaces and does not get into the blood.
As evidence, the author links to a Pfizer document states “No traditional pharmacokinetic or biodistribution studies have been performed with the vaccine candidate BNT162b2.”
So how he can know the spike protein does not get into the blood beats me. We do know that reports to VAERS of adverse events associated with endothelial dysfunction have skyrocketed since the vax was rolled out.
In fairness, I should point out the VAERS website contains this disclaimer:
“VAERS is not designed to determine if a vaccine caused a health problem, but is especially useful for detecting unusual or unexpected patterns of adverse event reporting that might indicate a possible safety problem with a vaccine. This way, VAERS can provide CDC and FDA with valuable information that additional work and evaluation is necessary to further assess a possible safety concern
That is true so far as it goes, but what the website fails to mention is that the CDC and the FDA promised to carry out analysis to detect “unusual or unexpected patterns of adverse event reporting,” yet they failed to do so.
The antigens have to get out of the cells after being produced, recognized and engulfed by antigen presenting cells (APC) such as macrophages and dendritic cells. Macrophages originate from blood cells called monocytes and as they reach different tissues/organs, they change to become macrophages. Once these APC engulf antigens (along with other critical molecules- MHC), they secrete cytokines and activate other immune cells and present these antigen as “foreign” to T cells and T cells to B cells, which ultimately produce antibodies.
If one is infected with a pathogen, the pathogen has a specific route of infection and most of this immune battle happens in specific locations, so once the B cells produce antibodies, all the players are in the location and once the antibodies bind an antigen, the macrophages will clear away the “neutralized” antigen-Ab complex.
For Dummies –
“Muscle helps localise any adverse reactions and minimise them, so it’s safer.”
COVID vaccines aren’t working the way we were told they would
The COVID-19 vaccines are a remarkable medical innovation that may very well have saved tens of thousands of lives this past year. But let’s be clear: They are not doing what we were told they would do.
When the vaccines were first made available in early 2021, the public was led to believe that inoculation would prevent infection and transmission. President Joe Biden argued last summer that “you’re not going to get COVID if you have these vaccinations.” Dr. Anthony Fauci similarly declared on a Zoom call with TikTokers that if they got vaccinated, they wouldn’t have to worry about catching COVID-19. MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow claimed in March that COVID-19 “cannot use a vaccinated person as a host to get more people” and that the “virus does not infect them.”
Now we know this is untrue.
Fully vaccinated adults are testing positive for COVID-19 at about the same rate as unvaccinated people, regardless of how many booster shots they’ve gotten. And while the vaccines may prevent transmission marginally, insofar as they might help reduce the number of days a person is contagious, there is little evidence that they are doing anything at all to prevent the spread of the omicron variant, which is far more contagious but thankfully much less severe than the original COVID-19 strain.
That’s OK — the purpose of the vaccines was never to wipe out COVID-19 completely. Viruses mutate. In a world of 7 billion people, it is impossible to stop that from happening.
The goal of vaccination was to protect people from severe illness as much as possible — to limit hospitalization and death. The vaccines have done that. A report from the Department of Health and Human Services in October found that COVID-19 vaccinations reduced hospitalizations among vulnerable citizens by more than 100,000 and deaths by 39,000. That’s a lot of lives saved.
Vaccination, then, has to be understood as an individual effort. It is a decision each person must make for his or her own benefit because it is a decision that only directly affects his or her health.
That’s not how public health officials have sold this vaccine. They have sold it as a public effort, a decision that affects the entire community. Indeed, officials bought so wholly into this collectivist attitude that they decided vaccination shouldn’t be a decision at all but should be mandatory. Hence the vaccine mandates becoming common in certain industries and liberal cities.
These mandates have always been socially unjustifiable, but now we know they are medically indefensible as well. Omicron has proven that widespread vaccination, even universal vaccination, cannot stop the spread. Some of the most vaccinated jurisdictions in the country are logging the most positive cases right now. And if vaccination doesn’t prevent transmission, there is no reason to treat unvaccinated people differently from the vaccinated. They’re all capable of spreading the virus — whether they want to risk serious illness from that virus is up to them.
Public officials’ messaging on vaccination was wrong from the get-go. It’s time to acknowledge the facts, but that would require them to treat us all like responsible human beings capable of self-governance. That’s something our health bureaucrats are reluctant to do.
Robert Califf, cardiologist by training turned propagandist by greed. He can take his #VaxUpAmerica and…..
Updated COVID vaccines offer you the only targeted protection you can get against the Omicron strain out there now. #VaxUpAmerica
Public Event Invitation – Has Big Pharma Hijacked Evidence-Based Medicine?
UK Medical Freedom Alliance email@example.com via mlsend.com
11:11 AM (6 hours ago)
View in browser
Public Event Invitation
‘Has Big Pharma Hijacked Evidence-Based Medicine?’
UKMFA are delighted to be sponsoring this exclusive in-person event with an award-winning consultant cardiologist and public health campaigner, Dr Aseem Malhotra.
We will be featuring a live discussion and Q&A session with him on:
How do we apply the principles of ethical evidence-based medical practice and informed consent to the COVID mRNA vaccines?
What is COVID vaccine data really telling us?
What is the crucial link between lifestyle and immunity?
How do we create more efficient high-quality care in the NHS
What policy changes are necessary to improve population health?
The organisers of this important event include:
UK Medical Freedom Alliance (UKMFA)
Alliance for Natural Health International (ANH)
Association of Master Herbalists (AMH)
General Naturopathic Council (GNC)
Association of Naturopathic Practitioners (ANP)
We look forward to seeing you there!
We are really grateful for all donations, no matter how small. Your donations enable us to continue to lobby for your right to informed consent and medical freedom to be upheld, and to provide resources to educate and empower the public.
Our Covid Lords have done a spectacular job of bamboozling the public on this one. Whether the vax reduces the rate of covid deaths or serious cases of covid is of NO IMPORTANCE. People who die from the covid are no deader than people who die of anything else. The only two figures that matter here are ALL-CAUSE mortality and ALL serious adverse events. Pfizer’s own data 9the data that the let see, anyway) show the shot does not lower the rate of death and INCREASES the rate of all serious adverse evens.
This really is something to behold..
Dr Aseem Malhotra
Goodbye Papa. I promise you with all my heart I will ensure that your premature passing will not be in vain & that we achieve justice for those who have suffered unnecessarily from an mRNA jab that should likely never have been approved & certainly not without informed consent.
Dr. Malhotra was one of the first doctors that I reached out to after The BMJ published my story. I will forever be thankful for his advice & support then & now #myhero
He was short-listed as one of the most influential people in Britain, alongside Stephen Hawking. When he speaks, the world should listen to what @DrAseemMalhotra has to say.
Dr Aseem Malhotra
The smearing of doctors who expose Big Pharma propaganda Those who speak up for patients & challenge the manipulations of the drug industry should be praised for
enhancing the reputation of the profession & not be subject to smears.
Watch on GB News
“This is the Core of the whole problem” – Mark Sharman – Fair-Play Journalist —–
Josh Guetzkow Retweeted
Last night YouTube removed Safe and Effective: A Second Opinion, citing a terms and policies violation. At that time, the film had amassed over 990,000 views. The film is still, and will always be available to view at https://www.oraclefilms.com/safeandeffective with subtitles in over 20 languages.
Safe and Effective: A Second Opinion shines a light on Covid-19 vaccine injuries and bereavements, but also takes an encompassing look at the systemic failings that appear to have enabled them. We look at leading analysis of pharmaceutical trials, the role of the MHRA in regulating these products, the role of the SAGE behavioural scientists in influencing policy and the role of the media and Big Tech companies in supressing free and open debate on the subject.
This film was created in collaboration with Mark Sharman; Former ITV and BSkyB Executive and News Uncut.
It’s a self-financed, one-hour TV programme, formatted for 2 commercial breaks.
The documentary was removed from YouTube on 26th October 2022 under the pretext of alleged “medical misinformation”. At that time it had accumulated over 990,000 views and 7,000 comments.
The Horrors part of e mail (Much more on M Senger’s website or via free subscription to emails (or upgrade for more info with paid subscription)
1 of 1
Lockdowns: The Great Gaslighting
Michael P Senger from The New Normal Unsubscribe
6:01 PM (1 hour ago)
Open in app or online
Lockdowns: The Great Gaslighting
The lockdowns of 2020 were very real. And few opposed them.
MICHAEL P SENGER
More than two years since the lockdowns of 2020, the political mainstream, particularly on the left, is just beginning to realize that the response to Covid was an unprecedented catastrophe.
But that realization hasn’t taken the form of a mea culpa. Far from it. On the contrary, in order to see that reality is starting to dawn on the mainstream left, one must read between the lines of how their narrative on the response to Covid has evolved over the past two years.
The narrative now goes something like this: Lockdowns never really happened, because governments never actually locked people in their homes; but if there were lockdowns, then they saved millions of lives and would have saved even more if only they’d been stricter; but if there were any collateral damage, then that damage was an inevitable consequence of the fear from the virus independent of the lockdowns; and even when things were shut down, the rules weren’t very strict; but even when the rules were strict, we didn’t really support them.
Put simply, the prevailing narrative of the mainstream left is that any upside from the response to Covid is attributable to the state-ordered closures and mandates that they supported, while any downside was an inevitable consequence of the virus independent of any state-ordered closures and mandates which never happened and which anyway they never supported. Got it? Good.
We’re now learning just how bad the “collateral damage” is post-pandemic.
As is extraordinarily well-documented by data, video evidence, news reports, government orders, testimonial evidence, and living memory, the strict lockdowns of spring 2020 were all too real. And few people publicly opposed them.
As former UN Assistant Secretary-General Ramesh Thakur has documented in meticulous detail, the harms that lockdowns would cause were all well-known and reported when they were first adopted as policy in early 2020. These included accurate estimates of deaths due to delayed medical operations, a mental health crisis, drug overdoses, an economic recession, global poverty and hunger. In March 2020, the Dutch government commissioned a cost-benefit analysis concluding that the health damage from lockdowns—let alone the economic damage—would be six times greater than the benefit.
Yet regardless, for reasons we’re still only beginning to understand, key officials, media entities, billionaires and international organizations advocated the broad imposition of these unprecedented, devastating policies from the earliest possible date. The resulting scenes were horrific and dystopian.
If these horror stories aren’t enough, the raw data speaks for itself.
The mainstream left’s newfound reluctance to refer to these policies as “lockdown” is especially curious, because they showed no such reluctance at the time they were actually implementing lockdowns in 2020.
By pretending that all of these horrors were attributable to public panic, apologists for the response to Covid are attempting to shift blame away from the political machines that imposed lockdowns and mandates onto individuals and their families. This is, of course, despicable and bunk. People did not voluntarily go hungry, or stand in the freezing cold to get food, or remove themselves from hospitals while they were still sick, or bankrupt their own businesses, or force their own kids to sit outside in the cold, or march hundreds of miles in exodus after losing their jobs in factories.
The collective denial of these horrors, and the refusal of media, financial, and political elites to report on them, amounts to nothing less than the greatest act of gaslighting that we’ve seen in modern times.
Further, the argument that all of these terrible outcomes could be attributed to public panic rather than state-imposed mandates would be far more convincing if governments hadn’t taken unprecedented actions to deliberately panic the public.
A report later revealed that military leaders had seen Covid as a unique opportunity to test propaganda techniques on the public, “shaping” and “exploiting” information to bolster support for government mandates. Dissenting scientists were silenced. Government psyops teams deployed fear campaigns on their own people in a scorched-earth campaign to drive consent for lockdowns.
Moreover, as a study by Cardiff University demonstrated, the primary factor by which citizens judged the threat of COVID-19 was their own government’s decision to employ lockdown measures. “We found that people judge the severity of the COVID-19 threat based on the fact the government imposed a lockdown—in other words, they thought, ‘it must be bad if government’s taking such drastic measures.’ We also found that the more they judged the risk in this way, the more they supported lockdown.” The policies thus created a feedback loop in which the lockdowns and mandates themselves sowed the fear that made citizens believe their risk of dying from COVID-19 was hundreds of times greater than it really was, in turn causing them to support more lockdowns and mandates.
Those who publicly spoke against lockdowns and mandates were ostracized and vilified—denounced by mainstream outlets like the New York Times, CNN, and health officials as “neo-Nazis” and “white nationalists.” Further, among those who really believed the mainstream Covid narrative—or merely pretended to—all the authoritarian methods that had supposedly contributed to China’s “success” against Covid, including censoring, canceling, and firing of those who disagreed, were on the table.
Though many now claim to have opposed these measures, the truth is that publicly opposing lockdowns when they were at their apex in spring 2020 was lonely, frightening, thankless, and hard. Few did.
The gaslighting is by no means limited to the political left. On the political right, which now generally acknowledges that Covid mandates were a mistake, the revisionism is subtler, and tends to take the form of elites casting themselves—falsely—as having been anti-lockdown voices in early 2020, when in fact the record is quite clear that they were vocal advocates of lockdowns and mandates.
Fox News host Tucker Carlson now rightly acts as a champion of the anti-mandate cause, but in fact Carlson was one of the most influential individuals who talked Donald Trump into signing onto lockdowns in early 2020. The UK’s short-lived Prime Minister Liz Truss stated that she’d “always” been against lockdowns, but in fact she publicly supported both lockdowns and vaccine passes. Likewise, Canada’s conservative leader Pierre Poilievre now casts himself as an anti-mandate leader, but in fact he supported both lockdowns and vaccine mandates as they were happening.
As Ben Irvine, author of The Truth About the Wuhan Lockdown, has tirelessly documented, right-wing publications including the UK’s Daily Telegraph now routinely act as opponents of lockdowns and mandates, while staying silent as to their own vocal support for strict lockdowns in spring 2020. And the same goes for countless other commentators and influencers on the political right as well.
To those who know their history, this wholesale gaslighting by elites on both the left and the right, while galling, isn’t terribly surprising. Most elites obtain power by doing whatever is in their own perceived best interest at any given time. They didn’t support lockdowns for any moral or even utilitarian reason. Rather, in spring 2020, elites calculated supporting lockdowns to be in their own best interest. Two years later, many now calculate it to be in their best interest to pretend that they were the ones who always opposed lockdowns—while sidelining those who actually did.
This revisionism is all the more disappointing because a small handful of politicians including Ron DeSantis, Imran Khan, and Alberta Premier Danielle Smith have proven that admitting error in implementing lockdowns and mandates isn’t that hard, and can even be politically profitable.
The same should go for the political left. Thus far, we have yet to see anything remotely resembling regret from any leader on the left, but this is what a decent, Truman-era Democrat might say in these circumstances:
“The lockdowns of 2020 were a terrible mistake. While they were outside my field, it was my duty to properly vet the credibility of the advice that was coming from health officials and to end the mandates as soon as it was clear they weren’t working. In that role, I failed, and you all have my humblest apologies. Given the unprecedented harm that’s been done by these mandates, I support a full investigation into how this advice came about, in part to ensure there hasn’t been any untoward communist influence on these policies.”
Those who spoke against lockdowns and mandates in early 2020 showed that they were willing to stand up for the freedoms and Enlightenment principles for which our forebears fought so tirelessly, even when doing so was lonely, thankless, and hard. For that reason, anyone who did so has reason to feel extremely proud, and the future would be brighter if they were in positions of leadership. That fact is now becoming increasingly clear—unfortunately, even to those who did the opposite. One more reason to keep all the receipts.
Michael P Senger is an attorney and author of Snake Oil: How Xi Jinping Shut Down the World. Want to support my work? Get the book. Already got the book? Leave a quick review.
Dr Clare Craig (not one of her impersonators) Retweeted
Gov ministers and @MHRAgovuk must stop lying about the most rigorous safety tests.
@danny__kruger @Abridgen @DesmondSwayne and @reallySirChope
may wish to show them this.
Reject The great reset
Next time you hear anyone say they didn’t cut any safety corners, and did all the normal tests, show them this…
GATESgate – For The Love Of G..
Robert F. Kennedy Jr
After advertising the benefit of breakthrough infections, mainstream media is now putting a positive spin on systemic side effects by reframing them as signs of vaccine effectiveness.
Systemic Reactions to COVID Vaccines Now Being Sold to Public as a ‘Feature’
After advertising the benefit of breakthrough infections, mainstream media is now putting a positive spin on systemic side effects by reframing them as signs of vaccine effectiveness.
Last month, U.S. News & World Report gave readers the encouraging news that vaccine failures, in the form of so-called breakthrough infections, were actually a reason (for those who survived them) to celebrate added protection from subsequent infection.
This week, CNN — reporting on a study published last week in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) Network Open — reassured us that the worse you feel after receiving a COVID-19 mRNA injection, the better your protection.
As outlined below, the authors of the study make unfounded claims and raise more questions than answers.
What the study found
The authors examined blood samples and self-reported post-vaccination symptoms in 928 study participants to determine if there was an association between symptoms and antibody response.
There was no statistically significant difference in antibody reactivity between those who had no reported side effects and those with systemic side effects (fever, chills, muscle pain, nausea, vomiting, headache and/or moderate to severe fatigue).
Females, those who received the Moderna product and those who had a previous COVID-19 infection, had a statistically significant higher risk of having systemic side effects.
Systemic side effects were associated with higher, statistically significant antibody levels.
In other words, virtually the same percentage of people developed SARS-CoV-2 antibodies whether they suffered systemic side effects or not — but those who did suffer systemic side effects had a higher level of antibodies than those who didn’t.
Based on these results the authors of the study claimed their “findings support reframing postvaccination symptoms as signals of vaccine effectiveness and reinforce guidelines for vaccine boosters in older adults.”
There are two problems with the authors’ conclusions.
First, their findings have no bearing on vaccine boosters for older adults as no boosted individuals were included in the study.
Second, attributing vaccine effectiveness — the risk reduction in contracting COVID-19 — to a greater antibody response is also an unfounded assumption that contradicts the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) own public safety communication to healthcare providers to “not interpret the results of qualitative, semi-quantitative, or quantitative SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests as an indication of a specific level of immunity or protection from SARS-CoV-2 infection after the person has received a COVID-19 vaccination.”
The FDA’s position was reiterated by its advisory committee, in April 2022, whose members agreed that antibody levels are not a valid measure of immunity.
Why didn’t they answer the billion-dollar question?
The question of whether antibody levels are a correlate of protection is an important one that still remains unanswered. Interestingly, the authors of this study had an excellent opportunity to put this question to rest — but they chose not to.
At this time approximately 10 million children between the ages of 6 months and 11 years have received two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine at a cost of approximately $350 million dollars to taxpayers.
The U.S. government also purchased 170 million bivalent boosters at a presumed cost of several billion dollars.
The authorization of the COVID-19 vaccine primary series in children of this age range was not based on COVID-19 outcomes, only on an immune response.
And in the case of the bivalent booster, the authorization was based on an immune response in a handful of mice.
The authors of the JAMA study noted that prior COVID-19 infection was an independent factor that was associated with vaccine-induced symptoms. Prior infection was established through self-reporting only.
The average time between vaccination and antibody testing was approximately four months.
Is there a reason why the participants were not asked if they had contracted COVID-19 during this period as well? With reactogenic (side effects) and immunogenic (antibody levels) data obtained for nearly 1,000 participants, it is puzzling that the study design was not extended to resolve the debate about whether or not immunogenicity is associated with vaccine efficacy.
Why did these National Institutes of Health-funded researchers choose not to answer this question definitively and instead make the unfounded claim that their “findings support reframing of postvaccination symptoms as signals of vaccine effectiveness?”
I will answer my own rhetorical question.
If higher antibody levels resulted in a lower incidence of COVID-19, this could mean that systemic side effects are associated with better protection. This would lead to more questions, such as, are males and Pfizer recipients less protected?
If there were no difference in COVID-19 incidence, this would prove that antibody levels are not a surrogate for protection — which would destroy the justification of authorizing the pediatric vaccine and the bivalent booster.
The authors’ conclusion that symptoms are signals of vaccine effectiveness is not only unfounded and reckless, but it also puts them in a difficult position.
If females had systemic reactions more frequently, aren’t they admitting that males are less protected?
If systemic symptoms occurred more with Moderna than with Pfizer, doesn’t that mean that Pfizer’s formulation isn’t as effective?
What about those who had no symptoms after the jab? Should they be worried that they aren’t as protected?
Dr. William Schaffner, a professor in the Division of Infectious Diseases at Vanderbilt University Medical Center and medical director of the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases, told CNN:
“I don’t want a patient to tell me that, ‘Golly, I didn’t get any reaction, my arm wasn’t sore, I didn’t have fever. The vaccine didn’t work.’ I don’t want that conclusion to be out there. …
“This is more to reassure people who have had a reaction that that’s their immune system responding, actually in a rather good way, to the vaccine, even though it has caused them some discomfort.”
In other words, there is apparently no downside to getting the COVID-19 vaccine. If you didn’t suffer any symptoms, good! If you did, that’s good, too.
Schaffner’s sanguine framing of the “discomfort” that occurs after inoculation may be acceptable to some. I wonder how it sits with the 1 in 4 vaccine recipients who either were unable to participate in daily activities or missed work or school, or the nearly 8 in 100 who sought medical attention after vaccination?
Pitt, the Younger
Trumped, Dated and Pitted…
There have loads of images on TV showing people being injected. Some vaccinators pushed the syring in at a usually upwards angle, fewer downwards, some pinched a fold of skin some stretched it, thousand were vaccinated through car windows. It seems (from reading goggle searches) the syringe should be plunged in straight. I never spotted any aspiration going on yet men have been described as usually having blood vessels nearer the skin in their heavier muscle. …… shouldn’t there have been standard training and supervised injections at the trial stage? Considering the speed and stress vaccinators were put under there must have been a lot of variation in skill and technique when given by newly recruited vaccinators
AstraZeneca vaccine: pull back or push through?
Pieter J. GaillardClick here to view Pieter J. Gaillard’s profile
Published Apr 8, 2021
From (English version of post in Dutch from April 6, 2021)
Spoiler: the plunger of the syringe must be pulled back before the vaccine can be pushed through
Doctors are trained to first check that the needle has not accidentally hit a blood vessel when administering intramuscular vaccinations in the upper arm. This is done by pulling back the plunger of the syringe after inserting the needle into the arm. If there is blood in the syringe, then the injection must be reinserted with a new needle. Otherwise, the vaccine may well enter the bloodstream, whereas the vaccine is intended to end up locally in the muscle. From the muscle, at most, it then ends up in (dendritic) cells of the immune system and the regional lymph nodes. Sometimes traces of the injected material can still be found in the spleen.
To aspirate or not to aspirate?
A number of years ago, there was a lengthy medical debate internationally about the usefulness and necessity of this procedure [1, 2]. Particularly for vaccinating children. After all, the extra step possibly causes more pain, takes (a little) longer and, when blood is found, the jab has to be made again. This has to be done with a new needle and, according to some, with a new dose of the vaccine. Annoying and a waste, so preferably not. This unintentional puncturing of a blood vessel occurs in only one out of every thousand injections. The consequence is that the vaccine may be less effective. All this together was ultimately the decisive factor in changing the worldwide recommendation for intramuscular vaccinations to: “Checking for puncture of a blood vessel prior to vaccine injection is not necessary” . With this instruction, most physicians, assistants, and nurses will not simply abandon their familiar routine of aspiration (pulling back the plunger), but for the newly recruited group of vaccinators who will be injecting the large numbers of corona vaccines, this may well be the new norm. As a result, there will be sporadic cases of vaccine accidentally entering the bloodstream.
Adenovirus vector vaccines have never been used on this scale before
BUT, the current corona vaccines have a fundamentally different composition than the classical vaccines on which this policy is based. AstraZeneca’s vaccine is a so-called vector vaccine, based on an adenovirus . Just like Janssen’s vaccine, by the way . And when an adenovirus is administered into the bloodstream all kinds of effects do occur. From the extensive experience gained with gene therapy based on adenovirus particles, it is known that, depending on the dose, concentration and injection speed, acute reactions in the bloodstream can occur. And these reactions induced by the particles are undesirable and potentially dangerous and harmful to the body. Reactions have been described such as the production of inflammatory factors (cytokines and chemokines), complement factors, coagulation problems, hemodynamic changes, liver damage and thrombocytopenia [6, 7, 8, 9, 10]. The specific receptor interaction between adenovirus particles and platelets has also been extensively described in the scientific literature [11, 12].
It is therefore at least remarkable that in the entire development process of these corona vaccines based on adenovirus vectors no attention was paid to the possible consequences of a situation that an intramuscular injection would unexpectedly (partly) enter the bloodstream. The possibility is not mentioned and does not appear to have been investigated, and in any case the results have not been published in the publicly accessible part of the registration dossier . It is also remarkable and worrisome that our regulatory agencies have not missed this information and do not seem to have requested additional studies in this matter . After all, we are talking about a new type of vaccine platform with which we want to inject virtually the entire world population in record time. Without having been able to build up broad experience and available user data at that scale. And then you can’t rely on the simple assumption that an intramuscular injection will end up 100% local at all times. Certainly not when it was well known from the “aspirate or not aspirate” discussion that a blood vessel is hit from time to time.
Had this possibility been foreseen and investigated, and had the results of that investigation been known, then the adjusted advice would undoubtedly have been: “Checking for puncture of a blood vessel prior to injection of the vaccine is not necessary”. From the principle of caution, the advice should have been based on this anyway and should only be adjusted after thorough research that the specific vaccine does not cause any problems in the bloodstream. In England they even included a separate box on the registration form to indicate whether or not there was blood to be seen after the injection!
Meanwhile, in practice, it has become painfully clear that there is a chance that the AstraZeneca vaccine causes a rare and serious side effect in the blood. One with coagulation problems and thrombocytopenia, in some cases even fatal . Could this be due to the rare situation where the adenovirus vaccine accidentally entered the bloodstream? We don’t know. Because we have not investigated it and it has not been controlled for. This has also not been reported for the lipid nanoparticles used in the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. These types of lipid nanoparticles are also known to cause allergic reactions in the bloodstream known as complement activation-related pseudo-allergy when administered quickly and in high concentration therein , and also lipid nanoparticles can transfect thrombocytes .
As always, these effects are dose, concentration, rate and time-dependent. So if it is directly relevant and related to any specific product is to be investigated and confirmed or excluded. The models and experience to do that are all available. At the April 7 press conference, EMA said they discussed extensively on the topic. Their experts confirm the possibility of intravenous exposure, and state that they deem the volume too small to cause any effect. We can be eagerly awaiting the experimental evidence for this assumption and hopefully learn from these EMA experts what would happen to the thrombocytes that actually happen to get transfected by the lipid nanoparticles or vector vaccins through the receptor for the adenovirus expressed thereon.
……. Or should the vaccine with these side effects, if proven linked to them, be pulled back completely? Or only be used for people over 60 years old where the side effect has not (yet) been observed much? And why is that, what is the mechanism behind it? We don’t know.
If in doubt, don’t get it?
Some of the people who are now allowed or obliged to receive the shot now look at it differently. There is doubt, and doubters vote with their feet. Their confidence in the safety of the vaccine has been breached. Especially when the cause is unknown. It no longer matters that the chance of an adverse reaction is very small. Then people make the independent choice based on the simple consideration of whether or not to take the risk. Even if the experts keep explaining that it is a negligible chance.
……..hoping for more clarity and clarification about the cause of the perils surrounding the vaccines. And, of course, for new instructions to the vaccinators to check for the puncture of a blood vessel prior to injection.
Until then, my advice to everyone is to first have the plunger of the syringe pulled back and only then push through the vaccine. You are free to demand that of the person who injects the vaccine into your arm.
Steven Petrosino Lt. Col. USMC (Retired)
Spot on. With “unintentional puncturing of a blood vessel occurs in only one out of every thousand injections”, with 11.3 billion COVID immunizations given world-wide, and 563 million doses given in the USA alone, an incidence of 1 in 1000, amounts to 11,300,000 intravenous administrations of the vaccine world wide and 563,000 intravenous administrations of the vaccine in the USA.
Steven Petrosino Lt. Col. USMC (Retired)
Perhaps 563,000 (estimated) intravenous administrations of the vaccine could account for some of the listed (VAERS) AEs as a result of COVID-19 vaccination as of March of this year
Pieter J. Gaillard
Dr. John Campbell just informed me the big news that Germany’s Robert Koch Institute has updated the instruction for the injections to now finally include aspiration! See below from the most recent Epidemiologisches Bulletin:
Pieter J. Gaillard
In UK. Had my Moderna booster 17th Dec. Even after a very polite discussion, they refused to aspirate saying ‘we have to follow the protocol’. I got the distinct impression if they did not follow “THE PROTOCOL” they could get into trouble. The only study I have heard about (via Dr John Campbell) supported the argument that aspiration helps reduce side effects. If memory serves, that particular study showed risk reduction from 1 in 13,000 to 1 in 31,000. Of course more studies required.
I had virtually no side effects from the previous 2 Astra Zeneca jabs. Moderna was different. First 12 hours no problems at all. Then very painful and visibly swollen arm for 3 days, but worst of all could not sleep due to feeling in fight or flight mode. Felt like a lot of Adrenaline was flowing all the time. That lasted about 4 -5 days.
Interestingly, my 14 year old had her 2nd vaccination on the 5th Jan and when I asked the practitioner to aspirate she said no problem and calmly did it. Yesterday I took my 16 year old and I was literally interrogated over my request to aspirate. I was told that it was not current practice (which I knew), that they hadn’t done it for years, then a doctor was called who asked me why I was asking. I was questioned whether I was a medical professional (I had to admit to just a DPhil in chemistry) and it was suggested that I was asking for something that was potentially detrimental. Not content with my explanation, the doctor then turned to my daughter and asked her whether she was happy with what I was suggesting! Eventually the nurse did aspirate (she had to ask the doctor to supervise as she was not confident) and my daughter reported no more pain than usual for an injection. Two such different experiences but I was beginning to re-think my strategy if they refused!
While it still is strange most counties don’t aspirate, looking at advice of New Zealand, no need to aspirate, but when they see blood after the first shot they recommend revaccinating? That would mean a double dose or it would mean other people who just got one shot hitting a blood-vessel aren’t protected by that shot.
In theory that could mean people who got infected possibly died as the vaccin didn’t work doesn’t it?
Pieter J. Gaillard
………..However, that mistake made me think that if 1 on 50.000 injections result in Myochorditis (which means about 300 people in the Netherlands per vaccination round), next to that there could be a chance that 1 on 1000-6000 (estimations for hitting a blood-vessel) could possibly result in an ineffective vaccination..
The doubt of a vaccin being effective or not probably could even be a more important reason to aspirate or not?
By now, if Denmark is following their own advise to aspirate, there should be data available to compare.. Countries where aspiration is standard probably already had data to compare much longer. With all the research that is being done currently I would have expected some results by now. I can’t imagine no-one is looking into this.
I came across this article so in the U.S. there also are some doubts. Dr. John Campbell gets mentioned as you can see:
Pieter J. Gaillard
Dear Maurice Baenen, fortunately the recommended procedure is not as bad as you think. They mean to say that if one sees blood in the needle after aspiration, that blood-contaminated dose should not be injected and a new dose, using a new syringe, should be used. So there are no double doses administered. In case there was a dose inadvertantly injected into the bloodstream (without having first checked through aspiration), it is indeed not known or investigated if the vaccin is effective or not.
I requested the pharmacist to withdraw/aspirate before pushing in the vaccine into my adult son’s deltoid. She actually Jabbed and entered the possibly deltoid THEN she started pulling out the needle ( not aspirating) just as the needle was about to come out she pushed in the needle back and pushed the vaccine in. At the end, there was blood on my son’s arm. The pharmacist said “there was no blood in the syringe!” How could there be since she did not aspirate at all!
Pharmacist said that the blood on my son’s arm was because “there are always some capillaries which could bleed”.
The day before another pharmacist and nurse refused to aspirate and we had to leave the clinic.
This is frightening to me as a scientist and a former nurse professor.
Pieter J. Gaillard
The point is point 2.
Pieter J. Gaillard
And covered very nicely again by Dr. John Campbell on his YouTube channel:
Requested aspiration. Puzzled look from the nurse and some negativity but on producing an email from my doctor confirming I could have aspiration, off I was taken to the doctor to be jabbed accordingly. In my experience it was far less painful than the usual method. The doctor was very skilled and he talked through what he was doing so I could be sure aspiration was performed.The doctor told me on my initial approach a few months ago he had asked the head of the vaccination delivery programme in west of England and had been told I could have the vaccine either way. So if you want this service in the UK, I suggest you forwarn the doctor and get something in writing. Then with lots of smiles and good humour, you will hopefully get what you want. Best experience I have had at NHS in a very long time.
ALWAYS aspirate! I’m a retired nurse and have been shocked that those giving the Covid vaccines do not aspirate. I’ve had many a debate with those administering the vaccines. One answer was there are no blood vessels in the Deltoid. In that case why hasn’t your arm nectrotised and gone black. Some young men are getting myocarditis because the vaccine has been given intravenously. Young men, large muscle mass, a lot of them work out at the gym. I suggest those who think aspirating isn’t necessary go and read the research and let me know why it is that in countries where they DO aspirate there isn’t a single case of heart muscle damage. A councidence? I think not!
Kenneth AarKeith the risk assessment for vaccination was based on conventional vaccines and 7years of testing.resulting in a protocol based on what was being injected. What is being injected now had very limited and flawed testing and is a totally different type of vaccine therefore the protocol is invalid!!!!
I agree we should aspirate, but there are also cases of heart muscle damage in countries where they do aspirate. But the rate is over twice as high in countries that do not. According to Professor in Microbiology Niels Høiby in Denmark, who is working on a study compaing Norway (does not aspirate) and Denmark(does aspirate) the rate is 2,4 times higher in Norway.
Jennifer PinchThanks for explaining that. I agree from a layman point of view that the vaccine should be administered to bulk of the muscle as it is by definition an intramuscular not and intravienous treatment. I believe that the reasons for choosing the deltoid muscle is because of the reduced size/quantity?of blood vessels compared to other muscles. However there are potentially a number of serious effects from the vaccine entering the blood stream. A number of countries already use aspiration as the best means of minimising that risk. As a person who has spent more than 25 years professionally in endeavours requiring professional risk assessment, I think aspiration is a no brainer to reduce risk for next to no cost
See more comments
To view or add a comment, sign inTo view or add a comment, sign in
I don’t know what happened but I stopped receiving the newsletters.
There’s a log to catch up.
Thank you for your invaluable dedication.
the newsletters stopped happening
So I’ll keep coming here. No problem.
…any noises about it.”
Dr Aseem Malhotra
Better still, keep them away from everyone until the raw data is released for independent analysis.
The disastrous legacy left by lockdown as non-Covid excess deaths overtake Covid deaths
When Britain first locked down on March 23 2020, the average daily death rate from Covid was around 213, triggering understandable alarm and the ushering in of strict restrictions.
Now a similar number of unexpected deaths are occurring each day, the majority of which are not primarily caused by coronavirus.
Yet there is largely silence from the government and health service.
Data from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) shows that in the past six months there have been more excess deaths from causes other than Covid, than deaths ‘due to’ coronavirus for the entire year.
Figures reveal there were 18,394 deaths ‘due to’ Covid recorded this year in England and Wales. But since May there have been 23,195 excess deaths where the primary cause was another condition.
Some of those people did die with a coronavirus infection, but it was not the main reason for the death.
Experts continue to argue over the reasons behind this recent uptick in unexpected deaths, which shows no sign of slowing.
But it is likely that collateral damage from the pandemic, coupled with long term NHS problems, have collided into a perfect, and deadly, storm.
Amitava Banerjee, Professor of Clinical Data Science and Honorary Consultant Cardiologist at the Institute of Health Informatics, University College London, recently completed work showing how admissions for heart problems declined steeply during the pandemic.
In 2020, there were 31,064 fewer hospital admissions for heart patients, 14,506 fewer emergency admissions and 16,560 fewer elective procedures compared to 2016-2019 in England, Scotland and Wales.
Elective admissions were still down in 2021, with 10,996 fewer operations but, alarmingly, emergency admissions for heart problems had increased by 25,878.
Prof Banerjee fears that the indirect effects of the pandemic will turn out to be greater than the harm from Covid itself, and that it is vital for future preparedness planning to take into account long-term outcomes.
“Treating and preventing underlying diseases is not a can that should be kicked down the road,” he said.
“We should never ever have had a pandemic preparedness team that did not consider the indirect and long-term effects. Traditionally, it has been virologists and infection specialists, but with a pandemic of this scale across so many countries, that is not fit.
Indirect effects will lead to more deaths
“We focussed on the direct effects of excess deaths from Covid but from the beginning it’s likely the indirect effects will lead to more deaths, and more morbidity and more economic impacts than Covid deaths itself.”
Some experts have argued that the figures may not be quite as worrying because the ONS does not take into account population changes, simply comparing weekly figures to the expected five year average (excluding 2020). As the population ages, more people would be expected to die each year.
However other measures which do take the ageing population into account are also showing worrying rises in excess deaths.
A recent report from the Institute of Actuaries Continuous Mortality Investigation (CMI) showed that in the third quarter – July, August and September – Britain saw the highest mortality since 2010.
Cobus Daneel, Chair of the CMI Mortality Projections Committee, said: “The third quarter of 2022 saw unusually high mortality for the time of year – higher than any third quarter since 2010.
“There were more deaths than expected from non-Covid causes. This contrasts with most of the pandemic period, when non-Covid deaths were lower than expected.”
The situation is all the more unusual as mortality rates should have fallen after the pandemic because so many people died early, an effect known as ‘harvesting.’ Instead we are seeing the reverse trend.
The government has made a half-hearted attempt to find out what is going on with excess deaths, asking for a report from the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities (OEHD).
The report showed a worrying increase in deaths in people who had heart complaints and diabetes, many of which were preventable.
Recent reports have found that people hospitalised with Covid-19 are more likely to suffer heart problems, particularly in the first month after their release, which could be leading to some of the excess.
Epidemiologist Veena Raleigh, a senior fellow at The King’s Fund, who recently investigated the probable causes for the excess believes this could be a real factor, along with NHS problems.
She told The Sunday Telegraph: “The continuing trend of higher numbers of deaths in England and Wales than expected (compared with previous years), apparent since the spring, is worrying.
“From April to mid-October there have been almost 30,000 excess deaths, of which one-third have been due to Covid-19 – a reminder that the virus remains a life-threatening risk.
Bulk of excess deaths are unexplained
“While some 3000 excess deaths occurred during the excessively warm summer periods, that still leaves the bulk of excess deaths unexplained.
“Deaths from cardiovascular disease and diabetes, in particular, show a significant excess; Covid-19 increases the risk of subsequent cardiovascular problems and could in part be driving excess deaths.
“An overstretched NHS coping with a large backlog of care and unprecedented pressures on emergency services could be another factor.”
Health experts are continuing to call for a full government investigation, with Dr Charles Levinson of the private GP service DoctorCall complaining that he had now been ‘ringing the alarm on this for months and months.’
But some experts believe it will be tricky to tease out which deaths should be included.
Prof Kevin McConway, Emeritus Professor of Applied Statistics, at the the Open University said: “There’s no way of going through the list of people who died and saying ‘This death is an excess death, this death isn’t’, because there’s nothing resembling a sensible way of deciding on an individual basis who would have lived and who would have died.
“That all makes any investigation of the reasons for the excess deaths rather difficult.”
However experts believe there is still too much attention being paid to the direct effects of Covid at the expense of the wider impacts.
Prof Banerjee said specialists should come together to pool their data on excess deaths in their field.
“What I see is still a focus on the direct effects of Covid,” he said.
“Nobody who is in charge of the NHS, or any of the new health secretaries, are making any noises about it.”
“They see what we see”
Is there a Top, UK Cardiologist, in the house…
Yes , there is a ‘top cardiologists in the house’
1 of 1
Public Event Invitation – Date Change – Has Big Pharma Hijacked Evidence-Based Medicine?
UK Medical Freedom Alliance firstname.lastname@example.org via mlsend.com
5:29 PM (22 minutes ago)
facebook twitter telegram
Change of Date to 14th November 2022
Due to recently announced, tube, rail and train strikes we have changed the date to Monday 14th November. The remainder of the event details remain the same.
Thank you to those that have purchased a ticket in support of this event. Whilst we hope that you can still attend we do understand that this new date might not work for everyone.
The original invite with the new date is shown below should you wish to purchase tickets and have not done so yet!
Please email email@example.com if you require a refund.
Public Event Invitation
‘Has Big Pharma Hijacked Evidence-Based Medicine?’
UKMFA are delighted to be sponsoring this exclusive in-person event with an award-winning consultant cardiologist and public health campaigner, Dr Aseem Malhotra.
Senator Ron Johnson
Hearing Dr. Peter McCullough has been stripped of his medical certifications. On what basis did this occur? He has dedicated his life to saving others. This is outrageous and must be reversed.
Dr Aseem Malhotra Retweeted
Anish Koka, MD
Stripping Cardiologist Peter McCullough of his medical credentials because of his views on COVID isn’t just shameful, it just minimizes the value of those medical credentials.
Dr. Peter McCullough is being progressively stripped of his medical credentials
Dr. Peter McCullough, one of the most respected doctors in the world, has been a beacon of light throughout this pandemic. His reward for speaking the truth? He’s being stripped of his credentials.
Peter McCullough is an author of 677 articles published in the scientific peer-reviewed journals. He’s one of the most respected cardiologists in the world.
‘I was terminated as the Editor-In-Chief of Cardiorenal Medicine and Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine after years of service and rising impact factors. There was no phone call, no board meeting, no due process. Just e-mails or certified letters.
Powerful dark forces are working in academic medicine to expunge any resistance to the vax.
Yesterday I was stripped of my board certifications in Internal Medicine and Cardiology after decades of perfect clinical performance, board scores, and hundreds of peer reviewed publications.
None of this will stop until there is a “needle in every arm.”