Date: 22 July 2020
Courtesy of the ANH. For the full article please visit link: (1)
Despite claims of transparency, we show you adverse event data are hidden in a black box
The World Health Organization (WHO) tells us there are 24 candidate vaccines currently being evaluated clinically in humans. In case you thought the pipeline might be a little light, the WHO assures us there are a further 142 candidate vaccines in pre-clinical evaluation.
The contenders for commercial vaccines are publishing their preliminary data, and there’s huge political and public pressure for one or more of these to be rolled out by the end of this or early next. Among those at the front of the pack are the following 5:
- Moderna/National Institute of Allergy mRNA-1273. We reported on this one last week. It’s a genetically engineered mRNA vaccine. As we reported, even in a very small trial of just 45 people, it produced significant and severe side effects in some and moderately severe adverse reactions in 80% of those vaccinated.
- Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine. This is based on a synthetic, genetically engineered chimpanzee adenovirus. Some argue that the Oxford vaccine is presently leading the vaccine race.While the trial results were promising from an immunogenicity viewpoint, the median age of the healthy participants was only 35, so we still don’t know much about how it might work on older people, including with comorbidities, who suffer the most serious cases of disease. Nor do we know much about how it affects those of non-white ethnicity, given 91% of subjects were white. Surprisingly there were no comprehensive data on the Group 2/4 in which 489 volunteers were vaccinated with the genetically engineered chimpanzee virus vector. In short, the data are insufficient to allow independent evaluation of safety.
- CanSino Biologics/Beijing Institute of Technology. Like Moderna, CanSino has never produced a vaccine before, but it’s very well-funded and has the might of the Chinese government behind it. The project, as well as executives at CanSino, have strong ties with Canada. We know the vaccine is adjuvanted because the recently published Lancet paper tells us this much. But incredibly in our view, the Lancet paper omits to tell us what the adjuvant is. Is it an aluminium salt? Possibly, but we don’t know. As far as adverse events are concerned, 9% suffered severe ones at the highest dose, 1% at the lower dose. Putting that in perspective, assuming a country the size of the UK, even the lower dose, if exposed to 70% of the UK population, would elicit 466,550 severe adverse events based on these preliminary results. That’s over one and a half times more than have been confirmed infected by Covid-19 in the UK to-date.
- Pfizer-BioNtech’s BNT162b vaccine. The UK has ordered 30 million doses of one of two of the mRNA vaccines, whichever works best. But that’s dwarfed by a patriotic US order of 600 million doses.
- Zydus Cadila – ZyCoV-D vaccine. Another candidate we should all keep our eyes on is the all-Indian vaccine project, based on a plasmid DNA vaccine.
Transparency, or no trust
We’re moving rapidly towards a significant crossroads – one we can’t afford to be sleeping at the wheel at when we arrive. Those who believe (and right now, it’s about belief and not scientific evidence) that vaccines are our only way out of this pandemic and into some semblance of normality, better soon realise that transparency is going to be a prerequisite. Many who have been denigrated as ‘anti-vaxxers’ or vaccine-hesitants are simply those wanting more information, those who are concerned about the abominable lack of transparency around vaccine development and trials, or are parents or family members of those who have been vaccine-injured.
Hidden by a PR-machine intent on preparing people to roll up their sleeves is another critically important issue no one seems to be talking about. Where was the public debate on genetically engineered vaccines? Europeans have long been opposed to consuming genetically engineered foods – and many US states fought hard to force companies to label products containing genetically modified ingredients, albeit often unsuccessfully given the might of the pro-GMO lobby.
But at least foods are filtered through the digestive tract, including our very sophisticated intestinal mucosa and gut microbiome. Vaccines, including any adjuvants, other excipients and any free-loading contaminants bypass this sensing system. Many of the genetically engineered vaccines now heading the vaccine race do things we recently reserved for science fiction. They get our bodies to become the vaccine factories, having received information to do this from instructions issued by synthetic genetically coded material.
If you’re OK with all of this, that’s fine. But we believe you should be told and given all available information about the known risks and benefits, as well as about the composition of the medical treatment you’re being subjected to – before it’s given. That’s what medical consent is about – and it’s written into the rule book of every supposedly civilised nation, yet so often flouted in the case of vaccination.
We owe it to future generations to push the authorities to ensure we’re all provided with all the information we need to make an informed choice prior to being exposed to such an unproven medical procedure that breaks all the laws of nature that have preceded us for around four and half billion years. This issue will come to a head if the G20 countries get to produce their desired new, chip-enabled, machine-readable immunisation record that will be as important as your passport if you want to move from your country of residence.