Vaccines
10 Things You Need to Know About Covid-19 Vaccines
Download English pdf here
Download Hebrew pdf here
Vaccines
Blog
Vaccines
Covid-19
Is It Possible to Claim That A Coronavirus Vaccine…
Dr. Gil Yosef Shachar
The following is a translation of Dr. Shachar’s article on his website חיסון לקורונה האם אפשר להיות רגועים שהוא באמת בטוח?
Vaccine for corona – Is it possible to claim that it is really safe?
By Dr. Gil Yosef Shachar (M.D.)
Before we talk about the safety of the vaccine, a few words about its effectiveness.
The companies that developed the vaccines, Pfizer and Moderna, reported 90-95% efficacy rates for their vaccine.
This is an effectiveness in preventing illness in the vaccinated person himself.
These companies do not yet have any information on whether the vaccine also prevents the vaccinated person from infecting others. The chief scientist of the Moderna company said this himself.
Theoretically there may be a situation where the vaccinated person is exposed to the virus, but does not feel any sign of illness and therefore does not maintain social distance, etc., he meets people, including people at risk, such as the elderly and may infect them, while the unvaccinated person will experience signs of illness. As such, they will stay at home until the end of the disease and will not infect people in risk groups!
Perhaps the unvaccinated can actually protect the population at risk, more than the vaccinated! This is of course a hypothesis. We do not yet have data to answer the question of effectiveness in preventing infection.
We also do not know whether the vaccine will reduce severe morbidity and mortality in the elderly (who are the most important and most vulnerable population to the coronavirus), as these companies did not release accurate data on how many people over 80 participated in the study (average corona mortality is around 80 and they are the population most susceptible to the virus). Corona vaccine manufacturers have not released any specific information on the effectiveness of the vaccine among this age group.
But suppose the vaccine is indeed very effective for all age groups.
And suppose it also prevents infection.
It is quite possible that this will become clear.
Let’s talk for a moment about its safety.
Although the vaccine has not been tested on breastfeeding women and the companies that develop the vaccine explicitly state that they do not know whether the vaccine components pass through breast milk, the director general of the Israeli Ministry of Health has already issued a puzzling statement that there is no problem vaccinating breastfeeding women!
No one in the world knows what effect the vaccine components have on a baby at two days, two weeks, or two months old and whether it causes them such and such side effects, since the vaccine has not been tested on infants and newborns.
(We also do not know what the ingredients of the vaccine are, which is an issue in itself … Pfizer and Moderna did not specify the full list of ingredients of their vaccines)
So to make a statement that there is no problem in vaccinating breastfeeding women, in my opinion it is really irresponsible.
This statement by the Israeli Ministry of Health raises the concern that the Ministry of Health does not have a “responsible adult” who really examines the data carefully, considers them carefully and tries to observe the most basic rule in medicine: “First, do no harm.”
The feeling is that there is a gallop forward here, without looking right and left and who knows, maybe out of a conscious decision to absorb victims who might be trampled from the wild gallop to the finish line.
This is doubly puzzling, when reading that the British Ministry of Health explicitly writes that in light of the lack of information on the safety of vaccines for infants and newborns and in light of the lack of information on whether the vaccines pass through breast milk, breastfeeding women should not be vaccinated.
You can read the guidelines of the British Ministry of Health for the Corona vaccine at this link REG 174 Information for UK Health Professionals (On page 6, in section 4.6 you can see the guideline regarding breastfeeding women).
Regarding vaccine safety in general and not just for babies, there are some questions we do not have unequivocal answers for now:
Some of the questions are relevant to each vaccine and some are unique to the Corona vaccine.
First question:
The vaccine causes our body cells to produce one of the corona virus proteins.
Immune cells recognize the foreign protein and develop antibodies against it.
Here the question arises, can we be sure that there is no protein in the human body that is similar to this protein?
That is, there may be a condition called cross-reactivity in medicine – a condition in which the antibodies created against the corona virus protein will also attack body proteins that are sufficiently similar to the virus protein.
The antibodies will not differentiate between the foreign protein and our protein, a part of which may be very similar to the virus protein.
That is, there is a concern here about the formation of an autoimmune disease.
It is enough that only a section of the corona virus protein be similar (and does not even need a full identity) to a section of any protein in our body, for such a reaction to be generated.
If such a thing happens, the autoimmune disease, in which the immune system attacks tissues in our body, can appear even after many months and even years after the first exposure.
As is well known, the decision to approve the corona vaccines for mass vaccination of the population was following a study of a few months, so at this stage there is no way to know whether autoimmune diseases may develop.
It is important to note that this question is relevant not only to the corona vaccine, but in fact to any vaccine.
Indeed, a significant number of scientific studies have found an association between vaccines and autoimmune diseases. In some consumer leaflets of certain vaccines, it is even listed as a possible side effect that has been found and reported following the vaccine.
It is also worth noting that sometimes a virus or bacterium (not a vaccine) causes the body to produce antibodies, which attack not only the foreign invader, but also cells in our body and cause autoimmune disease.
This is the case for example in Rheumatic Fever disease in which in some people, probably with an early genetic predisposition to it and a specific mutation in DNA, the body produces autoantibodies in response to exposure to the streptococcal bacterium.
This is also what probably occurs in Gillian Barre syndrome and autoimmune thrombocytopenia (ITP) and there are other examples of this mechanism of autoimmune disease formation.
Will the specific protein chosen by corona vaccine manufacturers (out of so many proteins to choose from) cause such a cross-reactivity response and autoimmune disease?
For now we have no answer to that.
The second question for which we do not have an answer for now is: do the vaccine components penetrate our brain?
The blood vessels that feed the brain are made up of another layer in the artery wall, called the blood brain barrier – or in Hebrew ‘the cerebral blood barrier’.
The body wanted to protect the most sensitive and important organ and prevent the passage of substances that could damage the brain cells, so the blood vessels that supply the brain have an additional protective layer, which other blood vessels in the body do not have to prevent substances that can damage the brain from penetrating.
Do the vaccine components penetrate the cerebral blood barrier?
Have they checked it out at all?
We do not know. Corona vaccine manufacturers have not released any data on this.
The third question is unique to corona virus vaccines: mRNA vaccines
A brief background to understand the question:
All the vaccines we know to this day are vaccines that contain the virus / killed bacterium, or the attenuated one, or parts of it (for example only its shell and the like).
That is, the foreign protein, against which the body is supposed to produce antibodies, is found in the bloodstream and not inside our healthy cell.
Immune system cells that are designed for this exact function, reach the same foreign protein that is in the bloodstream, assimilate it into their shell and present it to the white cells that are responsible for the production of antibodies.
In the case of an mRNA vaccine, this is a completely different mechanism.
A molecule that is not a protein (but a genetic code) is injected into the blood, which enters a body cell.
Because mRNA is not a protein, no antibodies are produced against it at all. (Antibodies are produced only against proteins).
The mRNA that has penetrated a cell in our body uses our healthy cell to produce the protein it encodes. In the case of the corona vaccine, it is one of the corona envelope virus proteins.
Now the same cell, displays this foreign protein on its cell envelope.
White cells recognize a foreign protein on our cell envelope and produce antibodies against it.
Here the question arises, do the white cells really know that it is our body’s cell and that they should produce antibodies only against the foreign protein presented to them or, G-d forbid, they will treat the presenting cell as a foreign cell and also produce antibodies against other proteins on the cell envelope.
It is honest to ask, why do I not ask this question about the cells of the immune system that display foreign protein, something that happens every day?
How can the immune system not see the cells that display the foreign protein as an invader that must be destroyed in its entirety?
The answer is that when there is a foreign protein in the bloodstream, the cells that will assimilate it into their shell, are the cells of the immune system that is the job assigned to them: introducing foreign proteins into the antibody-producing cells.
The cells that produce the antibodies know that it is “in our power” and do not produce antibodies against all the proteins that display the cell, but only against the foreign protein that is presented to them.
But here, in the new vaccine for corona, the mRNA vaccine, for the first time in the history of vaccines, the one that is introducing the foreign protein is a different cell! A normal cell from our body and not a specific cell that the cells of the immune system know is its function!
That is, the immune system may think it is an invader and attack the entire cell and not just the foreign protein.
Here, too, the result may be an autoimmune disease.
Is this a real concern or is it part of a conspiracy theory of “vaccine opponents”?
The answer to this question was written by Dr. Michal Haran, a senior hematologist at Kaplan Hospital.
She wrote this in a post she posted on her Facebook page and it is available to the public.
She phrased it in a clear and understandable way to all.
I have brought here her words, as they say. Word for word.
Every other word is unnecessary.
Dr. Michal Haran’s reference to the uncertainty regarding the safety of mRNA vaccines and the possibility of developing autoimmune diseases following the corona vaccine:
Today, I finished writing (together with other doctors and experts) a stand paper that addresses the possible risks of the new vaccines in technology that has not been tested so far in humans. In the days when they were corrected this discussion would have stayed between doctors, there were committees and there were decisions that take into account all the considerations.
Except that these are not days as their repair and we have already been informed that they started providing these vaccines in other places in the world and very soon probably here too.
The newspapers and social media are full of explanations about the safety of vaccines compared to the serious disease caused by the coronavirus. They say loosely that there may be some unreasonable risks, but these are null in compared to the dangers expected from infection with the virus.
So, my opinion is different and I think that the risk of the virus for most of the population is much smaller than the risk of providing a cure that has not passed the acceptable stages. The claim that vaccines are very likely to be effective in preventing serious illness or contagion and that there is no proof (yet) of possible damages are valid for any experimental medication and anyone involved in clinical trials knows how few medicines go through the bar of effectiveness and safety required, not to mention those that even the normal stages don’t Ensuring their safety and they are off the shelves within a year or two from the moment they started to be given to everyone.
Since most of the public doesn’t understand medicine or biology and it’s required to decide, when it’s pressure to get the vaccine I decided to explain the important things that are written in the paper of the stand in an understandable language to those who don’t have a medical background and I’d also be be happy to answer and explain things that are not clear enough.
The idea behind the technology of the new vaccines is a brilliant idea that wasn’t easy to implement either and I’m definitely taking my hat off to whoever managed to do it.
You need to understand that the immune system is built so that it knows how to differentiate between the cells of the body itself and foreign cells, so that it normally will not attack the body’s cells, but once there is a foreign cell (for example a bacteria or virus that is not really a cell) it will attack it.
The method developed causes muscle cells to produce protein belonging to the virus and present it on the cell envelope. Meaning that turns muscle cells into foreign cells, temporarily, only until the immune system cells realize that they need to produce antibodies against them.
The problem is that I don’t know how we will explain to the cells of the immune system that the foreign cell they need to attack is not really a foreign cell, but a normal and healthy muscle cell and that they need to produce antibodies only against the protein of the virus and not against other protein that are next to it It’s not just a theoretical concern, but a familiar phenomenon from the field called cancer immunotherapy. One of the dangers in patients with advanced cancer receiving medications designed to activate the immune system against cancer cells is the development of self-antibodies to the point of serious and dangerous autoimmune diseases.
We need to understand that once antibodies are created against the muscle cells that are in the arm (the place of injection) they will also act against the same protein in other muscles. The skeleton muscles are an important and essential system without which there is no life. Each of the protein found on the membrane of the muscle cell (which is some of them and the complex relationship you can see in the attached fig) is essential and injury to it will bring a disease that can be difficult and deadly.
A lot of these diseases won’t manifest immediately, but only after a few years.
It is possible that now, in a patient who will receive the vaccine there will only be very light and not alarming signs: a little muscle pain, a light weakness, difficulty in breathing in an effort (all of them are easy side effects and tolerable in the studies done on these vaccines) and maybe even nothing.
If you want to know what might happen when only one protein is damaged, ask the parents of a child with a disease called Duchene muscular dystrophy. They will tell you that their child was born healthy and evolved as usual until the age of a year and then there were very small things that triggered a bit of concern until at the age of 4-5 he started slowly losing abilities like getting up from the floor, jumping, later also walking and within about ten years he was confined to a wheelchair Respiratory. https://www.littlesteps.org.il/%D7%A2%D7%9C-%D7%94%D7%9E…/
Ask, rightly, why if this is such a significant problem, you thought about it and not any of the other doctors (including those who planned the experiments in the pharmaceutical company). Maybe the reason for this is because unfortunately I personally knew a charming and dedicated doctor to patients who due to a much more familiar vaccine and considered safe, developed a serious and progressive muscle disease that resulted in his death within 10 years. He may have received financial compensation for it, but how can you really compensate a person for the destruction of life?
Maybe this is because I also have a rare autoimmune muscle disease whose first episode was several months after I got the same vaccine. Although, in my case the connection is much less clear, but naturally when you’ve been dealing with this kind of disease for years, you know firsthand what it is all about.
Maybe the reason for this is because of the (somewhat unusual) combination of being a hematologist, who also deals with research (and I have quite a few publications on the subject) of these two systems (the muscle system and the immune system) I understand that it is two most complex systems that today we know about 10 times [more]. From what they knew when I was a medical student 30 years ago, and it’s pretty clear to me that in 30 years we’ll know 10 times more than we know and maybe then we won’t be able to understand and know everything.
I also know from past experience how brilliant people are looking for solutions to difficult problems, not always in the enthusiasm that floods them are able to think about the difficult and unexpected results that may be the result of their interference in complex biological systems that none of us really understand about Borane. And this is an unfortunate example from my field of expertise. Genetic therapy designed to cause bone marrow cells to produce a protein that is lacking in a disease called SCID (which is known in the general public as a disease of bubble children, because these are children with severe immune lacks that may die from any banal infection), caused some of the children who received it to get severe blood cancer after 3-6 years. Fortunately this treatment was only given to a very small number of patients while being followed over a number of years. When it comes to a small number of patients, you can learn from the mistakes and fix. But how will it be possible to learn from the mistakes when treatment is given to millions around the world? Why Gene Therapy Caused Leukemia In Some ‘Boy In The Bubble Syndrome’ Patients
Source: Michal Haran’s Facebook post on December 6, 2020
So far, the words of Dr. Michal Haran, a senior hematologist at Kaplan Hospital.
And finally – a point to think about:
The degree of caution and certainty regarding the safety of a medical procedure must be very great, especially when it comes to a procedure designed for healthy people.
When a person is ill with a life-threatening illness, we often give up clear evidence of safety and settle for the chances of success, because in any case there is nothing to lose.
But this is not the case when it comes to the procedure for healthy people.
For them there is a lot to lose.
In such a case, we need a very high certainty that the procedure will not harm them.
We can compromise on efficiency, but not on safety (if it does not help, at least it will not hurt).
Do we have enough data to say with confidence that corona vaccines meet the required safety threshold of a medical procedure designed for healthy people?
your,
Dr. Gil Yosef Shachar (M.D.)
Important clarification: This article should not be seen as a recommendation not to get vaccinated against corona. It is certainly possible that in certain risk groups, where there are high mortality rates, or severe morbidity in the case of corona infection, the benefit of the vaccine is worth the risk of side effects that may or may not occur.
The purpose of this article is to stimulate a legitimate and desirable discussion on the safety of the corona vaccine and to raise questions that are worth considering and present the essential question marks that exist regarding mRNA vaccines.
Covid-19
חיסון הקורונה של חברת פייזר
חיסון הקורונה של חברת פייזר
(M.D) מאמר של ד”ר גיל יוסף שחר
? האם באמת יש לו יעילות של 90%
מה לא גילו לנו על החיסון וחשוב מאוד שנדע? חברת פייזר הודיעה שלחיסון הקורונה שלה יש 90% יעילות
זה מה “שצעקו” כותרות העיתונים ומהדורות החדשות . ממשלת ישראל כבר הודיעה על רכישת 8 מיליון מנות חיסון וזאת לאחר
שראש הממשלה פינה מזמנו ושוחח אישית עם מנכ”ל חברת פייזר, ימים
ספורים לאחר ההכרזה הדרמטית . מצד אחד כל הכבוד על הזריזות, אבל מצד שני – לפעמים החיפזון מן
השטן … לפני שמחליטים על רכישת חיסון )בעלות כספית שלא פורסמה( ובטח
ובטח לפני שאנחנו מפשילים שרוולים ומתחסנים, כדאי שנדע כמה עובדות
על החיסון החדש כנגד וירוס הקורונה, כדי ששכרנו לא יצא בהפסדנו . אז למענכם, לא התעצלתי וקראתי בעיון את מסמך פרוטוקול המחקר של
חברת פייזר ) 148 עמודים(, על מנת לראות מה באמת הם בודקים, איך הם
בודקים ובמיוחד מה הם לא בודקים במחקר הזה . בתחתית מאמר זה, תמצאו קישור לפרוטוקול המחקר של חברת פייזר בו הם
מתארים לפרטי פרטים את המחקר על חיסון הקורונה .
אז הנה העובדות לגבי המחקר על חיסון הקורונה : נתחיל מההצהרה לתקשורת . יעילות של 90% . לא בדיוק . המחקר מבצעת חברת פייזר בימים אלו הינו מחקר efficacy ולא מחקר
effectiveness. חברת פייזר מצהירה על כך בעצמה בכותרת פרוטוקול
המחקר . בשפה העברית התרגום של שתי מילים אלו הוא זהה: ‘יעילות’, אבל מדובר
בשני דברים שונים לחלוטין . בקיצור נמרץ : efficacy בודקת את היעילות של הפרוצדורה הרפואית בתת האוכלוסייה
שנבחרה באופן קפדני ולא בהכרח מייצגת את היעילות שתהיה לפרוצדורה
בשימוש על כלל האוכלוסייה . effectiveness בודקת את היעילות של הפרוצדורה על כל קהל היעד שלה
ולא רק על תת אוכלוסייה שנבחרה בקפדנות ולא מייצגת נאמנה את קהל
היעד האמיתי של הפרוצדורה . כך שגם אם ה efficacy -של חיסון הקורונה הינו 90% , ה effectiveness -יכול
להיות נמוך משמעותית . הפער בין ה efficacy – לבין ה effectiveness -עלול להיות גדול במיוחד,
כאשר מדובר בפרוצדורות רפואיות שמיועדות לכלל האוכלוסייה, כגון חיסון,
אך במחקר הן נבדקו על תת אוכלוסייה ספציפית, שנבחרה באופן סלקטיבי
)כפי שנראה מייד, כך נעשה במחקר הזה על חיסון הקורונה( . את זה לא טרחו להגיד לנו . מי שרוצה להעמיק בנושא ההבדלים בין efficacy ו effectiveness, -להלן שני
קישורים למאמרים מדעיים המרחיבים על הנושא ]2 ,1[ נתון נוסף חשוב לגבי המחקר: המחקר מבוצע על 44,000 איש . חצי מתוכם מקבלים את החיסון וחצי מקבלים את הפלצבו . זו כמות מכובדת וראויה, אבל בואו נסתכל את מי בדיוק הם בודקים
Vaccines
How is the Covid-19 Vaccine Different from All Other…
What developing vaccines at “warp speed” really means
Vaccine development can ordinarily take as long as 15-20 years, including a lengthy period of animal testing to make sure that the vaccine is safe and effective. The initial development process requires iterative tests in animal models where adjustments are made along the way1. Many vaccines never even make it to the Phase III trials.
For the Covid-19 vaccine, however,
They are moving new technologies from the computer into the clinic at an unprecedented rate, and normally distinct phases of a drug program—preclinical animal models, clinical testing, and manufacturing —are happening all at once.
“It is like building an airplane while you are flying …” 2.
Human guinea pigs
That isn’t how vaccine testing normally happens. Regulators require that a manufacturer show a product is safe before it goes into people, and while it isn’t enshrined in law, researchers almost always check that a new concoction is effective in lab animals before putting human volunteers at potential risk 3.
Animal testing is important; previous coronavirus vaccine development was halted when it was discovered that the vaccines created a paradoxical immune enhancement response in animals where vaccinated animals challenged with the virus became sicker than they would have without the vaccine and died. 4. In the absence of animal testing, they are planning on doing these challenge studies on people5.
Telescoping testing timelines and approvals may expose all of us to unnecessary dangers related to the vaccine. While preclinical trials to evaluate the potential safety and efficacy of vaccine candidates are likely to include tens of thousands of patients, it is still unclear whether that number will be large enough and a trial will last long enough to evaluate safety for a drug that would be administered to so many. The US alone plans to vaccinate hundreds of millions of people with the first successful candidate. One serious adverse event per thousand of a vaccine given to 100 million people means harm to 100,000 otherwise healthy people 6.
On the dangers of a coronavirus vaccine
A 2012 paper, Immunization with SARS Coronavirus Vaccines Leads to Pulmonary Immunopathology on Challenge with the SARS Virus7 concluded:
Conclusions: These SARS-CoV vaccines all induced antibody and protection against infection with SARS-CoV. However, challenge of mice given any of the vaccines led to occurrence of Th2-type immunopathology suggesting hypersensitivity to SARS-CoV components was induced. Caution in proceeding to application of a SARS-CoV vaccine in humans is indicated.
Dr, Anthony Fauci, the head of President Trump’s Coronavirus Task Force had this to say:
‘I must warn that there’s also the possibility of negative consequences, where certain vaccines can actually enhance the negative effect of the infection.’ Dr Fauci later explained that in rare cases people vaccinated against a condition could end up contracting the virus they thought they’d been protected against, and falling more seriously-ill with that disease as a result8.
Well known vaccinologists, Dr. Peter Hotez and Dr. Paul Offit on the dangers of a coronavirus vaccine:
Regarding the mRNA vaccine, Professor Eric Caumes, head of the infectious and tropical disease department at a major Paris hospital said:
‘I have never seen such a high frequency’ of side effects from an injection, the head of the infectious and tropical disease department at a Paris hospital observed. Apart from minor injection reactions such as local redness and pain, other side effects occur at relatively high rates, especially in young people and after the second dose.
“Take the example of fever. It can occur transiently after an injection; it is classic. But here, 15.8 percent of 18- to 55-year-olds had a fever of 38 degrees Celsius or higher within seven days after the second injection. And 45 percent had to take medication for fever or pain. Another 55 percent had headaches and 62 percent were tired. No, really, that’s much too much, perhaps there’s a problem … ”
Caumes is also concerned that there is a lace of scientific data available regarding the vaccine trial results. He said that “he would never blindly trust the vaccine industry merely on their press releases”.
Professor Caumes is willing to be vaccinated against Covid-19, but not with an mRNA vaccine9.
Genetic vaccines never before approved for use in humans
No mRNA vaccine has ever been approved for use in humans before and they have never been tested in a large-scale clinical trial for an infectious disease. “The COVID crisis is a great opportunity for those technologies to be pushed”10.
mRNA vaccines, like those of Moderna (which has never yet had a product approved for market11) and Pfizer (that set a record for the largest health care fraud settlement and the largest criminal fine of any kind with $2.3 billion in 200912) work by providing the blueprint for the Covid-19 spike protein for the individual’s cells to reproduce. The body is then expected to create antibodies against the spike protein so that should the person come in contact with Covid-19, they will automatically have antibodies ready to combat it13.
It is a bit like wadding up plans for a Cessna, throwing them through the ventilation shaft of a Ford factory, and hoping that someone inside finds them, and that the factory starts rolling airplanes out its doors instead of pickups14.
Even more troubling is Moderna’ CEO’s own description of their products.
Moderna’s chief medical officer has described the company’s products as “hacking the software of life” and permanently altering a person’s genetic code”15.
Emergency Use Authorization
Both Moderna and Pfizer are applying for Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for their vaccines. EUA is given for investigational drugs or biological products [like vaccines] for a human subject in a life-threatening situation for which no standard acceptable treatment is available and for which there is not sufficient time to obtain IRB [independent revue board] approval16.
In this case, the Covid-19 virus is said to present a life threatening situation for which there is no treatment. However, September CDC statistics show that 99.9% – 99.5% of the people infected with Covid-19 under 70 years and 94.6% of people over 70 years recuperate17. Furthermore, proven therapies like hydroxychloroquine have been delegitimized and no longer approved for Covid-19 patients18’19.
No plant inspections
COVID-19 vaccine developers seeking FDA emergency use authorizations won’t have to undergo pre-approval site inspections, agency official Jerry Weir said at the FDA’s open meeting last week … The FDA conducts thousands of facility inspections per year, and some find flaws that drug or vaccine companies must remedy before launching new products.
…
Moderna, one of the leading vaccine developers, has never had a facility inspected by the FDA … 20.
A vaccine without purpose
Whereas, other vaccines designed to halt the transmission of communicable diseases, this is not the case with Covid-19 vaccines.
- Dr. Anthony Fauci explained that the main goal for coronavirus vaccines isn’t to block COVID-19 infections, but instead to stop severe cases and life-threatening complications.
- By stopping symptoms, the vaccine would prevent severe illnesses and save lives.
- Preventing COVID-19 infections entirely is a secondary goal for early vaccine candidates, Fauci said21.
Pfizer’s CEO says that he is not sure that their vaccine will not stop transmission22.
Further, scientists warn that:
… the trials are only investigating mild cases and not whether it will help the most vulnerable, according to a report by the British Medical Journal (BMJ).
BMJ associate editor Dr Peter Doshi said: “None of the trials currently underway are designed to detect a reduction in any serious outcome such as hospitalizations, intensive care use, or deaths.
“Nor are the vaccines being studied to determine whether they can interrupt transmission of the virus”23
Worrying signs
Netanyahu, who has spent billions of taxpayer dollars since June24’25 on not yet developed and approved vaccines, calling them a light at the end of the tunnel, said: “… I suppose we don’t know the long-term effect of an RNA vaccine on human beings …” 26
According to the FDA: “… currently there is not enough research to guarantee the vaccine’s safety for immunocompromised groups, pregnant women and children27.”
The FDA Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee October 22, 2020, Meeting Presentation has put out a draft list of possible adverse effects of Covid-19 vaccines.
“FDA Safety Surveillance of COVID-19 Vaccines – DRAFT – Working list of possible adverse event outcomes; ***Subject to change***”:
- Guillain-Barré syndrome,
- Acute disseminated encephalomyelitis,
- Transverse myelitis,
- Encephalitis/myelitis/encephalomyelitis/meningoencephalitis/meningitis/encephalopathy,
- Convulsions/seizures,
- Stroke,
- Narcolepsy and cataplexy,
- Anaphylaxis,
- Acute myocardial infarction,
- Myocarditis/pericarditis,
- Autoimmune disease,
- Deaths,
- Pregnancy and birth outcomes,
- Other acute demyelinating diseases,
- Non-anaphylactic allergic reactions,
- Thrombocytopenia,
- Disseminated intravascular coagulation,
- Venous thromboembolism,
- Arthritis and arthralgia/joint pain,
- Kawasaki disease,
- Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children, and
- Vaccine enhanced disease.28.
The U.K. government is concerned that there will be an unusually high volume of adverse events caused by the Covid-19 vaccines. In October their Medicines & Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), posted a bid for an AI software tool to help them “process the expected high volume of Covid-19 vaccine Adverse Drug Reaction (ADRs).” The bid explains that “it is not possible to retrofit the MHRA’s legacy systems to handle the volume of ADRs that will be generated by a Covid-19 vaccine,” and that this “represents a direct threat to patient life and public health29.
Vaccines and sterilization
Section 13 of all vaccine package inserts say that the vaccines haven’t been tested for carcinogenicity, genetic mutations, or impairment of fertility (some of tested fertility in mice, but never humans).
In June 2010, Bill Gates, in a TedTalk, discussed reducing the world population by 10-15%.
The world today has 6.8 billion people, heading up to 9 Billion. Now if we do a really great job on NEW vaccines, healthcare and reproductive health services [abortion], we can lower that [world population] by 10%-15%” [=1 billion people]30.
By “new vaccines” Gates was referring to contraceptive vaccines. A study, “Vaccines for Immunologic Control of Fertility”, was published shortly before his TedTalk31.
In 2014, a contraceptive vaccine was used on Kenyan, Philippine, Nicaraguan, and Mexican women and girls of childbearing age under the guise of a tetanus vaccine campaign (funded by WHO and UNICEF; both are heavily funded by the Gates Foundation32’33’34.
(This will “… put the Gates Foundation “in a position to potentially reap considerable financial gains from the COVID-19 pandemic …” 35)
Serious warnings about the Covid-19 vaccines causing infertility
Drs. Yeadon and Wodarg have petitioned the EUMA to stop the coronavirus vaccine studies immediately. Among their several concerns, is that one of the proteins, syncytin-homologous proteins, important to the development of the placenta, can possibly lead to infertility. “It must be absolutely ruled out that a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 could trigger an immune reaction against syncytin-1, as otherwise infertility of indefinite duration could result in vaccinated women”36.
The UK sent a 10 page informational document to healthcare workers regarding the Pfizer Covid-19 mRNA BNT162b2 Vaccine.
They had this to say about pregnancy, lactation, and fertility (emphasis added):
4.6 Fertility, pregnancy and lactation
Pregnancy
There are no or limited amount of data from the use of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2.
Animal reproductive toxicity studies have not been completed. COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine
BNT162b2 is not recommended during pregnancy.
For women of childbearing age, pregnancy should be excluded before vaccination. In addition, women
of childbearing age should be advised to avoid pregnancy for at least 2 months after their second dose.Breast-feeding
It is unknown whether COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 is excreted in human milk. A risk to
the newborns/infants cannot be excluded. COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 should not be used
during breast-feeding.Fertility
It is unknown whether COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 has an impact on fertility37.
In conclusion
- The Covid-19 vaccines are being developed at unprecedented speed by cutting corners for a disease that nearly everyone recovers from and for which there are treatments.
- Coronavirus vaccines come with inherent risk of making the disease worse.
- The vaccines are not expected to stop transmission and have not been tested to see if they even decreases hospitalizations or death.
- The FDA doesn’t have information to say that it is safe for immunocompromised people – the very ones who would be expected to benefit from a Covid-19 vaccine.
- There are serious concerns about it’s safety that will not be answered until millions of people receive it.
The only people poised to benefit from Covid vaccines seem to be the manufacturers and investors in these companies.
Is a Covid-19 vaccine worth risking your health or life for?
Footnotes
WHO
How a Terrorist Became Head of the World Health…
An unlikely background for a director general of the WHO
As detailed in our post, The Heinous Background of WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus1,
- Tedros Ghebreyesus (or Tedros as he prefers) is not a medical doctor despite the appellation. He is the first WHO director-general not to have a medical degree.
- As Ethiopia’s health minister, he is accused of covering up three cholera outbreaks, calling them cases of watery diarrhea.
- He was the third most important person in the terrorist organization, Tigrayan People’s Liberation Front (TPLF) and is said to have played a key role in the kidnapping of a prominent dissident as well as other atrocities.
Tedros Strange Praise of China
Did you ever wonder why Tedros praised China’s transparency at the start of the outbreak and said that China’s response to Covid was a model for other nations? At that time everyone else has been criticizing China’s handling of the epidemic, hiding it from the rest of the world, and silencing whistleblowers.
Consider the following.
Tedros Helped Indebt Ethiopia to China
Ethiopia has borrowed billions from China, reportedly including more than $13 billion during Tedros’ tenure as foreign minister between 2012 and 2016.
An editorial published by the Hill in mid-March pointed out:
We note China’s connections to Tedros’s homeland of Ethiopia, now called East Africa’s ‘Little China’ because it has become China’s bridgehead to influence Africa and a key to China’s Belt and Road initiative there. Indeed, China has invested heavily in Ethiopia2.
According to Yaakov Apelbaum of The Illustrated Primer, Tedros’s personal wealth had also been enhanced by China via foreign bank accounts3. 
China helped Tedros win the post of WHO Director-General
“Chinese diplomats had campaigned hard for the Ethiopian, using Beijing’s financial clout and opaque aid budget to build support for him among developing countries,”…Washington Post columnist Frida Ghitis similarly noted at the time that China “worked tirelessly behind the scenes to help Tedros defeat the United Kingdom candidate for the WHO job, David Nabarro. Tedros’s victory was also a victory for Beijing, whose leader Xi Jinping has made public his goal of flexing China’s muscle in the world4.”
China garnered support for Tedros from developing countries
According to Sunday Times columnist, Rebecca Myers, Chinese diplomats campaigned for the then-Ethiopian Foreign Minister, using Beijing’s financial clout and opaque aid budget to build support for him among developing countries. There were suggestions China would be pleased with any African or Asian heads for any UN agency because of the difficulties of dealing with more critical Westernized director-generals5.
This is why, shortly after his appointment to the position of director-general, he tapped Zimbabwe dictator and human rights abuser, Robert Mugabe, to become the UN’s “Goodwill Ambassador”.
Diplomats said his appointment was a political payoff from Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus — the WHO’s first African director-general — to China, a long-time ally of Mugabe, and the 50 or so African states that helped to secure Tedros’s election earlier this year6.
This is also why, shortly after the pandemic was declared, with all eyes pointing to China as the source of the virus, Tedros called it “misinformation”. At the Munich Security Conference, in mid-February 2020, when the majority of the cases of Covid-19 were in China and very few elsewhere, he said:
“We’re not just fighting an epidemic; we’re fighting an infodemic. Fake news spreads faster and more easily than this virus, and is just as dangerous.” And if we don’t tackle this, he went on, “we are headed down a dark path that leads nowhere but division and disharmony7.”
What happened in China with the discovery of the virus and how did the WHO respond?
Chinese authorities forced scientists who discovered the virus in December to destroy proof of the virus, U.K. newspaper The Sunday Times reported. The Chinese regime also punished doctors who tried to warn the public in the outbreak’s early stages and suppressed information about the virus online. A Chinese real estate mogul who criticized his government’s response has since gone missing.Approximately seven million people left Wuhan in January, spreading the virus all over China and all over the world, before China restricted travel to Wuhan on Jan. 22, The New York Times reported Sunday. One study found that “if interventions in [China] could have been conducted one week, two weeks, or three weeks earlier, cases could have been reduced by 66 percent, 86 percent and 95 percent respectively – significantly limiting the geographical spread of the disease.”
Tedros, however, had nothing but praise for the way China handled the pandemic, using it as an example that the rest of the world should follow. On February 14, the WHO tweeted: “Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel #coronavirus (2019-nCoV) identified in #Wuhan, #China.” On January 30, shortly after returning from a trip to Beijing and meeting with Xi, he tweeted: “China is actually setting a new standard for outbreak response”8. That was certainly true, but it wasn’t the standard the world wanted to see
In mid-February, members of the WHO emergency committee expected to be able to go to China to discover the source of the outbreak.
“If we don’t know the source then we’re equally vulnerable in the future to a similar outbreak,” Michael Ryan, the World Health Organization’s emergency director, had said that week in Geneva. “Understanding that source is a very important next step.”What the team members did not know was that they would not be allowed to investigate the source at all. Despite Dr. Ryan’s pronouncements, and over the advice of its emergency committee, the organization’s leadership had quietly negotiated terms that sidelined its own experts9.
In an effort to deflect criticism from China, the WHO may also have enabled the spread of the virus. Tedros permitted flights between Ethiopia and China, saying that closing travel can increase fear and stigma with little public health benefit. This was at a time when 59 other air carriers from 44 different countries halted flights to and from China10.
Tedros and the Gates Foundation
Tedros has also been supported for the position of director-general by Bill Gates, whose Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, along with the other WHO donors that he funds, basically controls the agenda of the WHO11.
From 2009 to 2011 Tedros Ghebreyesus was also the Director of the Global Fund, a program to fight AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, initiated by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, as well as the head of the UNAIDS Program Coordinating Board …
In a profile published in April 2010, The Lancet reported that he was “a household name at the Global Fund Secretariat” and that his achievements led to naming Ethiopia as an exemplary high-performing country.
A surprising conclusion, when one finds out that during his leadership, the use of international aid funds he supervised was very questionable.In 2012, an audit[19] of the Global Fund looked at the expenses of the aids, tuberculosis, and malaria program in several African countries, including Ethiopia who had received $1.3 billion in grants.
Inspector General John Parson, who was in charge of the audit, revealed a flagrant lack of transparency and numerous shortcomings in the accounting and management of the funds, to the point of suggesting a minimum payback of $7 million to the organization.
Above all, the investigation also showed a huge discrepancy between the results presented and the reality observed in Ethiopia during the field visits.
For example, 77% of the medical centers built did not have drinking water and 32% did not have sanitary facilities. Only 14% had a microscope or a delivery table, and only 12% had a pharmacy.
The report should have led to a series of measures ensuring more transparency and efficacy in the management of the program but, instead, the Inspector General and his findings were dismissed.
Obviously, good relationships with the leaders of African governments had a far greater importance.
It was also obvious to some of the WHO member states that Tedros did not have their best interests in mind, but the interests of the Gates Foundation.
When the candidates were interviewed before the votes, the Brazilian Ambassador asked Tedros how he intended to “represent the voice of developing countries by proposing a program that was much more aligned with the priorities of the countries of the North,” hereby referring to his approach of health through security (pandemic preparedness), and to treating ‘equality’ in terms of “coverage” (vaccines), rather than in the development of universal health systems (for example medical infrastructure and training or access to water).
He also remarked that Tedros had not proposed anything concrete in terms of sustainable development for vulnerable countries.
In fact, this “northern agenda” was very much aligned with the priorities of the Global Health Security Agenda, promoted by WHO’s four main funders and influencers: the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (14%), the United States (24%), the U.K. (11%) and GAVI, the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization which was again mainly funded by Gates (17%), the U.S. (11%) and the U.K. (31%)12.
Tedros was also a Board Member of GAVI13 of which the Gates Foundation was a founding partner and continues to heavily fund the organization14.
Bill Gates and the WHO
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) is the largest contributor to the WHO and the Foundation supports many other WHO donors. This essentially gives Gates the ability to control activities of the WHO, even if they are not consistent with the WHO mission, since non-member donors are allowed to earmark their contributions.
Gate’s relationship with the WHO began with the former WHO Director-General Margaret Chan15. Perhaps that’s why she lamented:
… such influence is the de facto determinant of priority setting of the WHO: … “(m)y budget [is] highly earmarked, so it is driven by what I call donor interests.”
Today,
… the BMGF together with GAVI contributed a collective 20.3%, including Rotary, a collective 23.6%, and even more when you include all the other earmarked voluntary contributions from organizations with which the Gates Foundation shares its financial largess. In this way, Gates has acquired enormous control over the WHO’s priority setting, more than any other member state including the US while still a member16.
Bill Gates and China
It is interesting to note, that Bill Gates is a huge supporter of China; he partners with the Chinese government in the areas of health, agriculture, computer technologies, and nuclear energy. In 2007, when the Foundation opened up an office in China; it declared:
Since the inauguration of our China office in 2007, we have been focused on unlocking that potential in a way that benefits China and the rest of the world. In working towards this goal, we continue to support China in overcoming domestic challenges, leverage China’s growing innovation capacity to supply high-quality, affordable health products to those in need, and assist China in becoming a stronger partner for global health and development17.
The Gates Foundation has helped to fund international cooperation projects of the Center for Global Public Health of the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention18. In 2015, the Gates signed a memorandum of agreement with CNNC [China National Nuclear Corporation] to build a miniature nuclear power plant.
Gates, chairmain of Bellevue-based TerraPower, signed an agreement Tuesday to partner with the company’s Chinese counterpart during a U.S.-China trade conference.
The nuclear power startup is trying to build a new type of nuclear reactor to harness the power of depleted uranium. Gates helped found the company in 2006. It’s spin-off of Intellectual Ventures, headed by former Microsoft Chief Technology Officer Nathan Myhrvold.
The nuclear power startup is trying to build a new type of nuclear reactor to harness the power of depleted uranium …
“The world does need a lot more energy,” Gates said. “By being a form of clean energy, (TerraPower’s system) can make a huge contribution to the global goal of having low-cost clean energy.” TerraPower has been working with CNNC for years, but Gates said Tuesday’s agreement was a “milestone in our relationship19.”
Gates has been a frequent visitor to China and has continually visited the University of Peking over the past twenty years. In March 2017, he spoke to the students there. Regarding his talk at the University, completely ignoring China’s dictatorship and long history of human rights violations he said this:
At a time when some countries seem to be turning inward and retreating from world affairs, China is primed to step up as a global leader. Building on its own successes—which include lifting hundreds of millions of people out of poverty, dramatically improving health, and investing big in clean energy—China can share what it has learned with the rest of the world20.
In December of that year he was one of ten “foreign experts” in engineering and technology who were elected as new members of the Chinese Academy of Engineering (CAE). The CAE is the People’s Republic of China’s elite society of technology professionals who have proven their service to the Communist Party of China (CPC) and the Communist State21.
While defending China’s problematic response to the Coronavirus pandemic and attempting to curb discussion about it, he had no compunction about castigating President Trump for his response.
The tech tycoon had previously taken a swipe at the president for publicly castigating China for its cover-up of the coronavirus. During a Sunday interview on CNN, Gates not only argued that it is not time to be questioning the Chinese Communist Party’s (CPC) efforts in handling the COVID-19 outbreak, but went so far as to dispel any wrongdoing by the communist regime:“China did a lot of things right at the beginning, like any country where a virus first shows up. They can look back and say where they missed some things. You know, some countries did respond very quickly and get their testing in place, and they avoided the incredible economic pain. It’s sad that even the U.S. that you would have expected to do this well, did it particularly poorly. But it’s not time to talk about that.
Gates’s TerraPower is one of the businesses that has been caught in the cross-hairs of and impeded by President Trump’s technology battle with China22.”
Tedros and Bill Clinton
In January 2006, Tedros, as Health Minister of Ethiopia, signed an agreement with the Clinton Foundation to expand their HIV/AIDS partnership.
“The support from Clinton Foundation is coming at a time when we are scaling up our fight against HIV/AIDS very aggressively in all three fronts: prevention, treatment and care and support,” said Dr. Tedros Adhanom, the Minister of Health of Ethiopia. “The agreement with the Clinton Foundation is also unique in that it includes capacity building of the health system which is very crucial in sustaining the fight as indicated in our strategic plan. I would like to use this opportunity to thank President Clinton for his commitment to fight HIV/AIDS.”Ethiopia has been a member of the Clinton Foundation procurement consortium since August 2004. The procurement consortium comprises over 50 countries in the developing world with access to the Clinton Foundation’s reduced prices for anti-retroviral drugs and diagnostic testing supplies. Ethiopia is the sixth African country in which the Clinton Foundation will have a permanent team23.
In 2007, while Tedros was Health Minister of Ethiopia, the Clinton Foundation received a $100,000,000 commitment from the Lundin Group for its Clinton Guistra Sustainable Growth Initiative. The Lundin Group makes its money from “blood minerals”, minerals allegedly mined in war zones or sold as commodities to help finance political insurrections or warlords”. Among the countries with which the Lundin Group cut deals with warlords was Ethiopia24. Apelbaum, of The Illustrated Primer, alleges that Tedros brokered the donation from the Lundin Group to the Clinton Foundation25.
At the 2014 Opportunity: Africa Conference, Bill Clinton commended Tedros saying:
“The Health Minister of Ethiopia, now the Foreign Minister, is one of the ablest public servants I’ve ever worked with. You would all be very comfortable if he became the Secretary of Health and Human Services in the United States. He’s a really able man26.”
Tedros was also a speaker at the 2015 Clinton Foundation Global Initiative and a panelist on a conversation about advancing the status of women and girls over the next 20 years. This was in celebration of the 20th anniversary of the 1995 4th World Conference on Women in Beijing.
Chelsea Clinton spoke with Chairman and CEO of Xerox Corporation Ursula Burns in a one-on-one conversation which preceded a panel featuring participants such as Executive Chairman of The Estée Lauder Companies William Lauder and Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus27.
The Clinton Foundation and the WHO
In 2004, the Clinton HIV/AIDS Initiative (CHAI) entered into an agreement with the WHO to
… jointly provide technical assistance on scaling up national HIV/AIDS care and treatment programs to developing country Member States of WHO….
The agreement will also help accelerate the pace at which countries receiving funds from the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria and the World Bank can access CHAI-brokered agreements for reduced prices.
“Because CHAI is a leader in negotiating breakthrough pricing for HIV/AIDS medicines and diagnostics, and WHO is the leading global authority in public health, our collaboration will significantly advance the goal of providing antiretroviral treatment to three million people by 2005,” said Ira Magaziner, Chairman of the Clinton HIV/AIDS Initiative28.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4870559/user-clip-clinton-foundation-acting-agent
This arrangement was illegal, as explained by Mr. Doylle, a Clinton Foundation whistleblower in the clip above and in this archived video; a US non-profit may not act as a broker for a foreign government or foreign company. The Foundation was not held accountable29.
The Clintons and China
The Clintons have a decades-long history of business and political relationships with Chinese individuals. The DNC illegally received donations from China while Bill was in the White House. Although these donations were returned, the offense was an impeachable one.
Chinagate, more than any other scandal, should have led to the impeachment, and removal, of Bill Clinton from office. At least six individuals were believed to have been used by the Chinese to influence the 1996 elections. Despite the fact that the illegal donations were returned, Janet Reno was criticized for never appointing an independent prosecutor for the Chinagate scandal.
…
Bill and Hillary Clinton continued this pattern of getting foreign donations from unethical businessmen with the Clinton Foundation30.
The Clintons help legitimize Communist China
Under Vice President Bush, China, previously ousted from the global economy, received observer status at the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), the predecessor to the World Trade Organization. However, it was only after Clinton normalized trade relations between the US and China in 2000, that China was enabled to become a founding member of the World Trade Organization in 2001.
Not only did this result in millions of US jobs lost to China, but it also paved the way for “the legitimizing of the brutal and corrupt Communist Chinese government31.”
Conclusion
We can now see how the personal and political interests of an American millionaire and billionaire and the Chinese Communist Party have enabled terrorist Tedros to become the Director-General of the WHO.
Why Gates, Clinton, and China were allowed to gain so much unfettered power is a question we should all be asking.
Featured image: A petition against electing Tedros to the position of WHO director general – https://www.change.org/p/we-oppose-tedros-adhanom-s-candidacy-for-director-general-of-who
Footnotes
Vaccine Safety
Vaccinologist Stanly Plotkin on the Safety of Vaccine Ingredients
The following clip is part of a 9 hour deposition. Renowned vaccinologist, Stanley Plotkin, was deposed by Aaron Siri, the lawyer for a divorced parent who went to court against her ex-husband on the matter of vaccinating their children. As a result of the deposition, Plotkin did not testify. YouTube transcript (edited) below.
Siri (S): Do any vaccines on the childhood schedule contain monkey kidney cells?
Plotkin (P): Well, the polio vaccine does.
(S): Are you aware of any simian monkey viruses, meaning viruses that come from primates, that contaminated polio vaccines and infected individuals receiving the polio vaccine?
(P): Yes, SV40.
(S): And what does SV40 stand for?
(P): Simian Virus 40.
(S): And what was it? The 40th simian virus found? Is that why it’s called?
(P): Yes.
(S): Are you aware of any virus from any animal other than simian or bovine that is in any vaccine?
(P): Yes, there’s a pig virus present in one of the rotavirus vaccines, Circovirus.
(S): Do any of the vaccines in the childhood vaccine schedule contain blood serum from calves or other bovines?
(P): Calf serum is removed before the vaccine is used because you don’t want to sensitize the vaccinee to cows
(S): What is this?
(P): Uh, Vaccine Excipient and Media Summary.
(S): Can you go to Kinrix on the first page?
(P): Yes
(S): DTaP IPV. Do you see in the third line down it says calf serum? Do any vaccines on the childhood schedule contain embryonic guinea pig cell cultures?
(P): Varicella vaccine was passaged in guinea pig cells
(S): Do you know of any vaccines contain cow’s milk in it, derived from it?
(P): Oh, well it could be, uh, casein for example could be.
(S): If there was casein in the vaccine the child could become sensitized to that, correct?
(P): Well, I’m not sure about that.
(S): So you’re not sure any more about that? Do any vaccines contain egg protein?
(P): Uh, yes influenza.
(S): Do any vaccines contain gelatin from pigs?
(P): Uh, yes.
(S): Do any vaccines on the childhood vaccine schedule contain human albumin?
(P): Oh yes.
(S): What is human albumin?
(P): Human album is part of human serum. It’s part of the blood that is liquid.
(S): None of it remains in the final product.
(P): I don’t believe so though.
(S): Because that could be problematic right?
(P): Well it could be I mean if, uh, if the individual is not healthy.
(S): Or if maybe some of the human blood components bind to some of the aluminum and develop antibodies, self-antibodies, correct
(P): If they develop antibodies against a serum component that would not be good.
(S): Do any vaccines on the childhood vaccine schedule contain MRC5 human diploid cells?
(P): Yes. Rubella, Varicella, Hepatitis A.
(S): What are MRC5 cells?
(P): They are human fibroblast cell strain. They were created by taking fetal tissue from a particular fetus that was aborted by maternal choice and the cells, the so-called fibroblast cells, were cultivated.
(S): Do any vaccines on the childhood vaccine schedule contain WI-38 human diploid lung fibroblasts?
(P): Well they used to but I don’t think anything is made in those cells anymore.
(S): If you could turn to page 3 for MMR and MMRV. Do you see that within the ingredient list that lists wi-38 human diploid lung fibroblasts?
(P): Yes. I do see that.
(S): Uh, isn’t it true that human DNA in vaccines is typically purposely fragmented?
(P): Yes, and I would say mostly for theoretical reasons, doesn’t want to put DNA into, intact DNA, into vaccines
(S): Are you familiar with insertional mutagenesis?
(P): Yes.
(S): Do you have any study to show that injecting millions of pieces of human DNA into babies and children is safe?
(P): The only studies are all the safety studies that have been done on vaccines.
(S): Wasn’t the purpose of this study to help develop a human cell line or to support the use of human cell lines in the creation of vaccines?
(P): The idea was to study the cell strains from fetuses to determine whether or not they could be used to make vaccines.
(S): This study involved 74 fetuses.
(P): Yeah. 76.
(S): 76. And these fetuses were all three months or older when aborted correct?
(P): Yes.
(S): What organs did you harvest from these fetuses?
(P): Well, I didn’t personally harvest any, but a whole range of tissues were harvested by co-workers.
(S): Okay, and these pieces were then cut up into little pieces, right?
(P): Yes.
(S): And they were cultured?
(P): Yes.
(S): Okay. Some of the pieces of the fetuses were pituitary gland that were that were chopped up into pieces okay included the lung of the fetuses?
(P): Yes.
(S): Okay. Included skin?
(P): Yes.
(S): Kidney?
(P): Yes.
(S): Spleen?
(P): Yes.
(S): Heart?
(P): Yes.
(S): And tongue?
(P): Uh, I don’t recall, but probably yes.
(S): Are you aware that the one of the objections of vaccination by the plaintiff in this case is the inclusion of aborted fetal tissue in the development of vaccines and the fact that it’s actually part of the ingredients of vaccines?
(P): Yeah, I’m aware of those objections. The Catholic church has actually issued a document on that which says that individuals who need the vaccine should receive the vaccines regardless of the fact and that, uh, that I think it implies that I am the individual who will go to hell because of the use of aborted tissues, which I am glad to do.
(S): Do you know if the mother is Catholic?
(P): I have no idea.
(S): Okay.
(P): Um, so she should consultant her priest.
(S): Do you believe that someone can have a valid religious objection to refusing a vaccine?
(P): No.
(S): Do you take issue with religious beliefs?
(P): Yes.
(S): Uh, you’ve said that, quote: “vaccination is always under attack by religious zealots who believe that the will of G-d includes death and disease”.
(P): Yes.
(S): You stand by that statement?
(P): I absolutely do.
(S): Okay. Are you an atheist?
(P): Yes.
(S): Do you accept that some people hold religious beliefs that are inherently unprovable?
(P): Yes, I’m sure they do.
(S): When you were a child what vaccines did you receive?
(P): Diphtheria. Well, in childhood i think it was probably only diphtheria.
For the entire vaccine ingredient safety segment watch here
Photo of Stanley Plotkin By Adplotkin98 – Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=23760493
Autism
Protecting Our Children: Vaccines and Autism
The Hib vaccine has been considered to be a cause of autism. Is there one cause or many causes? How do we know? How do we protect our children?
Originally featured on VaccineImpact.com
November 16, 2011
Hib Vaccine Linked to the Rapid Rise in Autism
by Dr. Mercola
In 1988, the first conjugate vaccine was approved for use in the U.S.
It was intended to protect infants and young children against Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib); a bacterial infection that can lead to pneumonia, infections of your blood, joints, bones, and pericardium.
Historically, it has also been a leading cause of bacterial meningitis.
Since that time, the vaccine has been approved in most developed countries, including Denmark and Israel where the vaccine was added to their national vaccine programs in 1993 and 1994, respectively.
Starting in the late 1980’s, there was a marked increase in the reported prevalence of autism spectrum disorders among children in the U.S.
A similar increase was seen in Denmark and Israel.
While the rise may be a reflection of “ascertainment biases,” researchers now suggest the Hib vaccine may be another trigger. The continuation of the trend toward increased rates of autism spectrum disorders could be further explained by the increased usage of the vaccine.
New Hypothesis: the Hib Vaccine May Explain Rapid Rise in Autism
According to a recent study in the journal Medical Hypotheses:
“It is hypothesized here that the introduction of the Hib conjugate vaccine in the US in 1988 and its subsequent introduction in Denmark and Israel could explain a substantial portion of the initial increases in ASDs in those countries.
The continuation of the trend toward increased rates of ASDs could be further explained by increased usage of the vaccine, a change in 1990 in the recommended age of vaccination in the US from 15 to 2months, increased immunogenicity of the vaccine through changes in its carrier protein, and the subsequent introduction of the conjugate vaccine for Streptococcus pneumoniae.
Although conjugate vaccines have been highly effective in protecting infants and young children from the significant morbidity and mortality caused by Hib and S. pneumoniae, the potential effects of conjugate vaccines on neural development merit close examination.
Conjugate vaccines fundamentally change the manner in which the immune systems of infants and young children function by deviating their immune responses to the targeted carbohydrate antigens from a state of hypo-responsiveness to a robust B2 B cell mediated response.
This period of hypo-responsiveness to carbohydrate antigens coincides with the intense myelination process in infants and young children, and conjugate vaccines may have disrupted evolutionary forces that favored early brain development over the need to protect infants and young children from capsular bacteria.”
Why Pinning Autism on a Particular Vaccine May Be Counterproductive…
According to Barbara Loe Fisher, co-founder and president of the non-profit National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), vaccine injury is the result of a unique interaction between the host and the type and numbers of vaccines given to that person.
In other words, vaccine injury and death is induced by a number of co-factors, including:
Age at the time of vaccination Personal or family history of brain and immune system dysfunction (allergies, autoimmunity, seizures, etc.) Health status at the time of vaccination (coinciding acute or chronic illness)
Personal and/or family history of vaccine reactions Types and numbers of vaccines given the day after an initial reaction took place Types and numbers of vaccines given prior to experiencing a vaccine reaction
There is a tendency by researchers investigating vaccine injury and death to want to point to “one” cause as the reason for an individual’s vaccine reaction, or population-based chronic disease prevalence. Many different hypotheses have been forwarded by different people regarding the link between vaccines and the dramatic rise in autism over the past few decades.
Harris Coulter and Barbara Loe Fisher were the first to point to the whole cell pertussis vaccine, which can cause brain damage labeled as “autism” in some children.
In 1998, Andy Wakefield suggested a link between autism and the live virus measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine.
Mercury (thimerosal) preservatives in inactivated vaccines have been repeatedly implicated by various experts, as has the combination of MMR vaccine and thimerosal in vaccines.
According to Dr. David Ayoub, a radiologist and physician who has become a specialist on the additives and preservatives used in vaccines, aluminum adjuvants may be an even greater factor than thimerosal.
The “sole cause” hypothesis is convenient because it is simple and easy to understand. It is also easier for people to think that action can be taken to “fix” the problem if there is only one cause; i.e., separate the MMR vaccine into single doses; take thimerosal or aluminum out of the vaccines, and so forth.
However, the problem with promoting the “sole cause” hypothesis when it comes to vaccination is that the rise in chronic disease and disability among our children, including autism, is likely caused by a multiple factors in any number of combinations. Therefore, by trying to hone in on just one cause, we’re likely to fail in our efforts to curb this epidemic.
Why We Must Broaden Our Scope and Address Multiple Co-Factors
Ultimately, focusing on “one cause” does little more than cause confusion when that theoretical cause turns out to be lacking or incorrect. Furthermore, there’s a danger of wholly dismissing one potential cause after the other, as each potential cause fails to be proven absolutely causative. As a result, we may end up doing too little, or nothing, to eliminate the various co-factors that might be working in tandem to, ultimately, produce autism.
In addition to the vaccine-related factors just mentioned, there are numerous other potential co-factors that cannot yet be discounted, including:
| Genetically modified foods | Fluoride over-exposure | Environmental toxins of all kinds |
| Mercury amalgams | Processed, denatured foods | Electromagnetic fields and “dirty electricity” |
| Vitamin D deficiency | Gut flora dysbiosis |
This is one of the reasons why the NVIC avoids trying to pin any particular vaccine injury on any particular vaccine. Rather the main thrust of their information campaign is to simply question the wisdom of mandating increasing numbers of childhood vaccines in the absence of true knowledge. There are distressing gaps in vaccine safety science that precludes us from understanding the biological high-risk factors that make some individuals more susceptible than others, for example.
The current one-size-fits-all vaccine mandates simply throws too many children under the proverbial bus, because we simply do not know what all these vaccines are doing to individuals with different predispositions, or how different vaccines interact when given in combination.
Majority of Drug Reactions in Kids are Due to Vaccines
While it’s highly unlikely that any one vaccine is responsible for the autism epidemic, there are many signs indicating that we may be giving our children too many vaccines, and that vaccines of all kinds may be less innocuous than previously believed.
Case in point: The UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) runs a national spontaneous reporting system to collect adverse drug reaction (ADR) data. More than 31,000 ADR reports for children below the age of 17 were received between 2000 and 2009, and vaccines were a factor in more than 66 percent of these pediatric drug reaction reports.
According to a recent review in the British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology:
“Vaccines were included in 22,102 (66.5%) pediatric ADR reports, with Meningococcal Serogroup C conjugate vaccine reported most frequently (12,106 reports)”.
So here again, we see yet another vaccine cropping up as being particularly problematic for young children and teens… It is telling however, that vaccines account for two-thirds of all adverse drug reactions in the UK, considering how hazardous pediatric drug use can be!
Flu Vaccine
Expecting? Why You Should Think Twice About That Flu…
Has your doctor insisted that you take a flu shot, or DTaP, during pregnancy? Here’s what you should know.
Autism
What Do Epidemiological Studies Tell Us About Vaccines &…
Vaccines and Autism – What Do Epidemiological Studies Really Tell Us?
Coalition for SAFEMINDS
A note from SAFEMINDS:
There are 16 epidemiological studies here on MMR vaccines, thimerosal and autism. These studies represent the most often cited papers by scientists, public health officials and members of the media when trying to refute any evidence of an association between vaccinations and autism. There are serious methodological limitations, design flaws, conflicts of interest or other problems related to each of these 16 studies. These flaws have been pointed out by government officials, other researchers, medical review panels and even the authors of the studies themselves. Taken together, the limitations of these studies make it impossible to conclude that thimerosal and MMR vaccines are not associated with autism.
SafeMinds would like to acknowledge the previous work in this regard gathered by the “Fourteen Studies” project at Generation Rescue: http://www.14studies.org/about.html
One additional study on autism and thimerosal was published in September 2011 while this paper was in completed draft form. This study’s methods produced a result that demonstrated that thimerosal exposure was protective against autism. Further analysis of this study is forthcoming but not included here.
Part 1
Major Gaps in Knowledge
Conventional wisdom holds that the autism-vaccine question has been “asked and answered,” and that at least 16 large, epidemiological studies have thoroughly addressed and debunked any hypothesis that childhood vaccination is associated with an increased risk of autism spectrum disorder.
But there are numerous critical flaws in such an oversimplified generalization, and they are rarely given close examination by public health experts or members of the media.
It is particularly discouraging that members of the scientific community are so willing to dismiss a hypothesis that has yet to be fully tested. Overconfident pronouncements such as those found in the quotes above do nothing to advance either the cause of science or our understanding of the complex issues involved. They are, instead, the product of misunderstanding and wishful thinking, brought about by the overzealous drive to
‘disprove’ an unpopular and possibly disquieting theory.
Respected medical opinion-makers such as Dr. Snyderman and Dr. Offit mislead the public when they categorically state that there is “no link” between vaccines and autism. Their misguided conclusions are based on incomplete knowledge and misinterpretations, and likely to be influenced by personal and professional conflicts of interest; conflicts illustrated by their intimate and lucrative financial bonds with GlaxoSmithKline (Snyderman) and Merck (Offit), – two of the world’s leading vaccine manufacturers.
There is a host of reasons why the cavalier dismissal, by scientists and physicians, of any possible vaccine-autism association is premature, shortsighted, and wrong.
But first, some clarification about terminology. Frequently, a counter-claim to those made by the likes of Snyderman and Offit is that ‘epidemiological’ studies cannot be used to establish or refute, causality.
Epidemiology is the study of the distribution and determinants of disease in the human population; the basic science and fundamental practice of public health (Nordness, 2006).
Epidemiological studies may be descriptive or analytical (see for example Hennekens and Buring, 1987), Descriptive epidemiology aims to describe the general characteristics of disease distribution in relation to person, place and time. Studies of this type provide information to health care providers and those responsible for resource allocation and may also be used to generate hypotheses about disease causality, but their design
precludes them from being used to test hypotheses.
Corruption
How Conflicts of Interest Affect Vaccine Safety Research
Conflicts of Interest in Vaccine Safety Research
Gayle DeLong
Department of Economics and Finance, Baruch College, New York,
New York, USA
Conflicts of interest (COls) cloud vaccine safety research. Sponsors of research have competing interests that may impede the objective study of vaccine side effects. Vaccine manufacturers, health officials, and medical journals may have financial and bureaucratic reasons for not wanting to acknowledge the risks of vaccines. Conversely, some advocacy groups may have legislative and financial reasons to sponsor research that finds risks in vaccines. Using the vaccine-autism debate as an illustration, this article details the conflicts of interest each of these groups faces, outlines the current state of vaccine safety research, and suggests remedies to address COls. Minimizing COls in vaccine safety research could reduce research bias and restore greater trust in the vaccine program.
Introduction
How safe are vaccines? Health officials caution that no vaccine is 100% safe, but they sponsor studies that conclude the benefits of vaccines far outweigh the risks. Yet conflicts of interest (COls) cloud the study of adverse effects of vaccines, and public skepticism about vaccine safety information is widespread (ASTHO, 2010). Investigation into the possible link between childhood vaccines and autism provides an illustration of the competing interests that sponsors of vaccine safety research face that could affect their objectivity in choosing which studies to support. Much research is sponsored by vaccine manufacturers and public health bodies, who have financial and bureaucratic interests that could impede the objective study of vaccine safety. These companies and agencies adamantly deny a link between vaccines and autism, and argue that vaccines are one of the most important innovations in disease reduction in the 20th Century (CDC, 1999). They cite several studies that conclude a link between vaccines and neurological disorders cannot be established (Offit, 2008). Such research is often disseminated by medical journals that have financial reasons to promote the views of the research sponsors. Conversely, research promoted by some autism advocacy groups presents several overlapping and interwoven theories that link vaccines to autism. Researchers suggest that live viruses and the neurotoxins mercury and aluminum in some vaccines may be associated with neurological disorders (Jepson and Johnson, 2007).
This article examines COls among people who conduct vaccine safety research as well as institutions that support the research. Using the investigation into the possible link between childhood vaccines and autism as an illustration, this article discusses the current state of vaccine safety research. Gaps in current research are discussed as well as the low level of public trust in the research. T address COls, Resnik’s (2004) framework is used to determine which conflicts to prohibit, which to manage, and which merely to disclose. The existence of C Is does not necessarily mean that the research is fraudulent or that the system that sponsors the research is wholly corrupt. To be sure: many honest and unbiased researchers are examining vaccine safety. However, COls are widespread ,and research consumers cannot know the extent of the problem. Thus, the reliability of any off the information generated is uncertain. If an unbiased researcher bases his or her work Of bias~d research, the result could be an unintentional perpetuation of the bias. Acknowledging and ameliorating the COls could lead to better and more trusted vaccine safety research.