Are people getting full facts on COVID vaccine risks?

Editor's comment - the details described in this news item have been widely reported and links are provided to the sources. Anyone concerned about whether vaccines are appropriate for them should seek advice from their doctor.

The original inventor of the mRNA vaccine (and DNA vaccine) core platform technology currently used to create the so-called COVID vaccines is Dr Robert W Malone . Dr Malone has been expressing serious concerns about how therapeutic approaches that are still in the research phase are being imposed on an ill-informed public. He says that public health leadership has, "stepped over the line and is now violating the bedrock principles which form the foundation upon which the ethics of clinical research are built".

Dr Malone asks why health leaders seem to be so afraid of sharing the adverse event data. He says, "Why is it necessary to suppress discussion and full disclosure of information concerning mRNA reactogenicity and safety risks?"

He goes onto say that we should be analysing the safety data and risks vigorously. Again he asks, "Is there information or patterns that can be found, such as the recent finding of the cardiomyopathy signals, or the latent virus reactivation signals?  We should be enlisting the best biostatistics and machine learning experts to examine these data, and the results should- no must- be made available to the public promptly".

For any drug it has always been important to have systems in place for monitoring adverse events. However, for an experimental, genetic modifying approach that has not been fully tested, and where the public are effectively the guinea pigs, this information should be immediately and readily available. As previously reported in Total Health, the fact that it is so difficult to access and make sense of the US VAERS, and UK Yellow Card reporting systems - along with low reporting simply raises further concern about what is actually happening.

See also serious scientific concerns over UK Yellow Card adverse event preliminary reports.

Comparing risk and benefit

20th Aug 2022 Update - the question - do the benefits of the jab outweigh the risks? eventually seems to have been answered by Pfizer's own data. According an analysis of the recently released Pfizer clinical trial data. The analysis, using Pfizer's own data looked at the number of people you need to vaccinate in order to prevent one serious COVID case outcome (hospitalisation), and compared this number with the rate at which the jab caused a serious adverse event (hospitalisation). The answer to this question was:

• Number of people you need to vaccinate to prevent one serious COVID outcome = 7,230
• Number of serious adverse events related to the vaccine were running at 1 in every 5,405

The report explains that, "we need to fully vaccinate 7,230 people in order to prevent one serious COVID-19 outcome. But using the same dataset, we can see that serious adverse events related to the vaccine were running at 1 in every 5,405 people. Can you see the problem?" The report goes onto ask, "Why wasn’t this spotted?"

23rd July 2021 Update - review of latest VAERS reports.

Risk of harm should have been prominently and independently disclosed

According to a paper published in PubMed, "The specific and significant COVID-19 risk of ADE should have been and should be prominently and independently disclosed to research subjects currently in vaccine trials, as well as those being recruited for the trials and future patients after vaccine approval, in order to meet the medical ethics standard of patient comprehension for informed consent".

The paper explains the lack of informed consent especially with regard to known concerns for the potential of ADE (antibody dependent enhancement), and that COVID-19 vaccines could "worsen disease upon exposure to challenge or circulating virus".

See also other known immunological risks including OAS (original antigenic sin).

Is the mRNA vaccine effective against COVID?

What does the latest mortality data tell us?

There is some evidence that the mRNA vaccine possibly reduces disease severity in some patients, but a) does not prevent infection, and b) does not prevent transmission. Indeed, there is increasing evidence that areas with the highest vaccination rates, also have the highest case rates, for example when comparing Maine with California.

Professor Norman Fenton in a presentation to the World Council for Health - General Assembly, very clearly points out concerns over the misclassification of data and how vaccine effectiveness has been badly assessed by Pfizer and subsequently by UK authorities (Office for National Statistics).

He concludes his report making the following points:

See - evidence for vaccine efficacy questionable

Double jabbed - double case rates

According to the latest government official UK reports, case rates per 100,000 are now double in the double vaccinated population compared to the unvaccinated for people aged 40 to 79.

Many people are starting to ask why this is? There are a number of fundamental immunological reasons - listed and explained here . Sound biological reasons range from the fact that a shot in the arm is not effective against mucosal (lung) infections, the pressure on variant shift, the need for a good T-cell response - that is absent with this form of inoculation - and the immune principle of 'original antigenic sin'. 

Work conducted by The Robert Koch Institute and Institute for Environmental Medicine, Germany and published in The Lancet in November 2021 states, "Many decisionmakers assume that the vaccinated can be excluded as a source of transmission. It appears to be grossly negligent to ignore the vaccinated population as a possible and relevant source of transmission when deciding about public health control measures."

Whistleblower reports falsified data

According to The BMJ it now also appears that there were fundamental problems with the quality of the data produced by one of the contract research organisations hired by Pfizer to conduct the COVID-19 clinical trial . Reports include, "falsified data, unblinded patients, employed inadequately trained vaccinators". See also - Whistleblower has revealed that the Pfizer pivotal COVID-19 vaccine (Phase III) trial was fundamentally compromised.

Tampering with medical evidence

Following the publication of this article in The BMJ and sharing on Facebook, readers started finding Facebook comments when attempting to share, such as, “false information”. As a result, the editors of the BMJ felt compelled to have to write an open letter to Mark Zuckerberg. They point out that the Facebook fact checkers were found, "to be inaccurate, incompetent and irresponsible". The editors go on to say that it is not just The BMJ that gets subjected to this form of incompetence. "We are aware that The BMJ is not the only high quality information provider to have been affected by the incompetence of Meta’s fact checking regime. To give one other example, we would highlight the treatment by Instagram (also owned by Meta) of Cochrane, the international provider of high quality systematic reviews of the medical evidence.

Global analysis 

According to the official summary yellow card reporting website, "Vaccination is the single most effective way to reduce deaths and severe illness from COVID-19. A national immunisation campaign has been underway since early December 2020". However, as widely reported in 2020 and following a meta-analysis of work performed by doctors around the world treating Covid patients, the drug Ivermectin could well have been a more effective and safer alternative to experimental genetic modification.

In podcasts with Lex Friman and with Joe Rogan, research biologist Bret Weinstein clearly explains the situation with regard to research, biology and censorship - Truth, Science, and Censorship in the Time of a Pandemic.

Truth is always the first victim

Bret Weinstein points out that, "Public Health has a self-assigned 'right to lie'", and goes on to highlight how the, "WHO and CDC over-simplify stories in order to ensure game theory, and there is a predictable tragedy of the commons". He states, "Once the right to lie exists it serves the purposes of the pharmaceutical companies. Emergency authorisations that do not require the treatment to be safe. This means they get immunity from liability for harms caused by their product. That's a recipe for disaster". He goes on to make the point that it is to even greater benefit to the pharmaceutical companies if other products (such as Ivermectin) happen to fail to be noticed.

29th July 2021 Update - Two day emergency 'livestream' summit organised by Doctors for Covid Ethics presenting international scientists, lawyers and economists who are, "calling for immediate interventions in the current crisis".

COVID-19 Interdisciplinary Symposium calling for an immediate intervention: July 29th and 30th, 17.00pm – 22.00pm BST

Topics for discussion during the livestream include, 'The propaganda matrix - the complicit role of the media', and 'Pharmacokinetics and toxicity of mRNA vaccines'.

Block on information on treatments

Dr Peter McCullough testifying to a Texas Senate Committee asks why COVID patients are not being offered information on - or standard treatments that can prevent hospitalisation and death. He says, not a single paper tells doctors how to treat patients. "Not a single one. When does that happen?". He goes on to point out that the reason why there had to be senate testimony is because there was, "a near total block on any information on treatment for patients".

Selective under-reporting, re-defining and excessive exaggeration with amplification 

The UK government Coronavirus vaccine - weekly summary of Yellow Card reporting (to 16th June) starts the report with the following sentence: "At the time of this report, over 127,954 people across the UK have died within 28 days of a positive test for coronavirus (COVID-19)". This opening statement is probably an example of the nature of the difficulty that Dr Weinstein refers to. The problem with this statement is that you are lead to believe that 127,954 people have died of Covid, but this is simply not true. The reality is that these people have died with a positive test for COVID-19, which is a very different thing, and may well have died of other natural causes. We know that the PCR tests have suffered high levels of false positives and a test positive does not mean you have active disease or are a 'case'.

Update 29th July 2021 - PCR tests to be withdrawn CDC issue 'lab alert' on PCR tests

What is the false positive rate?

By re-defining the medical term 'case', the daily public health messages became excessively exaggerated and this along with other methodologies (including excessive PCR Ct amplification), ramped up levels of public concern. Official public petitions requesting that the government release the data on the levels of false positive reporting were simply not adequately responded to.

The big questions remain unanswered - and these are:

How many people actually died from Covid 'the disease'? and

How many people are being harmed by the vaccines? 

Dr Malone says, ".. what is being done by suppressing open disclosure and debate concerning the profile of adverse events associated with these vaccines violates fundamental bioethical principles for clinical research".

With regard to the use and abuse of misinformation, the inventor of these vaccines says that the public have to be given accurate information to allow informed consent. He says, "The suppression of information, discussion, and outright censorship concerning these current COVID vaccines which are based on gene therapy technologies cast a bad light on the entire vaccine enterprise. It is my opinion that the adult public can handle information and open discussion. Furthermore, we must fully disclose any and all risks associated with these experimental research products".

In short, it is simply not possible to arrive at a position of informed consent unless you have access to the full facts around your options and the associated risks and benefits.

In a paper published in aacc.org, Professor Stanley Levinson et al summarise some of the evidence concerning the false positive testing rates with PCR. At an individual patient level he points out why some people 'seem' to get the disease twice, but the second infection was actually caused by the initial false positive result. He indicates that as many as 5 in100 test results are false positives. This may not seem like a big number, but when you are testing 100,000 people a day this would give a number of 5,000 so-called 'cases' a day. Sound familiar?

False positive tests cause hospitalisation and infection

Prof Levinson points out that there are negative psychological implications of thinking you are infected when you are not. Therefore some people with illness other than COVID-19 who test false positive might be hospitalised along with actual COVID-19 patients and become infected. "This may explain why some persons seem to have been infected twice: the first time being a false positive. It seems to me it is important for practicing medical professionals to be aware of these issues so that they can appropriately advise and direct suspect patients for additional testing".

Natural immunity may over-rule need for vaccine anyway

According to a recent peer-reviewed paper in the journal Nature, "findings suggest that SARS-CoV-2 reactive T-cells are likely to be present in many individuals because of prior exposure to flu and CMV viruses". This probably explains why Covid primarily affects the elderly and patients with co-morbidities, and is either asymptomatic or has mild symptoms for the rest of us.

The authors state, "Healthy humans not exposed to COVID-19 show pre-existing CD4 and CD8 T-cell immunity to SARS-CoV-2". This cross-immunity is possibly not too surprising as the common cold is caused by a coronavirus".

Even the BBC now seems to be changing their tune. A recent BBC article that asks; Is catching COVID now better than more vaccine? The article points out that now we are no longer starting with low immunity, "as the overwhelming majority of people have either been vaccinated or have already caught the virus". 

The BBC article says, "Each time you're exposed, the immune system gets a little bit stronger, and this continues until old age, when the immune system starts to fail and the infections become a problem again", and goes on to say quoting Professor Adam Finn (a government vaccine adviser), "... it could be a lot cheaper and simpler to let that happen than spend the whole time immunising people," Prof Finn also points out that the argument in children had, "already been won" as "40-50% have already been infected and most weren't ill or particularly ill".

Update 15th September 2021 - What is the reason for increased SARS-CoV- 2 infection rates in the vaccinated compared to unvaccinated? 

See reasons why the vaccines may not work. In summary:

There are a number of reasons as to why mRNA vaccination could potentially cause an increased risk of COVID infection, some of the main causes include:

1. The well reported drop in white cell count (neutrophyls) immediately following vaccination.

2. Immune focus on a single antigen (spike protein) and associated variant selection.

3. Antibody dependent enhancement; anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies could actually exacerbate COVID-19 through antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE). ADE is a reminder that not all antibody responses are helpful and some can be harmful.

4. According to the Journal of Immunology Original Antigenic Sin, or OAS.

5. The antibodies raised by mRNA treatment can mimic the virus itself. In an article published in The New England Journal of Medicine, the UC Davis Vice Chair of Research and Distinguished Professor of Dermatology and Internal Medicine William Murphy and Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School Dan Longo present a possible explanation to the diverse immune responses to the virus and the vaccines. 

In a well documented immunological process known as 'Jerne’s hypothesis', the immune system initially launches protective antibody responses. However, these same protective antibodies can later trigger a new antibody response toward themselves, leading to their disappearance over time. 

Long term harm

Dr Murphy specifically talking about the target ACE receptors that are found on numerous cell types throughout the body, explains, "A fascinating aspect of the newly formed anti-idiotype antibodies is that some of their structures can be a mirror image of the original antigen and act like it in binding to the same receptors that the viral antigen binds. This binding can potentially lead to unwanted actions and pathology, particularly in the long term.”

Anti-idiotype antibodies

These secondary antibodies, called anti-idiotype antibodies, can bind to and deplete the initial protective antibody responses. They have the potential to mirror or act like the original antigen itself. This may result in adverse effects.

Update 16th July 2021 - Are vaccinated more likely to drive variant evolution?

The HART group are informing us that several media outlets in the UK have simultaneously released a story alleging that, "unvaccinated people are risking their own health and will become potential factories of  coronavirus variants". Commenting on these news items, Dr Gerry Quinn who is a post-doctoral Researcher in Microbiology and Immunology (and therefore appropriately qualified to comment), points out that the reverse is more likely to be true. He says, "there is the as yet unproven (but not discounted) theoretical possibility that vaccination may be making the situation of ‘mutant variants’ worse".

The reason for this is that natural immunity, which is now estimated to be at over 80% provides a far broader protection as it is not narrowed to a reaction to just the spike protein.

Providing the relevant references, Dr Quinn highlights a recent study of people who developed natural immunity during the first wave of SARS-CoV-2 showing that their plasma contains four antibodies that are extremely potent against 23 variants of SARS including variants of concern. To add to this protection, it is even thought that the innate immune system which is the first line of defence against disease can be trained to have a decreased activation threshold to new pathogens that are structurally similar to those that have been encountered previously.

Dr Quinn then explains how unfortunately many of the novel COVID vaccines are designed to evade most of the innate immune system so they will not prime this process. The importance of the innate immune system can be seen in people who have deficiencies in the production of interferon, an important signalling compound in the innate immune system. People with this deficiency have higher rates of severe illness and death.

"Natural immunity is superior to vaccination-induced immunity because it includes the innate immune defences as well as specific immunity which is directed at multiple parts of the virus and not just the spike protein targeted by vaccine-induced immunity".

How can the vaccine cause herpes?

One of the post-vaccination reported side effects has been 'herpes infection'. A recent paper from a group of Oxford researchers published in the journal Rheumatology explains how this could happen.  Varicella zoster virus (VZV) is the virus responsible for shingles and is a type of herpes virus. These viruses are known to lurk in our nerve cells awaiting an opportunistic moment to reactivate. Sunburn is a well known cause of herpes virus reactivation, and is often associated with cold sores. 

Cell-mediated immunity plays an important role in the prevention of VZV reactivation, and so any interferences (such as mRNA vaccines) with this process could trigger the reactivation of other viral infections. However, as the authors state, "While the causality between both events cannot be proved based on a small number of cases, further vigilance and safety monitoring of COVID-19 vaccination side effects is warranted".

Summary of vaccine safety data

In a summary of the vaccine safety update, Dr Tess Lawrie recently wrote an open letter to Dr June Raine, head of the MHRA, arguing that: “The MHRA now has more than enough evidence on the Yellow Card system to declare the COVID-19 vaccines unsafe for use in humans”, a claim that has been “fact checked” here.)

Only via the provision and publication of these reviews can readers reach their own conclusions about what is best for them (informed consent), based on the available data.

According to the European Medicines Agency's -  EudraVigilance reports, which is a "system for managing and analysing information on suspected adverse reactions to medicines which have been authorised or being studied in clinical trials in the European Economic Area (EEA), there are extremely high numbers of deaths and serious injuries caused by the four 'vaccine' types.

Commenting on the reports, Technocracy News say that based on this evidence the use of these gene-based "vaccines" should be terminated immediately. They state, "It is inconceivable that all of these gene therapy “vaccines” are not summarily terminated by every nation on earth. The EU counterpart to the U.S. VAERS database reports deaths and injuries that are likely understated because not all cases are reported. Even still, the actually reported numbers are staggering".

Reported numbers of serious adverse events are staggering

They point out that; "The EudraVigilance database reports that through June 19, 2021 there are 15,472 deaths and 1,509,266 injuries reported following injections of four experimental COVID-19 shots: From the total of injuries recorded, half of them (753,657) are serious injuries".

Senior international microbiologists urge caution

One of the most cited international microbiologists, Professor Bhakdi has issued a video explaining the good news - as reported in the latest scientific publications - that there are already very high levels of population immunity to coronaviruses. This is largely due to the broad cross-reactivity of our immune systems to different strains (with shared antigenic sites), and also thanks to natural immune memory. However, he also has major concerns about the dangers of vaccine-induced blood clotting, and he explains why - see video:

https://rumble.com/vjktjf-an-urgent-message-from-professor-sucharit-bhakdi.html

The scientific literature references for the above video include:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352396421002036 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0249499 

Response to mRNA vaccine:

https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciab465/6279075 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2021.06.005 

As with any medicine, vaccine or gene therapy, there is always a balance between the potential benefit and risk. It should never be forgotten that iatrogenic illness is one of the biggest causes of hospital admissions and fatalities.

29th July 2021 Update - New guidance issued on post-COVID vaccine blood clots

The medical term for these new form of blood clots is VITT, which stands for vaccine-induced immune thrombocytopenia and thrombosis, or sometimes also called vaccine-induced prothrombotic immune thrombocytopenia (VIPIT) or thrombotic thrombocytopenic syndrome (TTS).

The National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) say, "Because VITT is a new condition, there is limited evidence available to inform clinical management, identification and management of the condition is evolving quickly as the case definition becomes clearer. This guideline was produced to support clinicians to diagnose and manage this newly recognised syndrome".

The new guidance recommends that people with suspected VITT are referred to the emergency department immediately.

Children - parental consent not needed

4th Aug 2021 Update - on extension of COVID vaccination to children

Following an announcement by the JCVI and as reported by the BBC, Pfizer jabs will be extended to healthy 16 to 17 year olds. They will not need parental consent. The Chairman of the JCVI (who is also a contractor for Pfizer), Dr Wei Shen Lim admits that the, "intention is for all the evidence to be published, but the evidence isn’t necessarily in the hands of JCVI…so wherever possible we encourage the evidence is published, but the timing is not in our hands”. 

So, where is the evidence? How can decisions be made without the evidence?

12th Aug 2021 Update - Reports of myocarditis secondary to mRNA vaccine

According to a paper published in JAMA - Cardiolgy - Association of Myocarditis With BNT162b2 Messenger RNA COVID-19 Vaccine in a Case Series of Children; Fifteen children who were hospitalised with myocarditis after receipt of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine for 1 to 5 days, boys were most often affected after the second vaccine dose, 3 patients had ventricular systolic dysfunction, and 12 patients had late gadolinium enhancement on cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. There was no mortality, and all but 1 patient had normal echocardiogram results on follow-up 1 to 13 days after discharge.

The paper goes on to summarise the 'Meaning'; "COVID-19 vaccine-associated myocarditis may have a benign short-term course in children; however, the long-term risks remain unknown".

The paper concludes stating; "Myocarditis may be a rare complication after COVID-19 vaccination in patients aged less than 19 years. In this case series study, the short-term clinical course was mild in most patients; however, the long-term risks remain unknown. Risks and benefits of COVID-19 vaccination must be considered to guide recommendations for vaccination in this population".

See also Astra Zeneca clinical trial reports from Concerned Doctors, expert panel on vaccine injuries.

Why children should not receive the mRNA COVID vaccine:

Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche explains that the mRNA vaccine is likely to do more harm than good in children. The reasons, (based on peer-reviewed papers) include original antigenic sin, and the observation that innate immunity can be trained such as to acquire memory and, therefore, improve the host’s innate immune defense upon future exposure to more infectious variants that may emerge during an epidemic or pandemic. The vaccines undermine innate immune system by, for example, hindering binding of innate, low affinity antibodies and by interfering with the normal training of a child’s innate immune system.

unhampered capacity to naturally activate innate antibody mediated sterilizing immunity

It is important to note that Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche describes how it will be the unvaccinated children who will increasingly be able to handle future infection by new variants, compared to vaccinated children and vaccinated adults. This is because the unvaccinated have unhampered capacity to naturally activate innate antibody-mediated sterilizing immunity, whereas the vaccinated have compromised innate immunity and are prone to breakthrough infections (due to their declining vaccinal antibody levels). This situation and potentially predisposes people to Antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) of disease due to the presence of suboptimal vaccine induced antibodies.

The future

There are a number of therapeutic approaches that are still in the research phase, and will then be be processed and tested - hopefully via the usual regulatory process - and not as experimental products under Emergency Use Authorisation.