Covid vaccine

© Chris Gash/New York Times

"The world has bet the farm on vaccines as the solution to the pandemic, but the trials are not focused on answering the questions many might assume they are."

Peter Doshi, associate editor of the British Medical Journal and assistant professor of pharmaceutical wellness services research at the University of Maryland School of Pharmacy

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

The new Covid vaccines will make billions of dollars for the large pharmaceutical companies, but hither's what they won't practise:

  1. The vaccines volition not cure Covid
  2. The vaccines will not foreclose people from contracting Covid
  3. The vaccines will not prevent Covid-related hospitalizations
  4. The vaccines will not prevent Covid-caused deaths

Now, I know what yous're thinking. You're thinking, "If the vaccine does not protect me from getting Covid (or dying from Covid), then why should I take information technology?"

And the answer is: "You shouldn't. It makes no sense at all, especially in view of the fact that new vaccines pose considerable risks to ane'south health and well-being.

"Risks," you say? "No one said anything most risks. I thought this wonderful new Covid cure was entirely risk-complimentary; only accept the jab and- Presto- life goes back to normal."

Wrong. There are risks, pregnant risks that the media and the medical establishment have papered-over with their ridiculous Happy Talk about "miracle" vaccines. But all of this is just public relations hype designed to hoodwink people into injecting themselves with a dubious substance that does Not do what it'southward supposed to do, and which DOES pose serious long-term risks to ane's health.

And so, let'southward dig a picayune deeper into this question of risks and see what are the experts saying. Check out this excerpt from an "Open Alphabetic character From: UK Medical Freedom Brotherhood To: The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunization... for COVID-19 in the Great britain.":

"It is worrying that recent Parliamentary discussions seem to not attach proper weight to any business organization near vaccine risks and the right to informed consent, while focusing solely on strategies to increase the uptake of vaccines in the general population.

Inadequate Assessment of the Public Health Chance from a Covid Vaccine

In a recent alphabetic character to the British Medical Periodical (BMJ), physician Arvind Joshi warned against the disaster that could event from this misguided policy and outlined the serious risks involved to the public and other serious issues that are being taken if a Covid Vaccine is rushed out without thorough and adequate safety and efficacy testing:

"Adverse furnishings like Subacute Sclerosing Pan Encephalitis, Ascending Polyneuritis, Myopathies, Autoimmune Diseases, and rarer hazard of triggering development of malignancies are most dreaded possibilities."..." The rush for the Vaccines should not lead to disaster." (Note: There is a more comprehensive listing of potential 'bad outcomes' in the link to the article.)

Virus-vectored and genetically engineered vaccines could undergo recombination or hybridization with unpredictable outcomes.... Previous attempts to develop coronavirus and other vaccines eastward.chiliad., RSV and dengue, accept been hampered by the trouble of 'antibiotic dependent enhanced amnesty'(ADEI), which has led to severe illness and deaths in the animals and human subjects involved in the trials 28. This phenomenon but becomes credible later vaccination, when the bailiwick is exposed to wild virus at some point in the future. Worryingly, the Covid Vaccine trials accept non been conducted in a fashion to exclude the possibility of this serious sequalae occurring months or years later on vaccination...

Late onset adverse vaccine furnishings such equally Subacute Sclerosing Pan Encephalitis (SSPE),Ascending Polyneuritis, Myopathies, Autoimmune Diseases, Infertility and Cancers cannot be ruled out with brusque duration trials." ("Open up Letter From: UK Medical Freedom Alliance To: The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunization... for COVID-xix in the Uk.")

It's all very technical, but the truth is plain to see: There are serious risks associated with taking the Covid-19 vaccine. Most vaccine recipients will experience only small-scale aches and pains but some will undoubtedly get quite ill and permanently damage their wellness. No i really knows for sure because there take been no long-term trials. The Covid vaccine has been fast-tracked from Twenty-four hour period one. So, the question is: Do the benefits outweigh the risks. And, in this case, they clearly don't. The chances of getting violently sick or dying from Covid are very slight, (IFR is 1 in 400) while the (potential) adverse furnishings from the vaccine are spelled out above. Why would anyone whorl the dice on a vaccine that does not preclude one from contracting Covid, does not protect one from hospitalization, and will not foreclose one from dying? That's just non a good tradeoff. Hither's more from an article at Forbes:

"Prevention of infection must be a disquisitional endpoint...(But) Prevention of infection is not a criterion for success for whatsoever of these vaccines. In fact, their endpoints all require confirmed infections and all those they will include in the analysis for success, the only difference being the severity of symptoms between the vaccinated and unvaccinated. Measuring differences amongst only those infected by SARS-CoV-ii underscores the implicit determination that the vaccines are not expected to foreclose infection, only modify symptoms of those infected"...

"We all expect an effective vaccine to prevent serious illness if infected. Three of the vaccine protocols...practise not require that their vaccine prevent serious disease only that they prevent moderate symptoms which may be as balmy as cough, or headache." ("Covid-19 Vaccine Protocols Reveal That Trials Are Designed To Succeed", Forbes)

Tin you run across what'southward going on? "Prevention" is not fifty-fifty a primary objective. The standard for success in these trials is whether the vaccine mitigates Covid symptoms in people who test positive. But who cares nearly symptoms? What people care about is dying. That'due south why people are and so eager to become vaccinated, because they think it will eliminate the threat of dying.

This is a critical indicate, and one that is well worth mulling over.

Why?

Considering it helps to illustrate how the vaccine entrada is built on a foundation of lies and deception. For case, when the drug companies boast that their product is "95% effective", information technology does NOT mean that- if you get vaccinated- you will be allowed to Covid. Information technology doesn't even mean that you won't get violently ill and die. All it means is that the vaccine reduced the symptoms of some of the people in the trials who tested positive.

Did you know that?

Of class, yous didn't. You thought that if you took the vaccine, you'd exist protected from Covid, because that is the logical assumption that anyone would make. Most people equate vaccines with immunity. The drug companies know that which is why they're exploiting people's ignorance and deliberately obfuscating the truth. They desire people to keep to believe that vaccination is a protective shield that will salvage them from sickness and expiry. But information technology's not. It'due south a bunch of distortion.

Bottom line: Vaccine "effectiveness" is not measured in terms of "preventing infection". It relates to the vaccine's impact on symptoms. Here'southward more from Forbes:

"Ane of the more immediate questions a trial needs to answer is whether a vaccine prevents infection. If someone takes this vaccine, are they far less likely to become infected with the virus? These trials all clearly focus on eliminating symptoms of Covid-19, and non infections themselves....

It appears that all the pharmaceutical companies assume that the vaccine will never prevent infection. Their criteria for approval is the difference in symptoms between an infected control group and an infected vaccine grouping. ...

A greater business organization for the millions of older people and those with preexisting conditions is whether these trials exam the vaccine's ability to prevent astringent illness and expiry. Again, we find that astringent illness and death are only secondary objectives in these trials. None list the prevention of expiry and hospitalization as a critically important barrier....

These protocols do not emphasize the most important ramifications of Covid-19 that people are nigh interested in preventing: overall infection, hospitalization, and expiry. It boggles the listen and defies common sense that the National Constitute of Health, the Center for Affliction Command, the National Institute of Allergy and Communicable diseases, and the rest would consider the approval of a vaccine that would exist distributed to hundreds of millions on such slender threads of success.

It appears that these trials are intended to pass the lowest possible barrier of success." ("Covid-nineteen Vaccine Protocols Reveal That Trials Are Designed To Succeed", Forbes)

The author is right, isn't he? If the vaccine doesn't prevent infection, it's not worth taking. Period. And yet, all these high-falutin organizations are on-board with this farce. It's a disgrace. Nosotros're not even talking well-nigh a "low bar" for success here. Nosotros're talking about "no bar". If people are concerned about symptoms, they'd be meliorate off taking an aspirin and leaving information technology at that. In that location's no need to inject themselves with some hybrid cocktail that no i has the slightest idea of what the long-term effects might be. That'south just reckless.

Similar we said earlier, the real issues are being cleverly concealed by the people in charge who are hyping the "95% effective" nonsense to hoodwink people into cooperating. It's blatantly dishonest.

And hither's something else to think over: What do we really know about these miraculous vaccines that are supposed to pb us out of our "public wellness crisis"?

Not much. We know that they're being rushed to market. We know that they were delayed for political reasons. Nosotros know the science is being shaped by the politics. Nosotros know that vaccine development typically takes 10 years, and that "rushed" vaccine development takes three years, and that the upcoming batch of dubious vaccines will have taken roughly 8 months.

8 months!

Do you find that reassuring? Does that make you desire to push your way to the front of the line on Vaccine Day? And are you surprised that a large sampling of medical professionals has decided they aren't going to take the vaccine until it's been out for at least a year??

And here's another thing: The pharmaceutical giants don't even know if their vaccines will stop transmission or not. I'm not kidding, they actually don't know. And then- forth with the fact that the vaccine will not provide immunity- it also will not stop the spread of the infection which means, the pandemic volition continue.

Don't you think the public is entitled to know this?

And allow'southward not forget that these so chosen "vaccines" don't really fit the traditional definition of vaccine at all. The CDC defines a vaccine as:

A product that stimulates a person's immune organisation to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease.

And the CDC defines "immunization" as:

A procedure past which a person becomes protected against a affliction through vaccination. This term is often used interchangeably with vaccination or inoculation.

Well, we've already shown that the new vaccines exercise not necessarily provide immunity, so the question is whether they really "stimulate a person'southward allowed arrangement" or if the "vaccine" moniker was simply preserved every bit a promotional device to dupe the public? Hither'southward some groundwork from an article at RT:

"The type of vaccine being developed against Covid-19 has never been used before, outside of Ebola. Some people feel that they should not really be called vaccines, because they are completely different from anything that has gone before.

Upwardly to now, vaccination has meant injecting a expressionless virus (or leaner), or one that has been weakened and can only poorly replicate, or parts of the virus, or suchlike. In one case inside the body, the immune system spots this 'alien' material, and creates a response against it, which will hopefully be remembered for years and years. The next time the unsafe virus appears, the body will apply the allowed memory of something very similar, to wipe out the virus (or bacteria) at high speed, giving it no adventure to do damage

Now, we have a thing called a messenger RNA vaccine (mRNA). RNA is, effectively, a single strand of Deoxyribonucleic acid - the double helix that sits within our cells and makes up our genetic code. Many viruses are fabricated up of a single strand of RNA, surrounded past a protein sphere. They enter the cell, take over the replication systems, make thousands of copies of themselves, then exit the jail cell. Sometimes killing the jail cell as they do so, sometimes exiting more gently. Covid19 (Sars-Cov2) is an RNA virus.

Knowing this, rather than attempting to create a weakened virus, which can take years, or break the virus into bits, the vaccine researchers decided to use Sars-Cov2'due south RNA against itself. To practise this, they isolated the section of RNA which codes for the 'fasten' protein - which is the thing the virus uses every bit a 'key' to enter cells...

These spike proteins then leave the cell - somehow or other, this chip is unclear. The immune organisation comes across them, recognizes them as 'alien' and attacks. In doing so, antibodies are created, and the immune memory system kicks into action. If, afterwards on, a Sars-Cov2 virus gets into the body, the immune system fires up and attacks the remembered spike poly peptide. Hopefully killing the unabridged virus." ("As a doctor, people ask me if it'southward prophylactic to accept a new Covid vaccine", RT)

It's all very complicated and cutting-edge, just what's clear is that "Messenger RNA" and "spike' poly peptide" are a far-cry from plain-former dead virus which has worked but fine for decades. It's hard to sympathize why the drug companies decided to reinvent the cycle in trying to settle on an antidote for Covid. Even and so, this new country-of-the-art engineering does have its drawbacks as was pointed out in the letter by the researchers in the Medical Liberty Brotherhood. Hither's what they said:

Several Covid Vaccines involve the utilise of a completely new applied science -mRNA vaccination -whose large-scale use in healthy human subjects is unprecedented and long-term effects unknown.Exogenous mRNA is inherently immunostimulatory, and this characteristic of mRNA could be benign or detrimental. In addition, a report found testify of molecular mimicry ...

Virus-vectored and genetically engineered vaccines could undergo recombination or hybridisation with unpredictable outcomes....Previous attempts to develop coronavirus and other vaccines east.1000., RSV and dengue, take been hampered by the problem of 'antibody dependent enhanced immunity'(ADEI), which has led to astringent illness and deaths in the animals and human being subjects involved in the trials. This miracle just becomes credible later on vaccination, when the discipline is exposed to wild virus at some bespeak in the future. Worryingly, the Covid Vaccine trials take non been conducted in a way to exclude the possibility of this serious sequalae occurring months or years afterwards vaccination. ("Open Letter From: United kingdom of great britain and northern ireland Medical Freedom Alliance To: The Joint Commission on Vaccination and Immunization... for COVID-xix in the United kingdom of great britain and northern ireland.")

The bespeak is, the effects of injecting a hybrid concoction into one'south body could exist quite serious. Nosotros just don't know what the long-term effects will exist, and we probably won't know because the vaccine is going to be rushed into distribution before those trials can exist conducted. This is not a sensible strategy for dealing with the virus. It is needlessly reckless and, peradventure, lethal. Here's more from an article at the Jerusalem Post:

"There is a race to get the public vaccinated, so nosotros are willing to have more than risks," Tal Brosh, head of the Communicable diseases Unit at Samson Assuta Ashdod Infirmary, told The Jerusalem Post.....

"We will take a safety profile for only a certain number of months, and so if there is a long-term result after ii years, we cannot know," Brosh said, adding that we could wait two years to discover them, "but so we would have the coronavirus for two more years."...

(Brosh) best-selling that there are unique and unknown risks to messenger RNA vaccines, including local and systemic inflammatory responses that could lead to autoimmune weather..... An article published past the National Center for Biotechnology Information, a segmentation of the National Institutes of Health, said other risks include the bio-distribution and persistence of the induced immunogen expression; possible development of auto-reactive antibodies; and toxic furnishings of whatever non-native nucleotides and delivery organization components...

(Michal) Linial ( a professor of biological chemistry at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, ) expressed similar sentiments: "Classical vaccines were designed to have 10 years to develop. I don't think the world can wait for a classical vaccine."....But when asked if she would take the vaccine right away, she responded: "I won't exist taking it immediately - probably not for at least the coming twelvemonth," she told the Post . "We have to wait and come across whether it really works." ("Could mRNA COVID-19 vaccines be dangerous in the long-term?", The Jerusalem Postal service)

Great, and so the "professor of biological chemistry" isn't going to take the vaccine, but it's okay for ordinary people like you lot and me??

Requite me a interruption. Professor Linial's reluctance is a tacit access that the vaccine is non safe. What else could it mean? Here's more from the same article:

In order to receive Food and Drug Administration approval, the companies will accept to prove there are no immediate or short-term negative health effects from taking the vaccines. But when the earth begins inoculating itself with these completely new and revolutionary vaccines, it will know nigh nothing about their long-term effects. (The Jerusalem Post)

Well, that's just neat. We know the vaccines won't prevent infection, hospitalization or death. We also know they are "are completely different from anything that has gone before". We likewise know they won't cease manual, and that their long-term safe is very much in doubt. Still, our leaders- who lie to us nearly nearly everything- want united states of america to click our heels and submissively take "the jab" whether nosotros desire to or non.

In my opinion, the risks of vaccination far outweigh the benefits. I would rather trust my ain motorcar-immune system (and the new treatments, medications and therapies) and then be guinea squealer in Big Pharma's sinister lab experiment.

"Thanks, but no thanks".