COVID-Vaccinated Can ‘Shed’ Spike Protein, Harming Unvaccinated

America’s Frontline Doctors: COVID-vaccinated can ‘shed’ spike protein, harming unvaccinated

As these experimental vaccines create ‘spike proteins,’ vaccinated individuals ‘can shed some of these particles to close contacts’ causing disease in them, including in children.

By Patrick Delaney

 

LOS ANGELES, California, May 3, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — In their latest issue brief, America’s Frontline Doctors (AFLDS) warned how spike proteins resulting from experimental COVID-19 gene therapy vaccines have the capacity to 1.) pass through the “blood-brain barrier” causing neurological damage, 2.) be “shed” by the vaccinated, bringing about sickness in unvaccinated children and adults, and 3.) cause irregular vaginal bleeding in women.

Released last week and titled “Identifying Post-vaccination Complications & Their Causes: an Analysis of Covid-19 Patient Data,” the stated purpose of the document is “to provide additional information for concerned citizens, health experts, and policymakers about adverse events and other post-vaccination issues resulting from the three experimental COVID-19 vaccines currently administered under EUA (emergency use authorization)” by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

The non-profit organization highlighted the thousands of adverse events which are related to these “vaccines” and captured by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). “Yet these complications have received a fraction of the attention paid to J&J’s blood-clotting controversy,” they lamented with dismay, asking, “Why?”

In taking a closer look at this data, AFLDS presents “some major categories of concern as-yet publicly unaddressed by either the FDA or CDC,” asserting that failure of these regulators “to consider these and other ‘known unknowns’ is a dereliction of basic medical research.”

They breakout their general categories of concern as shown below:

First, there are significant fears regarding the wide distribution of these new vaccines, which employ a new technology and remain only experimental without full approval from the FDA. Instead of employing an attenuated antigen response – as happens with conventional vaccines – these experimental agents introduce something called a “spike protein” into one’s system.

“It takes years to be sure something new is safe,” the AFLDS document confirms. “No one knows definitively the long-term health implications for the body and brain, especially among the young, related to this spike protein. In addition, if documented problems with the protein do arise, there will never be any way to reverse the adverse effects in those already vaccinated.”

Second, unlike conventional vaccines, these spike proteins, along with “lipid nanoparticles” have the capacity to pass through the “blood-brain barrier” which provides special protection for these sensitive areas of the body.

“There simply has not been enough time to know what brain problems and how often a brain problem will develop from that,” the document warns.

Risks from such penetration include “chronic inflammation and thrombosis (clotting) in the neurological system, contributing to tremors, chronic lethargy, stroke, Bell’s Palsy and ALS-type symptoms. The lipid nanoparticles can potentially fuse with brain cells, resulting in delayed neuro-degenerative disease. And the mRNA-induced spike protein can bind to brain tissue 10 to 20 times stronger than the spike proteins that are (naturally) part of the original virus.”

Third, as these experimental vaccines produce many trillions of spike proteins in their recipients, these vaccinated individuals “can shed some of these (spike protein) particles to close contacts,” causing disease in them.

In an email correspondence with LifeSiteNews, Dr. Simone Gold, the founder of AFLDS, directed this writer to an April 29 tweet where she posted a document from Pfizer’s experimental trials in which the pharmaceutical giant “acknowledges this mechanism” of potential shedding, she wrote. 

As the document states, one can be “exposed to [the] study intervention due to environmental exposure,” including “by inhalation or skin contact” with someone involved in the study, or with another who has been exposed in the same way.

And this, according to AFLDS, can be dangerous. As the issues brief continues, “the spike proteins are pathogenic (‘disease causing’) just like the full virus.” Furthermore, these “spike proteins bind more tightly than the fully intact virus” and thus cases around the world of “pericarditis, shingles, pneumonia, blood clots in the extremities and brain, Bell’s Palsy, vaginal bleeding and miscarriages have been reported in persons who are near persons who have been vaccinated.” Such shedding also “appears to be causing wide variety of autoimmune disease (where the body attacks its own tissue) in some persons.”

In addition, other more serious dangers to even the unvaccinated are possible due to the fact that these “spike proteins can cross the blood brain barrier, unlike traditional vaccines.”

Fourth, such shedding leaves children vulnerable if they are in proximity to parents and teachers who have received these experimental vaccines. While the threat of COVID-19 to the young is rightly described as “irrelevant,” including a 99.997% survival rate for those under 20 years of age, AFLDS is concerned some children may become symptomatic due to such proximity to the vaccinated. At such point there is a danger that “public health bureaucrats” might use such cases to “speculate that a child’s illness is related to a SARS-CoV-2 ‘variant,’” when it is a result of contact with vaccinated adults.

“Our other concern is that children could develop long-term chronic autoimmune disease including neurological problems due to the fact that children have decades ahead of them and trillions of the spike proteins mentioned above.”

Fifth, “AFLDS is aware of thousands of reports involving vaginal bleeding, post-menopausal vaginal bleeding, and miscarriages following COVID-19 vaccination as well as anecdotal reports of similar adverse events among those in close contact with the vaccinated.” While at this point the independent physicians organization “cannot comment definitively on the close contacts” other than to mention they “have heard reports of this worldwide,” the many reported incidents of post-vaccination vaginal bleeding establishes a clear “connection between the vaccine and irregular bleeding.”

“Despite this clear-cut evidence, menstrual-cycle changes were not listed among the FDA’s common side effects in its phase-three clinical participants. Women’s reproductive health needs to be taken seriously rather than waved away by agenda-driven public health officials,” the brief reads.

Finally, acknowledging the “irrepressible economic incentive among pharmaceutical companies” to market unnecessary and dangerous childhood COVID vaccinesboosters, and the like, AFLDS insists “Public health experts should stop and assess data on possible vaccine side effects and related post-vaccination questions before it is too late.”

 

EXCLUSIVE – Former Pfizer VP “Government is Lying to You”

EXCLUSIVE - Former Pfizer VP: ‘Your government is lying to you in a way that could lead to your death.’

Dr. Mike Yeadon

‘Look out the window, and think, “why is my government lying to me about something so fundamental?” Because, I think the answer is, they are going to kill you using this method. They’re going to kill you and your family.’

Published on LifeSite News By Patrick Delaney

Dr. Michael Yeadon, Pfizer’s former Vice President and Chief Scientist for Allergy & Respiratory who spent 32 years in the industry leading new medicines research and retired from the pharmaceutical giant with “the most senior research position” in his field, spoke with LifeSiteNews.

He addressed the “demonstrably false” propaganda from governments in response to COVID-19, including the “lie” of dangerous variants, the totalitarian potential for “vaccine passports,” and the strong possibility we are dealing with a “conspiracy” which could lead to something far beyond the carnage experienced in the wars and massacres of the 20th century.

His main points included:

1. There is “no possibility” current variants of COVID-19 will escape immunity. It is “just a lie.”

2. Yet, governments around the world are repeating this lie, indicating that we are witnessing not just “convergent opportunism,” but a “conspiracy.” Meanwhile media outlets and Big Tech platforms are committed to the same propaganda and the censorship of the truth.

3. Pharmaceutical companies have already begun to develop unneeded “top-up” (“booster”) vaccines for the “variants.” The companies are planning to manufacture billions of vials, in addition to the current experimental COVID-19 “vaccine” campaign.

4. Regulatory agencies like the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency, have announced that since these “top-up” vaccines will be so similar to the prior injections which were approved for emergency use authorization, drug companies will not be required to “perform any clinical safety studies.”

5. Thus, this virtually means that design and implementation of repeated and coerced mRNA vaccines “go from the computer screen of a pharmaceutical company into the arms of hundreds of millions of people, [injecting] some superfluous genetic sequence for which there is absolutely no need or justification.”

6. Why are they doing this? Since no benign reason is apparent, the use of vaccine passports along with a “banking reset” could issue in a totalitarianism unlike the world has ever seen. Recalling the evil of Stalin, Mao, and Hitler, “mass depopulation” remains a logical outcome.

7. The fact that this at least could be true means everyone must “fight like crazy to make sure that system never forms.”

Dr. Yeadon began identifying himself as merely a “boring guy” who went “to work for a big drug company … listening to the main national broadcast and reading the broad sheet newspapers.”

Continuing, he said: “But in the last year I have realized that my government and its advisers are lying in the faces of the British people about everything to do with this coronavirus. Absolutely everything. It’s a fallacy this idea of asymptomatic transmission and that you don’t have symptoms, but you are a source of a virus. That lockdowns work, that masks have a protective value obviously for you or someone else, and that variants are scary things and we even need to close international borders in case some of these nasty foreign variants get in.

“Or, by the way, on top of the current list of gene-based vaccines that we have miraculously made, there will be some ‘top-up’ vaccines to cope with the immune escape variants.

“Everything I have told you, every single one of those things is demonstrably false. But our entire national policy is based on these all being broadly right, but they are all wrong.”

‘Conspiracy’ and not just ‘convergent opportunism’

“But what I would like to do is talk about immune escape because I think that’s probably going to be the end game for this whole event, which I think is probably a conspiracy. Last year I thought it was what I called ‘convergent opportunism,’ that is a bunch of different stakeholder groups have managed to pounce on a world in chaos to push us in a particular direction. So it looked like it was kind of linked, but I was prepared to say it was just convergence.”

“I [now] think that’s naïve. There is no question in my mind that very significant powerbrokers around the world have either planned to take advantage of the next pandemic or created the pandemic. One of those two things is true because the reason it must be true is that dozens and dozens of governments are all saying the same lies and doing the same inefficacious things that demonstrably cost lives.

“And they are talking the same sort of future script which is, ‘We don’t want you to move around because of these pesky varmints, these “variants”’— which I call ‘samiants’ by the way, because they are pretty much the same — but they’re all saying this and they are all saying ‘don’t worry, there will be “top-up” vaccines that will cope with the potential escapees.’ They’re all saying this when it is obviously nonsense.”

Possible end game: vaccine ‘passports’ tied to spending allowances, thorough control

“I think the end game is going to be, ‘everyone receives a vaccine’… Everyone on the planet is going to find themselves persuaded, cajoled, not quite mandated, hemmed-in to take a jab.

“When they do that every single individual on the planet will have a name, or unique digital ID and a health status flag which will be ‘vaccinated,’ or not … and whoever possesses that, sort of single database, operable centrally, applicable everywhere to control, to provide as it were, a privilege, you can either cross this particular threshold or conduct this particular transaction or not depending on [what] the controllers of that one human population database decide. And I think that’s what this is all about because once you’ve got that, we become playthings and the world can be as the controllers of that database want it. “For example, you might find that after a banking reset that you can only spend through using an app that actually feeds off this [database], your ID, your name, [and] your health status flag.”

“And, yes, certainly crossing an international border is the most obvious use for these vaccine passports, as they are called, but I’ve heard talk of them already that they could be necessary for you to get into public spaces, enclosed public spaces. I expect that if they wanted to, you would not be able to leave your house in the future without the appropriate privilege on your app.

“But even if that’s not [the] true [intent of the vaccine campaign], it doesn’t matter, the fact that it could be true means everyone [reading] this should fight like crazy to make sure that [vaccine passport] system never forms.”

“[With such a system], here is an example of what they could make you do, and I think this is what they’re going to make [people] do.

“You could invent a story that is about a virus and its variations, its mutations over time. You could invent the story and make sure you embed it through the captive media, make sure that no one can counter it by censoring alternative sources, then people are now familiar with this idea that this virus mutates, which it does, and that it produces variants, which is true [as well], which could escape your immune system, and that’s a lie.

“But, nevertheless, we’re going to tell you it’s true, and then when we tell you that it’s true and we say ‘but we’ve got the cure, here’s a top-up vaccine,’ you’ll get a message, based on this one global, this one ID system: ‘Bing!’ it will come up and

say ‘Dr. Yeadon, time for your top-up vaccine. And, by the way,’ it will say ‘your existing immune privileges remain valid for four weeks. But if you don’t get your top-up vaccine in that time, you will unfortunately detrimentally be an “out person,” and you don’t want that, do you?’ So, that’s how it’ll work, and people will just walk up and they’ll get their top-up vaccine.”

Gov’t lies, Big Pharma moves forward, medicine regulators get out of the way, and possible ‘mass-depopulation’

“But I will take you through this, Patrick, because I am qualified to comment. I don’t know what Vanden Bossche is about. There was no possibility at all, based on all of the variants that are in the public domain, 4000 or so of them, none of them are going to escape immunity [i.e. become more dangerous].

“Nevertheless, politicians and health advisers (to loads of governments) are saying that they are. They’re lying. Well, why would you do that?

“Here’s the other thing, in parallel, pharmaceutical companies have said, several of them, it will be quite easy for us to adjust our gene-based vaccines, and we can hasten them through development, and we can help you.

“And here’s the real scary part, global medicines regulators like [the U.S. Food and Drug Administration] FDA, the Japanese medicines agency, the European Medicines Agency, have gotten together and announced … since top-up vaccines will be considered so similar to the ones that we have already approved for emergency use authorization, we are not going to require the drug companies to perform any clinical safety studies.

“So, you’ve got on the one hand, governments and their advisers that are lying to you that variants are different enough from the current virus that, even if you’re immune from natural exposure or vaccination, you’re a risk and you need to come and get this top-up vaccine. So, I think neither of those are true. So why is the drug company making the top-up vaccines? And [with] the regulators having got out of the way — and if Yeadon is right, and I’m sure I am or I wouldn’t be telling you this — you go from the computer screen of a pharmaceutical company into the arms of hundreds of millions of people, some superfluous genetic sequence for which there is absolutely no need or justification.

“And if you wanted to introduce a characteristic which could be harmful and could even be lethal, and you can even tune it to say ‘let’s put it in some gene that will cause liver injury over a nine-month period,’ or, cause your kidneys to fail but not until you encounter this kind of organism [that would be quite

possible]. Biotechnology provides you with limitless ways, frankly, to injure or kill billions of people.

“And since I can’t think of a benign explanation for any of the steps: variants, top-up vaccines, no regulatory studies… it’s not only that I cannot think of a benign explanation, the steps described, and the scenario described, and the necessary sort of resolution to this false problem is going to allow what I just described: unknown, and unnecessary gene sequences injected into the arms of potentially billions of people for no reason.

“I’m very worried … that pathway will be used for mass depopulation, because I can’t think of any benign explanation.”

‘Absurdly impossible’ variants will escape immunity, ‘just a lie’

“If I can show you that one major thing that governments around the world are telling the people is a lie, you should take my 32 years of experienced opinion that says, most of it, if not all of it, is a lie.”

“The most different variant is only 0.3% different from the original sequence as emailed out of Wuhan in … January 2020. 0.3% [is] the one [variant] that is the most different on the planet so far. And now another way of saying it is, ‘all of the variants are not less than 99.7% identical to each other.’

“Now, you might be thinking, ‘hmm, .3%, is that enough [to escape immunity and become more dangerous]?’ The answer is no. Get away, ya know, get out of here …

“The human immune system is a thing of wonder. What it does is when it faces a new pathogen like this, you’ve got professional cells, they’re called professional antigen-presenting cells —they’re kind of rough tough things that tend not to succumb to viruses. And their job is to grab foreign things in the near environment and tear them limb from limb [inside the cell]. They really cut them up into hundreds of pieces. And then they present these pieces on the surfaces of their cell to other bits of your immune system, and amazingly, because of the variability that God and nature gave you, huge variability to recognize foreign things, and your body ends up using 15 to 20 different specific motifs that it spots about this virus. They’re called epitopes, basically they’re just like little photographs of the details about this virus. That’s what they do. And that is what is called your repertoire, your immune repertoire is like 20 different accurate photographs, close-ups, of different bits of this virus.

“Now, if a tiny piece of the virus changes, like the .3% I’ve just described, if you are reinfected by that variant, your professional cells tear into that virus and cut it

into pieces, present them again, and lo and behold, most of the pieces that you have already seen and recognized, are still there in the variants.

“There is absolutely no chance that all of them will fail to be recognized and that is what is required for immune escape, to escape your immunity. It must present to you as a new pathogen. It must be sufficiently different that, when it is cut up by your professional checker cells, it won’t find mostly the same thing it has seen before. And that is just absurdly impossible when you have only varied .3%, so it is 99.7% (similar). “You can go and check that by looking at papers by a person called Alison Tarke. There is also Shane Crotty, and all of the other co-authors.

“And before them, coming from my theoretical understanding of multi-locus immunity, which is what I just badly tried to describe, to what actually happens … If your [immune system] is presented with something that contains even half of those similar pieces, there is no way your body will say, ‘that’s a new pathogen.’

“And, so, the idea that 0.3% could even have a chance of getting around immunity is just a lie. It’s not [even] like an opinion difference.

“I don’t think 3% would be enough. That’s 10 times more variation than has occurred in 16 months [with this virus]. I don’t even think 30% difference would be enough. So, I’m saying that 100 times more variation than has actually happened, would still leave me putting a big bet on the human immune system not being fooled that these are new pathogens.

“I’ve chatted this over with several professors of immunology and they agreed with me, it’s like, ‘why are you asking me this?’

“So, I think that what I’ve just said is that governments and their advisors in multiple countries are lying about variants. That’s a massive thing! You should check it out. Your readers should check it out. If it’s true, don’t you think it’s terrifying?! It was when I realized it.

“So, they’re lying about variants, and then, of course, since [the variants] are not really different, you do not need a ‘top-up’ vaccine. Now you should be getting the hairs on the back of your neck up, because they are making them right now!” “They are making billions of vials of it. And they will be available by the end of the year.

“And I think they’ll require people to first, be on the vaccine passport one-world database, and then it will roll up into the top-ups, and if it takes a bit longer it will take a bit longer.

“But this is not going away. It won’t go away until enough people, if they ever do, say ‘you’re a bunch of frauds and we are taking our freedoms back, so you can just stop doing this.’

“Because one person shouting into the wilderness and all of the other academics looking the other way, will have us just going down this pipe maybe a week later than if I hadn’t said anything, but we’re still going down to hell.

“So, that’s why I’m frightened.

“The variants aren’t different. I call them ‘samiants’… they’re pretty much the same. They’re not different. Therefore, you don’t need a top-up vaccine, so don’t go near any of them.”

‘Why is my government lying to me?’ Because ‘they are going to kill you.’

“[And if you recognize that our governments are involved in a major verifiable lie], don’t just turn your computer off and go to supper. Stop. Look out the window, and think, ‘why is my government lying to me about something so fundamental?’ Because, I think the answer is, they are going to kill you using this method. They’re going to kill you and your family.

“The eugenicists have got hold of the levers of power and this is a really artful way of getting you to line-up and receive some unspecified thing that will damage you. I have no idea what it will actually be, but it won’t be a vaccine because you don’t need one. And it won’t kill you on the end of the needle because you would spot that.

“It could be something that will produce normal pathology, it will be at various times between vaccination and the event, it will be plausibly deniable because there will be something else going on in the world at that time, in the context of which your demise, or that of your children will look normal.

“That’s what I would do if I wanted to get rid of 90 or 95% of the world’s population. And I think that’s what they’re doing.”

“Now I don’t know [for certain] that they’re going to use that [system] to kill you, but I can’t think of a benign reason, and with that power they certainly could harm you, or control you, so you should object [and strenuously oppose it].”

People can’t deal with this level of evil, but Soviets, Hitler, Mao show its possibility

“It’s become absolutely clear to me, even when I talk to intelligent people, friends, acquaintances … and they can tell I’m telling them something important, but they get to the point [where I say] ‘your government is lying to you in a way that could lead to your death and that of your children,’ and they can’t begin to engage with it. And I think maybe 10% of them understand what I said, and 90% of those blank their understanding of it because it is too difficult. And my concern is, we are going to lose this, because people will not deal with the possibility that anyone is so evil…

“But I remind you of what happened in Russia in the 20th Century, what happened in 1933 to 1945, what happened in, you know, Southeast Asia in some of the most awful times in the post-war era. And, what happened in China with Mao and so on.

“We’ve only got to look back two or three generations. All around us there are people who are as bad as the people doing this. They’re all around us. So, I say to folks, the only thing that really marks this one out, is its scale.

“But actually, this is probably less bloody, it’s less personal, isn’t it? The people who are steering this … it’s going to be much easier for them. They don’t have to shoot anyone in the face. They don’t have to beat someone to death with a baseball bat, or freeze them, starve them, make them work until they die. All of those things did happen two or three generations back and our grandparents or great grandparents were either victims of this, or they were actually members of it, or at least they witnessed it from overseas. That’s how close we are.

“And all I’m saying is, some shifts like that are happening again, but now they are using molecular biology.

“And the people going along with it, I think they would probably say, ‘I was only following orders,’ which we have heard before.

“But I know, because I have talked to lots of people, and some of them have said ‘I don’t want to believe that you are right, so I’m going to just put it away because if it is true, I can’t handle it.’ And I think … all you need to do is find a good

reason to tell people, ‘Don’t take the vaccine unless you’re a medical risk of dying from the virus!’ That seems to me a pretty good line!”

Towards a solution – ‘We need God’

“I’m a scientist, and I can tell you, talking to non-scientists, using science as a tool, will not work. It will fail.

“So, we need philosophers, people who understand logic, religion, something like that, [they have] got to wrestle with this, and start talking in a language people will understand. Because if we leave it with scientists, people like me, even though I’m well-intentioned, I’m a gabbling alien as far as most people in the street are concerned. They won’t believe the government will lie to them, they don’t believe the government would ever do anything that will harm them, but they are [doing such things].”

Finally, in an email correspondence, Dr. Yeadon concluded, “I have latest taken to signing off with ‘May God save us’, because I think we need God now more than at any time since WW2.”

 

To view the original Article 

Pfizer and Moderna’s “95% effective” vaccines—we need more details and the raw data

Pfizer and Moderna’s “95% effective” vaccines—we need more details and the raw data

In An Article Published in the British Medical Journal on January 4th 2021, Peter Doshi examines what the preliminary data suggests in the ongoing Vaccine Trials and examines some of the potential flaws in the study.

On 5 February 2021 we published a clarification to this piece. It is available here. 

Five weeks ago, when I raised questions about the results of Pfizer’s and Moderna’s covid-19 vaccine trials, all that was in the public domain were the study protocols and a few press releases. Today, two journal publicationsand around 400 pages of summary data are available in the form of multiple reports presented by and to theFDA prior to the agency’s emergency authorization of each company’s mRNA vaccine. While some of the additional details are reassuring, some are not. Here I outline new concerns about the trustworthiness and meaningfulness of the reported efficacy results.

“Suspected covid-19”

All attention has focused on the dramatic efficacy results: Pfizer reported 170 PCR confirmed covid-19 cases, split 8 to 162 between vaccine and placebo groups. But these numbers were dwarfed by a category of disease called “suspected covid-19”—those with symptomatic covid-19 that were not PCR confirmed. According to FDA’s report on Pfizer’s vaccine, there were “3410 total cases of suspected, but unconfirmed covid-19 in the overall study population, 1594 occurred in the vaccine group vs. 1816 in the placebo group.”

With 20 times more suspected than confirmed cases, this category of disease cannot be ignored simply because there was no positive PCR test result. Indeed this makes it all the more urgent to understand. A rough estimate of vaccine efficacy against developing covid-19 symptoms, with or without a positive PCR test result, would be a relative risk reduction of 19% (see footnote)—far below the 50% effectiveness threshold for authorization set by regulators. Even after removing cases occurring within 7 days of vaccination (409 on Pfizer’s vaccine vs. 287 on placebo), which should include the majority of symptoms due to short-term vaccine reactogenicity, vaccine efficacy remains low: 29% (see footnote).

If many or most of these suspected cases were in people who had a false negative PCR test result, this would dramatically decrease vaccine efficacy. But considering that influenza-like illnesses have always had myriadcauses—rhinoviruses, influenza viruses, other coronaviruses, adenoviruses, respiratory syncytial virus, etc.—some or many of the suspected covid-19 cases may be due to a different causative agent.

But why should etiology matter? If those experiencing “suspected covid-19” had essentially the same clinical course as confirmed covid-19, then “suspected plus confirmed covid-19” may be a more clinically meaningful endpoint than just confirmed covid-19.

However, if confirmed covid-19 is on average more severe than suspected covid-19, we must still keep in mind that at the end of the day, it is not average clinical severity that matters, it’s the incidence of severe disease that affects hospital admissions. With 20 times more suspected covid-19 than confirmed covid-19, and trials not designed to assess whether the vaccines can interrupt viral transmission, an analysis of severe disease irrespective of etiologic agent—namely, rates of hospitalizations, ICU cases, and deaths amongst trial participants—seems warranted, and is the only way to assess the vaccines’ real ability to take the edge off the pandemic.

There is a clear need for data to answer these questions, but Pfizer’s 92-page report didn’t mention the 3410 “suspected covid-19” cases. Nor did its publication in the New England Journal of Medicine. Nor did any of the reports on Moderna’s vaccine. The only source that appears to have reported it is FDA’s review of Pfizer’s vaccine.

The 371 individuals excluded from Pfizer vaccine efficacy analysis

Another reason we need more data is to analyse an unexplained detail found in a table of FDA’s review of Pfizer’s vaccine: 371 individuals excluded from the efficacy analysis for “important protocol deviations on or prior to 7 days after Dose 2.”  What is concerning is the imbalance between randomized groups in the number of these excluded individuals: 311 from the vaccine group vs 60 on placebo. (In contrast, in Moderna’s trial, there were just 36 participants excluded from the efficacy analysis for “major protocol deviation”—12 vaccine group vs 24 placebo group.)

What were these protocol deviations in Pfizer’s study, and why were there five times more participants excluded in the vaccine group?  The FDA report doesn’t say, and these exclusions are difficult to even spot in Pfizer’s report and journal publication.

Fever and pain medications, unblinding, and primary event adjudication committees

Last month I expressed concern about the potential confounding role of pain and fever medications to treat symptoms. I posited that such drugs could mask symptoms, leading to underdetection of covid-19 cases, possibly in greater numbers in people who received the vaccine in an effort to prevent or treat adverse events. However, it seems their potential to confound results was fairly limited: although the results indicate that these medicines were taken around 34 times more often in vaccine versus placebo recipients (at least for Pfizer’s vaccine—Moderna did not report as clearly), their use was presumably concentrated in the first week after vaccine use, taken to relieve post-injection local and systemic adverse events. But the cumulative incidencecurves suggest a fairly constant rate of confirmed covid-19 cases over time, with symptom onset dates extending well beyond a week after dosing.

That said, the higher rate of medication use in the vaccine arm provides further reason to worry about unofficial unblinding. Given the vaccines’ reactogenicity, it’s hard to imagine participants and investigators could not make educated guesses about which group they were in.  The primary endpoint in the trials is relatively subjective making unblinding an important concern. Yet neither FDA nor the companies seem to have formally probed the reliability of the blinding procedure, and its effects on the reported outcomes.

Nor do we know enough about the processes of the primary event adjudication committees that counted covid-19 cases. Were they blinded to antibody data and information on patients’ symptoms in the first week after vaccination?  What criteria did they employ, and why, with a primary event consisting of a patient-reported outcome (covid-19 symptoms) and PCR test result, was such a committee even necessary? It’s also important to understand who was on these committees. While Moderna has named its four-member adjudication committee—all university-affiliated physicians—Pfizer’s protocol says three Pfizer employees did the work. Yes, Pfizer staff members.

Vaccine efficacy in people who already had covid?

Individuals with a known history of SARS-CoV-2 infection or previous diagnosis of Covid-19 were excluded from Moderna’s and Pfizer’s trials. But still 1125 (3.0%) and 675 (2.2%) of participants in Pfizer’s and Moderna’s trials, respectively, were deemed to be positive for SARS-CoV-2 at baseline.

Vaccine safety and efficacy in these recipients has not received much attention, but as increasingly large portions of many countries’ populations may be “post-Covid,” these data seem important—and all the more so as the US CDC recommends offering vaccine “regardless of history of prior symptomatic or asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection.” This follows on from the agency’s conclusions, regarding Pfizer’s vaccine, that it had ≥92% efficacy and “no specific safety concerns” in people with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection.

By my count, Pfizer apparently reported 8 cases of confirmed, symptomatic Covid-19 in people positive for SARS-CoV-2 at baseline (1 in the vaccine group, 7 in the placebo group, using the differences between Tables 9 and 10) and Moderna, 1 case (placebo group; Table 12).

But with only around four to 31 reinfections documented globally, how, in trials of tens of thousands, with median follow-up of two months, could there be nine confirmed covid-19 cases among those with SARS-CoV-2 infection at baseline? Is this representative of meaningful vaccine efficacy, as CDC seems to have endorsed? Or could it be something else, like prevention of covid-19 symptoms, possibly by the vaccine or by the use of medicines which suppress symptoms, and nothing to do with reinfection?

We need the raw data

Addressing the many open questions about these trials requires access to the raw trial data. But no company seems to have shared data with any third party at this point.

Pfizer says it is making data available “upon request, and subject to review.” This stops far short of making data publicly available, but at least leaves the door open. How open is unclear, since the study protocol says Pfizer will only start making data available 24 months after study completion.

Moderna’s data sharing statement states data “may be available upon request once the trial is complete.” This translates to sometime in mid-to-late 2022, as follow-up is planned for 2 years.

Things may be no different for the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine which has pledged patient-level data “when the trial is complete.” And the ClinicalTrials.gov entry for the Russian Sputnik V vaccine says there are no plans to share individual participant data.

The European Medicines Agency and Health Canada, however, may share data for any authorized vaccines much earlier.  EMA has already pledged to publish the data submitted by Pfizer on its website “in due course,” as has Health Canada.

Peter Doshi, associate editor, The BMJ

Competing interests: I have been pursuing the public release of vaccine trial protocols, and have co-signed open letters calling for independence and transparency in covid-19 vaccine related decision making.

Spanish translation of this article

Footnote

Calculations in this article are as follows:  19% = 1 – (8+1594)/(162+1816); 29% = 1 – (8 + 1594 – 409)/(162 + 1816 – 287). I ignored denominators as they are similar between groups.

 

To Read the original article, please visit

Asymptomatic ‘Casedemic’ Is a Perpetuation of Needless Fear

Asymptomatic 'Casedemic' Is a Perpetuation of Needless Fear

Published and verified by Dr Jospeh Mercola

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • The PCR test is not designed to be used as a diagnostic tool as it cannot distinguish between inactive viruses and “live” or reproductive ones
  • Many if not most laboratories amplify the RNA collected via PCR swab far too many times, which results in healthy people testing “positive” even if their viral load is very low or the virus is inactive and poses no threat
  • Amplification over 35 cycles is considered unreliable and scientifically unjustified. Dr. Anthony Fauci has admitted the chances of a positive result being accurate at 35 cycles or more “are minuscule.” Yet the CDC, FDA and WHO all recommend using 40 to 45 cycles
  • Recent research shows that to maximize accuracy, PCR tests for COVID-19 should use far fewer cycles. At 17 cycles, 100% of the positive results were confirmed to be real positives. Above 17 cycles, accuracy drops dramatically. By the time you get to 33 cycles, the accuracy rate is a mere 20%, meaning 80% are false positives
  • When symptomatic, your chances of getting a true positive on the first day of symptom onset is only about 40%. Not until Day 3 from symptom onset do you have an 80% chance of getting an accurate PCR result

As coronavirus testing takes place en masse across the U.S., many are questioning whether the tests are accurate enough to trust, especially in people who are asymptomatic. Positive reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests have several drawbacks that make mass testing problematic and rife for misleading fearmongering.

For starters, the PCR test is not designed to be used as a diagnostic tool as it cannot distinguish between inactive viruses and “live” or reproductive ones.1 This is a crucial point, since inactive and reproductive viruses are not interchangeable in terms of infectivity. If you have a nonreproductive virus in your body, you will not get sick and you cannot spread it to others.

The PCR Cycle Threshold Matters

YT LINK: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_1Z8cSXI-Q&feature=youtu.be

Secondly, many if not most laboratories amplify the RNA collected far too many times, which results in healthy people testing “positive.” To understand why the false positive rate for PCR tests is so high, you need to understand how the test works.2

The video above explains how the PCR test works and how we are interpreting results incorrectly. In summary, the PCR swab collects RNA from your nasal cavity. This RNA is then reverse transcribed into DNA. However, because the genetic snippets are so tiny, they must be amplified to become discernible.

Each round of amplification is called a cycle, and the number of amplification cycles used by any given test or lab is called a cycle threshold. Amplification over 35 cycles is considered unreliable and scientifically unjustified. Some experts say nothing above 30 cycles should be used,3 yet Drosten tests and tests recommended by the World Health Organization are set to 45 cycles.4,5,6

When you go above 30 cycles, even insignificant sequences of viral DNA end up being magnified to the point that the test reads positive even if your viral load is extremely low or the virus is inactive and poses no threat to you or anyone else.

‘Casedemic’ Fuels Needless Fear

When labs use these excessive cycle thresholds, you end up with a far higher number of positive tests than you would otherwise. At present, and going back a number of months now, what we’re really dealing with is a “casedemic,”7,8 meaning an epidemic of false positives.

Remember, in medical terminology, when used accurately, a “case” refers to someone who has symptoms of a disease. By erroneously reporting positive tests as “cases,” the pandemic appears magnitudes worse than it actually is.

“The goal is to keep you scared, isolated and demoralized for a purpose,” says PJ Media.9 “Only a beaten nation would stand for what comes next.” And that next step is a reset of America as you know it, with the UN’s one-world Agenda 2030 at the helm. To learn more, be sure to read “What You Need to Know About the Great Reset.”

As reported by Global Research in “The COVID-19 RT-PCR Test: How to Mislead All Humanity. Using a ‘Test’ to Lock Down Society”:10

“Official postulate … positive RT-PCR cases = COVID-19 patients. This is the starting postulate, the premise of all official propaganda, which justifies all restrictive government measures: isolation, confinement, quarantine, mandatory masks, color codes by country and travel bans, tracking, social distances in companies, stores and even, even more importantly, in schools.

This misuse of RT-PCR technique is used as a relentless and intentional strategy by some governments, supported by scientific safety councils and by the dominant media, to justify excessive measures such as the violation of a large number of constitutional rights, the destruction of the economy with the bankruptcy of entire active sectors of society, the degradation of living conditions for a large number of ordinary citizens, under the pretext of a pandemic based on a number of positive RT-PCR tests, and not on a real number of patients.”


COVID Testing Fraud Fuels ‘Casedemic’

In the video at the top of this article, Del Bigtree breaks down how excessively high test sensitivity leads to falsely elevated “case” numbers that in reality mean nothing. He rightly points out that missing from the COVID-19 conversation is the death rate.

“If COVID is a deadly virus, what should we see when cases increase?” he asks. The answer, of course, is an increase in deaths. However, that’s not what’s happening. The two have virtually nothing to do with each other.

In the video, Bigtree features a November 4, 2020, tweet11 by White House coronavirus adviser Dr. Scott Atlas showing the number of positive tests (aka “cases”) in blue and COVID-19 related deaths in red, since the start of the pandemic up until the end of October 2020. As you can see, there’s no correlation between so-called cases and deaths.

U.S. COVID-19 Cases and Deaths

A second graph tweeted12 by Atlas shows the number of U.S. counties reporting more than 10 COVID-19 related deaths per day, based on New York Times data. It too indicates that the death rate is steadily dwindling.

U.S. counties reporting more than 10 COVID-19 related deaths per day

Worldwide, we see the same phenomenon. The first graph below, from Bigtree’s video report, shows the worldwide daily new cases since the beginning of the pandemic. The second graph shows daily COVID-19 related deaths, worldwide. While the number of positive tests have risen, fallen and risen again, the number of deaths have fallen off and do not appear to be rising in tandem with positive test rates any longer.

COVID-19 Daily New Cases
COVID-19 Daily Deaths

Shocking Data Reveal Inaccuracy of PCR Tests

Circling back to the PCR cycle threshold and its influence on positivity rates, Bigtree reviews research13 showing that to really maximize accuracy, PCR tests should use far fewer cycles.

At just 17 cycles, 100% of the positive results were confirmed to be real positives. In other words, 17 cycles would likely be the ideal CT. Above 17 cycles, accuracy drops dramatically. By the time you get to 33 cycles, the accuracy rate is a mere 20%, meaning 80% are false positives. Beyond 34 cycles, your chance of a positive PCR test being a true positive shrinks to zero. This is the graph from that study.14

Percentage of positive viral culturePercentage of positive viral culture of SARS-CoV-2 PCR-positive nasopharyngeal samples from Covid-19 patients, according to Ct value (plain line). The dashed curve indicates the polynomial regression curve.

Other data presented by Bigtree shows that your chances of getting a true positive on the first day of COVID-19 symptom onset is only about 40%. Not until Day 3 from symptom onset do you have an 80% chance of getting an accurate PCR result.

If you get a cycle threshold of 35 or more … the chances of it being replication-confident are minuscule … You almost never can culture a virus from a 37 threshold cycle … [or] even 36 … ~ Dr. Anthony Fauci

By Day 5 the accuracy shrinks considerably and by Day 8 the accuracy is nil. Now, these are symptomatic people. When you’re asymptomatic, your odds of a positive PCR test being accurate is therefore virtually nonexistent.

Rapid Test Is Less Sensitive and May Be Better for Most

To address some of the shortcomings in PCR testing, most notably the time it takes to get the result, rapid tests have been developed that can provide an answer in minutes. These tests also appear to be less sensitive, which is actually a good thing. One such rapid test, called the Sofia by Quidel, looks for the presence of antigens (coronavirus proteins) rather than RNA.

In a recent comparison of PCR and the Quidel rapid test, University of Arizona researchers discovered that while the rapid test can detect more than 80% of the infections found by slower PCR tests, when used on asymptomatic individuals, that rate dropped to just 32%. (The study has not been published yet but was reviewed by experts solicited by The New York Times.15,16)

While a 32% detection rate may sound terrible, appearances can be deceiving. Remember, if labs are using a cycle threshold (CT) of, say, 40 cycles, the number of positive PCR results will be vastly exaggerated.

According to The New York Times,17 researchers have been “unable to grow the coronavirus out of samples from volunteers whose PCR tests had CT values above 27.” If the virus cannot replicate, you will not get ill and are not infectious, so you cannot spread it to others.

When all PCR tests with a CT value over 30 were excluded from the comparison, the rapid test was found to detect more than 85% of the SARS-CoV-2 infections detected by the PCR tests, and this held true whether the individual had symptoms or not.

Mass Testing Shown To Be Ineffective at Best

Why are we still testing asymptomatic people? According to a study18,19 in the October 21, 2020, issue of PLOS ONE, mass testing is at best ineffective and at worst, harmful.

“Even for highly accurate tests, false positives and false negatives will accumulate as mass testing strategies are employed under pressure, and these misdiagnoses could have major implications on the ability of governments to suppress the virus,” the authors state.20

“The present analysis uses a modified SIR model to understand the implication and magnitude of misdiagnosis in the context of ending lockdown measures. The results indicate that increased testing capacity alone will not provide a solution to lockdown measures. The progression of the epidemic and peak infections is shown to depend heavily on test characteristics, test targeting, and prevalence of the infection.

Antibody based immunity passports are rejected as a solution to ending lockdown, as they can put the population at risk if poorly targeted. Similarly, mass screening for active viral infection may only be beneficial if it can be sufficiently well targeted, otherwise reliance on this approach for protection of the population can again put them at risk.”

In an August 28, 2020, interview with The Post,21 Michael Levitt, Nobel Prize winner and professor of structural biology at Stanford, stated mass testing is “a huge waste of money which could much better go to helping people who have lost their jobs … It’s great for the pharmaceutical companies selling test kits, but it’s not doing anything good.”

Fauci Admits CT Over 35 Renders PCR Test Useless

YT Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_Vy6fgaBPE&feature=youtu.be

Even Dr. Anthony Fauci has admitted that the PCR test is useless and misleading when run at “35 cycles or higher.”22 He made this comment in a July 16, 2020, “This Week in Virology” podcast:23

“If you get a cycle threshold of 35 or more … the chances of it being replication-confident are minuscule … You almost never can culture a virus from a 37 threshold cycle … [or] even 36 …”

That then begs the question, why is the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommending the test be run at a CT of 40?24 Why are Drosten tests and tests recommended by the World Health Organization set to 45 cycles? As noted by author and investigative journalist Jon Rappaport:25

“All labs in the U.S. that follow the FDA guideline are knowingly or unknowingly participating in fraud. Fraud on a monstrous level, because… Millions of Americans are being told they are infected with the virus on the basis of a false positive result, and …

The total number of COVID cases in America — which is based on the test — is a gross falsity. The lockdowns and other restraining measures are based on these fraudulent case numbers.

Let me back up and run that by you again. Fauci says the test is useless when it’s run at 35 cycles or higher. The FDA says run the test up to 40 cycles in order to determine whether the virus is there. This is the crime in a nutshell … On the basis of fake science, the country was locked down.”

To Read original Article, please visit

Source: https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/11/19/covid-testing-fraud-fuels-casedemic.aspx

Sources

What You Need to Know About the COVID Vaccine

What you need to know about the COVID Vaccine

In this article we will get straight to the point and go over the details provided by the manufacturer (specifically Pfizer, with sources for information on the Moderna vaccine at the end as well) based on the vaccine package insert, published phase 3 clinical trial, and FDA Briefing document.

We will cover ingredients, effectiveness and how it was evaluated, and safety, including reports of adverse events since administration of the vaccine began in December.

Pfizer-BioNTech COVID Vaccine

INGREDIENTS:

“The Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine is supplied as a frozen suspension in multiple dose vials; each vial must be diluted with 1.8 mL of sterile 0.9% Sodium Chloride Injection, USP prior to use to form the vaccine. Each dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine contains 30 mcg of a nucleoside-modified messenger RNA (modRNA) encoding the viral spike (S) glycoprotein of SARS-CoV-2.

Each dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine also includes the following ingredients: lipids (0.43 mg (4-hydroxybutyl)azanediyl)bis(hexane-6,1-diyl)bis(2-hexyldecanoate), 0.05 mg 2[(polyethylene glycol)-2000]- N,N-ditetradecylacetamide, 0.09 mg 1,2-distearoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphocholine, and 0.2 mg cholesterol), 0.01 mg potassium chloride, 0.01 mg monobasic potassium phosphate, 0.36 mg sodium chloride, 0.07 mg dibasic sodium phosphate dihydrate, and 6 mg sucrose. The diluent (0.9% Sodium Chloride Injection, USP) contributes an additional 2.16 mg sodium chloride per dose.”

Source: Pfizer mRNA Vaccine Insert. (Page 26) https://labeling.pfizer.com/ShowLabeling.aspx

Ingredient of concern: Modified mRNA.

COVID vaccines are the first vaccine to use modified (synthetic) mRNA technology. There is ongoing debate and concern amongst the scientific and medical community with regard to potential unknown effects of injecting lab-created genetic material into the body.

“…there are unique and unknown risks to messenger RNA vaccines, including local and systemic inflammatory responses that could lead to autoimmune conditions.

An article published by the National Center for Biotechnology Information, a division 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 effects of any non-native nucleotides and delivery system components.”

Source: Could mRNA COVID-19 vaccines be dangerous in the long-term? https://m.jpost.com/health-science/could-an-mrna-vaccine-be-dangerous-in-the-long-term-649253

Typically, when mRNA is present outside of a cell, it degrades relatively quickly. In order to prevent this from happening, scientists encapsulated the mRNA in a lipid nanoparticle. How long the mRNA remains in the body to continue being translated into the viral spike protein, is unknown.

Ingredient of concern: Polyethylene Glycol (PEG).

Polyethylene glycol is one of the ingredients used for the lipid nanoparticle that protects the mRNA sequence. Traditional vaccines often contain a chemical substance like aluminum which provokes the immune system to attack the contents of the vaccine. Although mRNA vaccines do not contain aluminum or other traditional adjuvants, the proprietary PEGylated lipid nanoparticle designed by Pfizer is said to have “adjuvant activity”.

Additionally… “[Polyethylene glycol, or PEG] has never been used before in an approved vaccine, but it is found in many drugs that have occasionally triggered anaphylaxis—a potentially life-threatening reaction that can cause rashes, a plummeting blood pressure, shortness of breath, and a fast heartbeat. Some allergists and immunologists believe a small number of people previously exposed to PEG may have high levels of antibodies against PEG, putting them at risk of an anaphylactic reaction to the vaccine.”

Source: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/12/suspicions-grow-nanoparticles-pfizer-s-covid-19-vaccine-trigger-rare-allergic-reactions

EFFECTIVENESS:

Claim: 95% effective

What this claim is based on:

Although there were a total of 43,548 trial participants in Pfizer’s phase 3 trial, their calculation of effectiveness is based on a total of 170 participants.

These 170 participants were the first to develop symptoms of COVID and test positive for SARS-CoV-2, within the two-month monitoring period starting 7 days after the administration of the second vaccine.

From the chart below, it states that of the first 170 participants to develop symptoms and test positive for SARS-CoV-2, 162 of them were placebo recipients and 8 were vaccine recipients.

This is where the “95% effective” calculation comes from.

Source: Pfizer Vaccine Insert.

However, the rest of the participants were not tested for infection, nor were they tested for the development of antibodies, which is the endpoint typically used to measure vaccine effectiveness.

The published phase 3 clinical trial states the following “Limitations and Remaining Questions”:

Note: Remaining questions include “whether the vaccine protects against asymptomatic infection and transmission”.

Source: Phase 3 Clinical Trial. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577

Pfizer’s phase three trial was designed to determine if the vaccine may prevent (or suppress) symptoms, but not infection. Therefore, it is not known whether or not the vaccine actually prevents (asymptomatic) infection or transmission.

Why is this important?

First, the ability of a vaccine to suppress symptoms of infection, but not prevent infection itself, is not an indication or measure of immunity. If an individual is infected with a virus while displaying no symptoms of that infection, that makes them an asymptomatic carrier. Immunity develops with an immune system response. Typically, symptoms are the sign of that immune system response.

Second, although it wasn’t initially studied, the FDA discovered several decades after current pertussis vaccines were put into use, that the pertussis vaccine does not prevent infection or transmission and that vaccinated asymptomatic carriers have actually contributed to pertussis outbreaks.

Third, if the COVID vaccine does not prevent infection or transmission, and only suppresses symptoms, then herd immunity is not possible with this vaccine, even if 100% of the population receives it.

This is precisely why Dr. Fauci and others have stated that regardless of whether or not you receive the vaccines, you will still be expected to wear masks, social distance, avoid gatherings, etc. https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/01/12/956051995/why-you-should-still-wear-a-mask-and-avoid-crowds-after-getting-the-covid-19-vac

But let’s go back to the “95% effective” claim.

To add more clarity to previous statements, participants who tested positive for or developed symptoms of COVID infection within the first four weeks after the first shot, were not included in the analysis on effectiveness.

The vaccine insert states that the population assessed for the primary efficacy endpoint (preventing symptoms) includes:

“All eligible randomized participants who receive all vaccination(s) … and have no evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection prior to 7 days after Dose 2.”

What do we know about the risk of COVID symptoms or infection during the initial four weeks after the first shot?

From the FDA Briefing document below, Pfizer shares the following regarding “Suspected COVID-19 Cases” on page 42:

“Suspected COVID-19 cases that occurred within 7 days after any vaccination were 409 in the vaccine group vs. 287 in the placebo group.”

Source: Pfizer’s FDA Briefing document: https://www.fda.gov/media/144245/download

This means that over 70% of the participants who developed symptoms of COVID in the first 7 days following each shot, were those who received the vaccine.

It also states:

“Among 3410 total cases of suspected but unconfirmed COVID-19 in the overall study population, 1594 occurred in the vaccine group vs. 1816 in the placebo group.”

Therefore, over the entire duration of the trial (about 105 days), almost half (47%) of the participants who developed symptoms identical to COVID, received the vaccine (vs 53% of placebo recipients).

While it was stated previously, let’s reiterate what exactly the vaccine prevents:

“The protocol-specified 2-dose vaccination regimen was [95%] effective in preventing PCR- confirmed COVID-19 occurring at least 7 days after completion of the vaccination regimen.”

(Does not include suspected but untested cases of COVID during the length of the trial, nor confirmed cases of COVID in the first four weeks after the first shot.)

Unfortunately, even the PCR test (whether it is positive or negative) is subject to interpretation, as stated by PCR test manufacturers and the World Health Organization. Pfizer does not state how many cycles was used to determine positivity of participant tests. Therefore it is difficult to know how reliable their testing method actually was.

More about the PCR test, here: https://everlyreport.com/world-health-organization-pcr-test-recommendation/

And yes, you can still contract COVID and test positive for the virus even after receiving both doses of the vaccine.

Congressman tests positive for COVID virus a few weeks after receiving second dose of Pfizer vaccine.https://www.foxnews.com/us/congressman-second-covid-19-dose-tests-positive-virus

Does the vaccine at least prevent death from COVID?

Regarding the ability of the vaccine to reduce mortality from COVID, the FDA briefing document states:

“A larger number of individuals at high risk of COVID-19 and higher attack rates would be needed to confirm efficacy of the vaccine against mortality.”

Mortality was not evaluated because there were no deaths from COVID in their trial, even amongst 21,728 participants who received placebo.

SAFETY:

Safety was evaluated for a “median of two months” during the phase 3 Pfizer clinical trial.

“The Most Commonly Reported Systemic Events Were Fatigue And Headache (59% And 52%, Respectively)…”

“Fever (Temperature, ≥38°C) Was Reported After The Second Dose By 16% Of Younger Vaccine Recipients And By 11% Of Older Recipients.”

“More [Vaccine] Recipients Than Placebo Recipients Reported Any Adverse Event (27% And 12%, Respectively) Or A Related Adverse Event (21% And 5%).”

Ultimately, Pfizer Suggests That The Amount And Severity Of Adverse Events From The Vaccine Compared To The Placebo Are Not Significant Enough.

However, If The Vaccine Is Intended To Prevent Symptoms (And Whether It’s Actually 95% Effective At Doing So Is Up To You To Decide), While Also Causing Significantly More Symptoms Than Placebo (Over Twice As Much), What Is The True Net Benefit? How Will We Know If There Will Be A Net Benefit, In The End?

Although Pfizer States In Their Published Trial That “Safety Monitoring Will Continue For 2 Years After Administration Of The Second Dose Of Vaccine”, Participants In The Trial Who Received Placebo Are Already Being Offered The Vaccine.

Therefore, There Will Be No Placebo Group Left To Compare Chronic Adverse Events, To See Whether Or Not More Long Term, Long Lasting Health Conditions Such As Autoimmunity, Neurological Disease, Or Cancer, Are More Or Less Prevalent In The Vaccine Group Compared To Placebo.

Therefore, We Won’t Be Receiving Much More Scientifically-Founded Information With Regard To Safety Of The Vaccine Beyond A Few Months, From The Ongoing Trial Itself.

Opinion: The Loss Of A Control Group Moving Forward And The Lack Of Long Term Safety Data Monitoring Should Be Of Great Concern To Everyone, Since These Are The First MRNA Vaccines Being Distributed To The Public, And This Technology Itself Is Still Experimental. That The Pfizer And Moderna Vaccines Have Not Obtained Full FDA Review And Approval, And Have Only Been Accepted Under Emergency Use Authorization.

From The Previously Mentioned Article On The Potential For MRNA Vaccines To Be Dangerous Long Term:

“We Will Have A Safety Profile For Only A Certain Number Of Months, So If There Is A Long-Term Effect After Two Years, We Cannot Know,” Brosh Said, Adding That We Could Wait Two Years To Discover Them, “But Then We Would Have The Coronavirus For Two More Years.”

Linial Expressed Similar Sentiments: “Classical Vaccines Were Designed To Take 10 Years To Develop.”

Pfizer Did It In About 9 Months.

What Else Can We Conclude About Safety From What We Know About The Trial?

It’s Important To Understand That The Reported Adverse Events From The Trial Did Not Capture Or Reflect All Possible Adverse Events That Will Occur When It Is Administered To The Public.

The US Population Is Around 330 Million People. There Were 21,720 Participants Who Received The Vaccine In Pfizer’s Clinical Trial. In A Sense, Every 1 Participant In The Trial Represents 15,000 Other People In The US Who Could Potentially Receive The Vaccine. Yet, The Demographics Of The Trial Participants Do Not Reflect The Demographics Of The US Population, Based On Health, Age, Ethnicity, Chronic Conditions, Etc. (Page 20 Of The FDA Briefing Document.)

Dr. Fauci Stated It This Way:

“I Think People Need To Understand That The Issue Of The Safety Goes Well Beyond The Confines Of A Clinical Trial,” Fauci Told CNBC.

“Because When You’re In A Clinical Trial, You’re Giving It For Example, The Pfizer Trial Was 44,000 People. Once You Decide To Dispense The Vaccine Widely, You’re Talking About Millions And Tens Of Millions And Ultimately Hundreds Of Millions Of Doses. So You May See Reactions That You Didn’t See In The Clinical Trial,” Added Fauci, Who Is Director Of The National Institute Of Allergy And Infectious Diseases.

Here’s A Bit Of An Example Why Rare Adverse Events In Clinical Trials Are Important To Consider:

From The FDA Briefing Document On Page 33, It States That The Difference Between The Number Of Serious Adverse Events (SAEs) Between The Placebo And The Vaccine Group Is Just 0.1%. The Placebo Group Had An SAE Rate Of 0.5% And Vaccine Group Had An SAE Rate Of 0.6%. If The Background Rate Of Serious Adverse Events In Our Population Is Equivalent To Placebo, Then The Added Rate Of Serious Adverse Events From The Vaccine Would Be 0.1%.

What Is 0.1% Of 330 Million People?

330,000 People.

And That Reflects Only The Serious Adverse Events That They Were Able To Capture In The Clinical Trial, Based On A Demographic Group That Is Generally Healthier Than What Is Representative Of The US Population As A Whole.

What About Reported Adverse Events Since The Vaccine Began To Be Administered And Distributed?

Adverse Events Are Supposed To Be Reported To VAERS, The Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System, Under The Department Of Health And Human Services (HHS). Unfortunately, An HHS Study Found That Less Than 1% Of Vaccine Adverse Events Are Actually Reported To VAERS.

In Addition, The VAERS System Search Tool And Downloadable Data In Order To Access And Read VAERS Reports Are Difficult To Use For The Average Person. If You Would Like, You May Attempt To Use It Yourself, Here: Https://Wonder.Cdc.Gov/Vaers.Html

Here Is An Example Of Search Results From January 29th, 2021 For COVID Vaccines:

Thankfully, An Independent Group Of Individuals Who Are Concerned With Transparency Have Created A Website And Search Tool Of Their Own Which Uses VAERS’s Raw Data. If You Would Like To Explore This System, You May Do So Here.

Otherwise, With Regard To Safety, On December 19th, 2020, The CDC Presented Data Regarding Adverse Events Reported During The First 5 Days Vaccines Were Administered, December 14th-18th.

According To The Data Received, 2.8% Of COVID Vaccine Recipients Experienced “Health Impact Events” Which Made Them Unable To Perform Normal Daily Activities, Unable To Work, And/Or Required Care From A Doctor Or Health Care Professional.

This Is A Relatively High Percentage Of Significant Adverse Events Considering The Amount Of People Who Intend To Receive The Vaccine, And This Is Just For The First Dose. The Second Dose Is Known To Be More Reactogenic For More People (Often Causing More Adverse Events).

There Have Also Been Several Reports Of Deaths Of Health Care Workers, Elderly Patients, And Others Shortly After Receiving The COVID Vaccine (The Following List Does Not Encompass All Media Reports):

Portuguese Health Worker, 41, Dies Two Days After Getting The Pfizer Covid Vaccine As Her Father Says He ‘Wants Answers’.Https://Www.Dailymail.Co.Uk/News/Article-9111311/Portuguese-Health-Worker-41-Dies-Two-Days-Getting-Pfizer-Covid-Vaccine.Html

Doctor’s Death After Covid Vaccine Is Being Investigated. Https://Www.Google.Com/Amp/S/Www.Nytimes.Com/2021/01/12/Health/Covid-Vaccine-Death.Amp.Html

75-Year-Old Man Dies Of Heart Attack Shortly After Receiving Coronavirus Vaccine. Https://Www.I24news.Tv/En/News/Coronavirus/1609155691-Israel-75-Year-Old-Man-Dies-Of-Heart-Attack-Shortly-After-Receiving-Coronavirus-Vaccine

Health Care Worker Dies After Second Dose Of COVID Vaccine, Investigations Underway. Https://Www.Ocregister.Com/2021/01/26/Health-Care-Worker-Dies-After-Second-Dose-Of-Covid-Vaccine-Investigations-Underway/#

Person In Placer County Dies Shortly After Being Given The COVID-19 Vaccine, Authorities Say. Https://Www.Sacbee.Com/News/Coronavirus/Article248731805.Html#Storylink=Cpy

23 Die In Norway After Receiving Pfizer COVID-19 Vaccine: Officials. Https://Nypost.Com/2021/01/15/23-Die-In-Norway-After-Receiving-Pfizer-Covid-19-Vaccine/

South Dakota Reports 2 Deaths Recorded After COVID-19 Vaccinations. Https://Www.Blackhillsfox.Com/2021/01/20/South-Dakota-Reports-2-Deaths-Recorded-After-Covid-19-Vaccinations/

Auburn Woman Warns She Saw Grandfather’s Aid Die After COVID Vaccine. Https://Sacramento.Cbslocal.Com/2021/01/25/No-Link-Found-Yet-Auburn-Woman-Warns-She-Saw-Grandfathers-Aid-Die-After-Covid-Vaccine/

Dozens Of Care Home Residents Died With Covid Before Second Jab. Https://Metro.Co.Uk/2021/01/24/Dozens-Of-Care-Home-Residents-Died-With-Covid-After-First-Jab-13956611 (After The First Jab.)

Family, Community Mourn Loss Of Provo NICU Therapist To COVID-19*.Https://Www.Fox13now.Com/News/Coronavirus/Local-Coronavirus-News/Family-Community-Mourn-Loss-Of-Provo-Nicu-Therapist-To-Covid-19  (*The NICU Therapist Had Received The COVID Vaccine 6 Days Before Testing Positive For The Virus And Eventually Passing.)

Of Course, The Deaths Occurring In The Articles Above Are Not Stated As Considered To Be Caused By The Vaccine.

Yet In Some Cases, It Is Possible That The Vaccine Even Contributed To Enhanced COVID Disease, Due To A Phenomenon Known As Antibody Dependent Enhancement. In Prior Vaccine Trials Which Were Abandoned, It Was Discovered That The Development Of Antibodies In Response To The Experimental Vaccine Actually Made Symptoms Of Disease More Severe When The Subject Was Challenged With The Virus.

The FDA Also Considers “Vaccine Enhanced Disease” A Possibility When Planning For The Collection Of Safety Data On COVID Vaccine Adverse Events.

Side Note: While Most Think Or Believe That Autopsies Are Comprehensive And Will Find Evidence Of Vaccine Injury If It Is Present In The Deceased, It Is Important To Know That There Is No Protocol In Place To Determine Whether Or Not A Vaccine Caused The Death Of A Person, During An Autopsy. Unfortunately, Parents Have Had To Spend Thousands Of Dollars To Order Their Own Private Autopsies To Begin To Look For Evidence Of Vaccine Injury When Their Children Die Shortly After Receiving Vaccines.

From A Personal Contact Of Mine, Joy Fritz:

“I Worked In The Mortuary Industry Doing Death Certificates For Over Six Years. Vaccine Deaths Will Be Chalked Up To Natural Causes. We Can Never Get Accurate Prevalence Rates Of How Many People Die From Vaccines, Medications Or Any Medical Interventions Due To Cause Of Death Reporting Being Biased Towards Natural Causes. Death Recording Protocols Are Not Conducive To Scientific Investigation Of What Truly Caused A Death. Any Underlying Natural Condition That A Patient Has, No Matter How Well Managed Is The Default Cause Of Death. The Death Recording System Is Not Set Up To Accurately Inform Public Health Beliefs, Public Policy Creation Or Medical Decision-Making.”

Vaccine Resistance By Health Care Professionals

In Some Areas, 50% Of Health Care Workers And Up To 60% Of Nursing Home Workers Are Refusing The COVID Vaccine. These Have Been The First Individuals To Receive The Vaccine As It Has Been Rolled Out.

Why Are They Refusing, And Are They Seeing Something That We Aren’t Seeing?

Large Numbers Of Health Care And Frontline Workers Are Refusing Covid-19 Vaccine. Https://Www.Google.Com/Amp/S/Www.Forbes.Com/Sites/Tommybeer/2021/01/02/Large-Numbers-Of-Health-Care-And-Frontline-Workers-Are-Refusing-Covid-19-Vaccine/Amp/

Criminal Convictions

I Think It’s Important For People To Know That While Developing Vaccines May Seem Like A Product Of Good Will, Unfortunately The Pharmaceutical Industry Has A Long History Of Criminal Convictions For A Wide Variety Of Fraudulent Actions, Pfizer Included. In 2009, Pfizer Was Ordered To Pay $2.3 Billion For Fraud They Committed.

“Pfizer Has Been A ‘Habitual Offender,’ Persistently Engaging In Illegal And Corrupt Marketing Practices, Bribing Physicians And Suppressing Adverse Trial Results.”

SourceHttps://Www.Ncbi.Nlm.Nih.Gov/Pmc/Articles/PMC2875889/

Unfortunately, Under The United States Prep Act, Pfizer And Other COVID Vaccine Manufacturers Were Granted Liability Immunity From Adverse Events Resulting From The Administration Of Their Vaccines. If You Are Harmed By A COVID Vaccine, You Cannot Sue The Manufacturer.

Ultimately, I Do Not Seek To Make Conclusions About The Information Presented Above, Nor Do I Want To Provide Much Personal Opinion On The Matter. The Decision To Receive Any Vaccine Is Yours And Yours Alone. However I Hope That The Above Information Helps You To Be Better Informed And Better Equipped For That Decision.

Thank You For Reading And Sharing.

Additional Information Below.

Human Aborted Fetal Tissue

I Wanted To Include A Note On The Use Of Human Aborted Fetal Cell Lines In The Production, Development, And Testing Of Coronavirus Vaccines.

Both Pfizer And Moderna Used Human Aborted Fetal Cell Lines In The Testing Of Their COVID Vaccines. The Following Chart Is Compiled By The Sound Choice Pharmaceutical Institute.

Https://Soundchoice.Org/Vaccines/Covid-19-Vaccine-Chart/

Sound Choice Is Led By Dr. Theresa Deisher, PhD Who Has Over 30 Years Of Pharmaceutical Research And Discovered Adult Cardiac Derived Stem Cells. She Has Been Working On The Therapeutic Use Of Adult Stem Cells As An Alternative To Aborted Fetal Cells.

More About The Use Of Aborted Fetal Cells In COVID Vaccine Production, Here.

Moderna

Vaccine Insert: Https://Www.Modernatx.Com/Covid19vaccine-Eua/Eua-Fact-Sheet-Providers.Pdf

Phase 3 Clinical Trial: Https://Www.Nejm.Org/Doi/Full/10.1056/NEJMoa2035389

FDA Briefing Document: Https://Www.Fda.Gov/Media/144434/Download Pg. 42 Serious Adverse Events “SAEs”.