Coronavirus Fact-Check #9: Is the vaccine safe?

Reports of allergic reactions, bells palsy and conflicting opinions of many experts make the question difficult to answer.

Kit Knightly

There are dozens of articles all over the mainstream reassuring us that the brand new Sars-Cov-2 vaccine is safe. In the UK the vaccine rolled out is being hailed as “V Day”, in a shameless attempt to draw a parallel with World War II. Matt Hancock went on Good Morning Britain and attempted to “cry”.

On the other side of that coin, many experts in the field have vociferously called for all vaccine trials to be put on halt, some medical researchers are questioning the data and others counsel people to refuse the vaccine under any and all circumstances.

So – is the vaccine safe? The only rational answer is “we don’t know”.

It’s certainly true some people who have received it have experienced unexpected side effects.

It was recently revealed that 4 people involved in the US-based trial suffered partial facial paralysis. In the UK, two NHS staff who have received the vaccine suffered allergic anaphylactoid reactions, as a result the NHS is now not recommending the vaccine for anyone who “suffers from allergies”. 

They don’t know what caused the reaction, and as far as we know so far, the people involved were not allergic to anything in the vaccine. It seems it’s not about being allergic to the vaccine, so much as the vaccine potentially causing problems for anyone with a sensitive or dysfunctional immune system. 

It’s essentially recommended that no one who is allergic to anything, ie. other food or medication, should have the jab.

We’ve already had “explainers” appearing the media, saying vaccine allergic reactions are “rare and shortlived”. 

To be clear, as of December 10th, the vaccine either has never been tested on, or is not recommended for:

• People under sixteen years of age.
• Pregnant women (or women intending to become pregnant in the near future).
• People with serious co-morbidities.
• People already taking other medications.
• People who have allergies.

So the official line already cedes that the vaccine may be harmful to some or all of those people.

Even on the fully-grown and totally healthy adults it was tested on, obviously, there has not been enough time to do any kind of long term studies on possible side-effects or complications It usually takes 5-10 years to fully develop and test a vaccine, where as this has been rushed out in less than 10 months.

On top of that, of course, we have the fact all the vaccine producers have campaigned for – and won – total legal immunity in the UK, US and other nations around the world.

In the event the vaccine does cause harm, Pfizer (and the producers of other vaccines), are immune from civil liability.

Which means that, just like us, the producers themselves are well-aware the new vaccines might not be safe, and don’t want a repeat of 2009, when a rushed-out flu vaccine resulted in children suffering life-long complications and receiving millions in damages.

In the final analysis, you have to ask yourself a simple question: Do you feel safer taking an untested vaccine, or risking getting a virus with a survival rate of over 99%?

Read more:

https://off-guardian.org/2020/12/10/coronavirus-fact-check-9-is-the-vacc...

Australia’s enviable lack of COVID-19 community transmission means there is no need for emergency vaccine approvals like there is overseas, the nation’s top doctor says.

Acting Chief Medical Officer Paul Kelly says granting emergency use of the Pfizer vaccine – like regulators have in the US, UK and Canada – is not necessary locally.

“We don’t need any vaccine this year,” Prof Kelly told reporters in Canberra on Saturday.

“Other countries are in far different state than us and they should be prioritised.”
Australia will wait for national regulator the Therapeutic Goods Administration to run through its own approvals of the Pfizer vaccine with the expectation it will be distributed in early 2021.

He highlighted the nation’s success at controlling virus transmission.

“Today is eighth day in a row we’ve not had any community transmission,” Prof Kelly said. “That’s the first time we’ve been able to say that since February.”

This is compared with the rest of the world, which on Friday witnessed the most deadly day of the virus yet, with more than 13,000 known deaths globally and skyrocketing infections, Prof Kelly said.

Read more:

https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/coronavirus/2020/12/12/no-hurry-australia-covid-vaccine/

One of the vaccines on the horizon, made by Pfizer and German firm BioNTech, must be transported and stored at extremely low temperatures — minus-94 degrees — much colder than most medicines and vaccines. Hence the parameters of the tests conducted by the engineers at Desmon, a producer of commercial refrigeration equipment, late last month.

Read more:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/12/02/pfizer-coronavirus-vaccine-freezers-desmon/?arc404=true

---------------

Some of the first doses of the Pfizer Inc.-BioNTech SE Covid-19 vaccine were held up from delivery in the U.S. this week and sent back to the company because they were colder than anticipated.

Gustave Perna, the army general who serves as Operation Warp Speed’s chief operations officer, said that two trays of vials at two California locations was colder than they are supposed to be. The same thing happened at one location in Alabama, Perna said at a news briefing Wednesday.

Each of the four trays could likely be used to vaccinate 975 people. Pfizer has said its formula needs to be stored at 70 degrees below zero Celsius, the equivalent of negative 94 degrees below zero Fahrenheit. About 2.9 million doses are being distributed across the U.S. this week

The four trays never left the trucks they arrived on, Perna said, adding “we were taking no chances.”

Read more:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-16/some-pfizer-vaccine-doses-returned-after-getting-too-cold-to-use

Read from top.

The EMA has claimed that the contents of the messages, which were obtained by hackers and published on the dark web, were tampered with in order to undermine confidence in the drugs, without providing further details. However, the agency acknowledged to the French newspaper that the correspondences reflect “issues and discussions” that took place in the lead-up to the decision to grant approval to the vaccines. The agency said it can’t specify which documents are genuine. 

Some of the “discussions” appear to have been less than congenial. For example, in a document dated November 19, a senior EMA official described a “rather tense, sometimes even a little unpleasant” conference call with the European Commission regarding the review process for the drugs. The official said he felt there was a clear “expectation” that the vaccines would be approved. A day later, the same individual had an exchange with the Danish Medicines Agency in which he expressed surprise that Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the European Commission, had announced that the Moderna and Pfizer jabs could receive the green light before the end of the year. 

“There are still problems with both,” the unnamed EMA official noted in the leaked correspondence. 

According to Le Monde, the hacked documents primarily detail issues that the EMA had with the Pfizer/BioNTech drug. The regulator apparently had three “major issues” with the vaccine: certain manufacturing sites used for its production had not yet been inspected, data on batches produced for commercial use were still missing, and, most importantly, available data revealed qualitative differences between the commercial batches and those used during clinical trials. 

The EMA expressed particular concern about the last point, noting that mass production had decreased the purity of the RNA contained in the vaccine. The Pfizer jab uses a mRNA strand, a sequence of molecules that tell cells what to ‘build’ in order to produce a disease-specific antigen.   

The EU drug regulator signaled that it was worried that less rigorous manufacturing methods would make the vaccine less effective and safe. However, Pfizer appears to have agreed to make necessary adjustments in order to meet the EMA’s standards. 

Despite its hesitancy, it appears the EMA understood that it was under a clear deadline. In an email exchange between colleagues at the agency, one employee said the EMA needs to “accelerate the process to align [with other agencies],” and risks facing “questions and criticisms” from Brussels, the media and the general public if it did not fast-track approval. 

The Pfizer jab was granted approval by the EU on December 21, while the Moderna variant was given the go-ahead earlier this month. Since then, numerous reports have emerged of both drugs being linked to adverse effects in countries around the world, prompting investigations by health authorities. 

Read more:

https://www.rt.com/news/512844-eu-approval-pressure-pfizer-covid-vaccine/

Read from top.

Health authorities in Norway say there's no evidence of a direct link between the recent string of deaths among elderly people inoculated against COVID-19, and the vaccine they received.

The Norwegian Medicines Agency is seeking to address fears that taking the vaccine might be too risky, after 33 people in the country aged 75 and over died following immunisation, according to the agency's latest figures. All were already seriously ill, it said.

Read more:

https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/norway-finds-no-direct-link-between-elderly-deaths-and-vaccine-20210119-p56v3c.html

Read from top.

What's the hell? Giving a vaccine to people who are close to death? 

Last year, Philip Dormitzer, the chief scientific officer at Pfizer, described Israel as “a sort of laboratory” to “see the effect” of his company’s vaccines. Well, it took over a year into the vaccine drive that injected most Israelis with three shots and some with four to finally publish information on adverse events. What Israel published earlier this month based on a health ministry survey of 2,049 people who got booster shots is not only damning, but unmistakably revealing that there is no way Pfizer did not see these adverse events during the clinical trials in 2020. What did they know and when did they know it?

On Feb. 10, the Israeli Health Ministry published (English version here) the results of a survey of adverse events among roughly 2,000 random Israelis who received booster shots. It’s shocking that it took this long for them to conduct such a survey and didn’t do this a year ago, but it’s better late than never. Just the top-line numbers from the survey should alarm us all. A total of 75% of women and 58% of men reported experiencing at least one side effect within the 21- to 30-day follow-up period of the interview. Obviously, the majority of these were minor, but 51% of the women and 35% of the men who experienced a side effect reported that as a result, they had difficulty performing daily activities.

Full stop right there. Even before we get into more serious problems. Just the fact that the shot knocked out such a massive percentage of people clearly violates the informed consent through which the shots were marketed and most certainly makes any mandate immoral. Right off the bat, it’s clear that this is not like taking a vitamin D pill. Moreover, the fact that we have zero long-term studies, but such a massive percentage get at least a sick feeling from it in the short run should concern everyone. Again, why wasn’t such a survey done in January 2021 after the first dose?

Just take a look at the massive percentage of reports, especially for females, experiencing weakness, muscle ache, shaking, high temperature, and even dizziness and vomiting.

(see chart)

That is a massive percentage for a product ubiquitously marketed, endorsed, distributed, and then mandated by global governments as the safest and most effective vaccine of all time. And all for a virus that, with most younger people, would cause roughly the same symptoms anyway even after being vaccinated. The fact that this shot was even marketed to younger and healthier people is insane. Yes, some people might have willingly taken a shot if they thought they’d get some flu-like symptoms, but that confidence – that the flu-like symptoms don’t portend more severe long-term damage – can only work for an established vaccine that already has long-term safety data.

Now, let’s get to some of the more serious or potentially serious issues. The same table shows that 5.5% reported experiencing chest pain. We already know that there are major safety concerns for cardiovascular issues and that the spike protein is very pro-inflammatory and potentially thrombotic. And remember, this is 5.5% of just one dose. If you extrapolate that to America, where 551 million doses have been administered, that would be approximately 30 million cases of chest pain! It doesn’t necessarily mean that it causes short-term or long-term damage, but again, with a new vaccine with a novel and dangerous mechanism of action and no long-term safety studies, how can this be allowed to continue without further study?

A total of 4.5% of those who received booster doses reported neurological side effects. Assuming the doses are all relatively the same, that would extrapolate to roughly 25 million cases of neurological side effects in the United States. It would lend a lot of credence to the military whistleblowers who report seeing more than a tenfold increase in nervous system diagnoses in 2021 and leaves no doubt that the DOD was bluffing when it responded with “revised” data showing not even a modest increase.

There’s no doubt that the spike protein of the pathogen causes nervous system disorders in some people, just like it causes cardiovascular disorders, but clearly the shots do as well, and remember they don’t prevent you from getting the pathogen.

Read more:

http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2022/february/25/the-israeli-data-that-nukes-the-pfizer-vaccine-what-did-pfizer-know-and-when-did-they-know-it/

READ FROM TOP.

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW