Covid-19 News

    Polyethylene Glycol, not S-Protein Biogenesis, May Account for Ultralow and Waning Efficacy of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines


    Polyethylene Glycol, not S-Protein Biogenesis, May Account for Ultralow and Waning Efficacy of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines
    Note that views expressed in this opinion article are the writer’s personal views and not necessarily those of TrialSite. Dr. Ron Brown – Opinion
    trialsitenews.com


    The reported efficacy of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines is in the range of 95%. But vaccine efficacy, or relative risk reduction, doesn’t tell the whole story of the mRNA vaccines. An analysis of clinical trial data shows that the absolute risk reduction of the mRNA vaccines is in the ultralow range of 1%, but that information is not being disseminated to the public; Outcome Reporting Bias in COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines. These unreported clinical trial results do not appear to support ribosomal translation and biogenesis of SARS-CoV-2 S proteins from the genetic sequence of injected mRNA—a hypothetical mechanism to stimulate immunogenicity against the virus. Rather, the ultralow immune response of the vaccines may be due largely to added ingredients. For example, polyethylene glycol (PEG) is added to the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines as a stabilizer, but PEG also has immunosuppressant and anti-inflammatory effects; PEG potential adjuvant treatment for COVID-19; Polyethylene glycol in sepsis; Polyethylene glycol and Inflammation in lung Injury. Additionally, evidence of anti-PEG antibodies suggests that PEG’s immunosuppression wanes over time. Thus, PEG’s temporary immunosuppressant and anti-inflammatory effects, rather than S-protein biogenesis, could feasibly account for much of the ultralow and waning efficacy of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines.


    Moreover, sodium chloride in 0.9% normal saline was used as a placebo in the mRNA clinical trials; Safety with SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines. Sodium chloride adverse effects could account for a slightly higher infection response in the placebo groups compared to the vaccine groups. Serious adverse effects of saline are strikingly similar to the clinical symptoms of COVID-19, including shortness of breath, fever, rash, rapid heartbeat, and joint pain; Saline (Sodium Chloride Injection): Side Effects.


    The vaccines also contain sodium chloride, especially the Pfizer vaccine which uses 0.9% saline as a diluent to reconstitute the vaccine stored in vials; Administration for Pfizer Vaccine | CDC. However, adverse effects from sodium chloride in the injected vaccines could potentially be mitigated by polyethylene glycol that temporarily suppresses the saline inflammatory effects. I have not been able to find a source identifying the use of PEG in the placebo saline injections.


    In conclusion, not only are the reported efficacy outcomes of the mRNA clinical trials biased, but due to potential anti-inflammatory and immunosuppressant effects of PEG, in addition to the adverse effects of sodium chloride in saline injections, the design of the COVID-19 clinical trials may be biased in favor of the vaccines compared to placebos. Further research is needed to explore the effects of PEG and saline in COVID-19 mRNA vaccines.

    Quote from Alan Smith

    Checking the purity of injectable and transfusable clear liquids has been automated for at least 30 years in most places. The old lab routine of 'shake the bottle and look for turbidity are long gone. Probably a good thing.

    But every doctor and nurse I have watched always looks at the vaccine before injecting it. They also have to check the expiration date for the vaccine and needle. The standard operating procedures from the CDC say they have to examine the vaccine. See 2:40: "Check the vaccine to make sure it is thoroughly mixed. Make sure there is no discoloration or precipitate. Do NOT administer vaccine if: it is discolored, contains particulate matter, or it is not thoroughly mixed."


    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.


    I got a COVID booster yesterday and I am pretty sure the nurse looked at it, but to be honest I wasn't looking. I turned away. I hate to watch when I get a shot, or give a blood sample. (I have to say though, it hardly hurt at all. I didn't even notice at first. Swelling and pain gone by this morning. I had more of a reaction from shots #1 and #2.)

    Quote from JedRothwell

    But every doctor and nurse I have watched always looks at the vaccine before injecting it. They also have to check the expiration date for the vaccine and needle. The standard operating procedures from the CDC say they have to examine the vaccine. See 2:40: "Check the vaccine to make sure it is thoroughly mixed. Make sure there is no discoloration or precipitate. Do NOT administer vaccine if: it is discolored, contains particulate matter, or it is not thoroughly mixed."

    So they do- taught to as I was. But it doesnt happen in a factory producing 50k+ vails of vaccine every day - it was factories I was talking about.

    Could I just ask:


    (A) Does anyone dispute that those who have been double vaccinated within the last 6 months have a reduced risk of mortality, ICU, hospitalisation of at least 5X compared with naive (never infected) individuals (that is 80% protection compared with those not)?


    (I am deliberately understating the case by quite a big factor to be uncontentious)


    (B) Does anyone dispute that the risk of dying from delta COVID the first time you catch it, in a Western population, averages > 0.5%


    (again I'm understating the real average IFR for unvaccinated populations with delta by a large factor to avoid contention)


    (C) In order to get so-called natural immunity (that is COVID-infection immunity) you need to catch COVID and therefore bear the risk from B) or A) according to whether you were vaccinated first


    (D) A third COVID jab resets immunity at least to what it was immediately after 2nd jab. We can't yet be sure, but there is every indication that immunity will last at a high level for another 6 months after it, replicating 2nd jab. It might be a bit better.


    (E) The average death rate from the COVID vaccine (3 jabs total) is less than 125 : 100,000


    I chose this because it is actually the background death rate of a Western population over 6 weeks, counting 14 days from each jab. The crude death rate (whole population) for the UK is 10 per 1000 people per year, so over 1.5 months (1/8 year) we expect 1.25 people to die out of 1000. In other words, for 2 weeks after each shot you run double your normal risk of dying. So just counting deaths close to a vaccine jab, if you vaccinate the whole population, you will get that many deaths from other causes.


    (this is an overestimate of vaccine risks by a factor of 100 - 10,000. I am making it to show that even under these ridiculous assumptions, underestimating benefits and overestimating risks, whole population vaccination is beneficial).


    Now, if you argue with A,B,C, D or E please could I hear quantitative reasons? Not just - here is a reason things might be a bit less good, but here are the numbers I claim about how much less good.


    Otherwise, given all antivaxxers are capable of doing basic multiplication and division, we have:


    Without vaccine, given everyone catches COVID within 2 years (reasonable), 0.5% of population die prematurely from COVID. In the UK that is approx 345,000

    With the vaccine, given everyone is vaccinated before catching COVID, 0.1% (not 100% protection) + 0.125% (that assumes vaccine death rate as high as whole population background - which is what antivaxxers who ignore background claim) = 0.225%


    Thus in this case, even accepting antivaxxer memes which are provably wrong by a factor of 100 or so, the vaccine is saving 50% of the overall (COVID + vaccine) deaths.


    This also illustrates why the antivaxxers are wrong about vaccine risks. The whole population background death risk is quite high - even over a period of 6 weeks we get 0.125%. That is dominated by older people, who are more likely to die, of course. Just as the COVID death rate is dominated by older people.


    VAERS, given a new vaccine, will tend (as it should) to record any suspicious death close in time to a vaccination. VAERS is meant to find possible unanticipated low level side effects, and a new vaccine could do anything. So we expect a VAERS recorded COVID vaccine death rate close to the background death rate - multiplied by the window of time considered close enough to a vaccine to be suspicious (e.g. 2 weeks after, or 4 weeks after, whatever).


    So, anyway, I'd be interested in all the antivaxxers here (I'm sorry, but while it is a known thing that all antivaxxers say not me - I'm not an antivaxxer) the last few pages, endorsed by many here and refuted by exactly 1 (Jed) with minimal help from Alan, have been pure antivaxxer propaganda where every single story is first cherry-picked and then slanted in a way that sounds bad about vaccines. Typical of this is the phraseology use to describe the reduction in vaccine efficacy over time which Jed rightly pointed out is highly biased: 95% protection = ultralow protection.

    Quote from Fm1

    The reported efficacy of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines is in the range of 95%.

    This is fake info. 75% of all western people already have immunity without a vaccine. Best figure is 80% for any vaccine, this just after vaccination and 0% after 6 months -200% protection for Pfizer/Astra against infection... for the largest high hospitalization risk group age 40..80.


    As India shows:: Vaccines (Kerala) 100% fail to protect from death & infection relative to the Ivermectin combo! (Ziverdo-kit).

    Quote from Fm1

    reported efficacy outcomes of the mRNA clinical trials biased

    The outcome has been cheated by Pfizer - 300 induced CoV-19 case kicked out - Moderna kicked out 60. So both vaccines blatantly failed phase III. The Pfizer Phase III study is the biggest ever fraud in medical history.

    Vaccine works very well and do have side effect but they are small. But the risk is small also with covid for the young population. Comparing small probabilities are difficult and unknowns like long term effect means that vaccinating the young population can be questioned without being anti vacc in general. I definitely define a 70 year old that refuses to take it as an atnti vacc. But not a 20 year old nurse who refuse it. Also regarding not admitting a non vacced person to the hospital. Because of the break through cases I would focus to demand that the one going to this sensitive environment to be held in caranteen first before doing the treatment, this due to the break through cases, and if in caranteen then I do not think vaccine matters (I know we employ these safty measures here before operations) Also note people that does not take vaccine correlates probably with people not wearing mask and not social distancing themseves, this also muddes the waters.

    Quote from Mark U

    Gerold mentions the

    I wonder what 'visual inspection' entails. Visual inspection under a microscope? I've seen videos from multiple labs around the world, including the US, which find very strange things under the microscope when observing vaccine contents. Also strange things in the blood and the look and arrangement of blood cells of those recently vaccinated and who are experiencing adverse effects.

    it seems to be a common problem, Moderna in Japan a prominent one. Lot is from Spain.. .. thanks to our global economy ( refer to 54:00 from my linked Video linked earlier)

    Other vaccines seem also be affected Biontech/Pfizer and J&J - 01:40:00

    refer to Video and detailed discussion.

    The Austrian MD is even overing that a camera team could stop by to have a close look at their examination procedures.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    (B) Does anyone dispute that the risk of dying from delta COVID the first time you catch it, in a Western population, averages > 0.5%

    This risk obviously is below 0.1%.


    The vaccines only show success under a fascist setup = no treatment. Compared to treatment - see India - the vaccines have a minuscule effect: See Kerala or Mizoram.


    So we can agree. Under the current vaccine terror regime vaccines show fake success.


    Quote from THHuxleynew

    (C) In order to get so-called natural immunity (that is COVID-infection immunity) you need to catch COVID and therefore bear the risk from B)

    There is virtually 0 risk from B) if you start treatment early. Ivermectin can even help 85% of ICU patients. Merck-Vectin 0%!


    Quote from THHuxleynew

    (D) A third COVID jab resets immunity at least to what it was immediately after 2nd jab.

    Wrong the protection is 4x lower as Israel data shows. Further Israel did kill some 500 peoples with booster induced CoV-19.

    Further boosters (Pfizer) make ( as papers show) the immune memory (B-cells) worse = more homogeneous = less variation = less protection.


    Quote from THHuxleynew

    I chose this because it is actually the background death rate of a Western population over 6 weeks,

    You mix up some data. The question is who (age class) dies and who gets the jab. So you write nonsense.


    Quote from THHuxleynew

    Otherwise, given all antivaxxers

    You should stop your simple minded fascist rhetoric. We oppose a gene therapy not a vaccine. There is no vaccine available in the west! All RNA methods come from cancer gene therapy. E.g. cancer gene therapy Version 1 = Oxford, the oldest solution. Moderna third generation.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    So we expect a VAERS recorded COVID vaccine death rate close to the background death rate -

    You repeat your children nonsense logic felt the 100th time. Onset of symptoms is AVG 3 hours. So your background time is 3 hours .. max 6 hours. So adjust your logic by a factor 500..1000!

    Physicians Rise Up Against WHO “Wait and See” Protocol


    Physicians Rise Up Against WHO “Wait and See” Protocol
    While countries in Asia are distributing home-care kits with antivirals to combat COVID-19, physicians from other parts of the world have declared their
    trialsitenews.com


    While countries in Asia are distributing home-care kits with antivirals to combat COVID-19, physicians from other parts of the world have declared their profession to be at a crossroads. Australia is one of many countries where health professionals face restrictions in their treatment of COVID-19; a recent ban against Australian doctors prescribing their patients with ivermectin caused a great uproar. In the United States, doctors seeking to treat their patients face similar pressures. TrialSite covers the latest development where physicians unite to declare their right to treat their patients.


    Australia, the U.S.A, and other countries in similar positions are concerned that agencies such as the World Health Organization (WHO) impose a ‘one size fits all’ approach, impeding the ability of doctors to care for their patients and provide treatment at their discretion. TrialSite is familiar of several situations where the WHO has actively pressured a national government to ultimately dissuade doctors from embracing ivermectin, for example, as an off-label approach to help care for COVID-19 patients. Licensing boards declare in America that doctors may lose their right to practice—their livelihood—if they pass “misinformation.” But who defines the term? What if those defining the term are also promulgating misinformation?


    This issue voluntarily brought scientists, doctors, and even COVID-19 survivors worldwide to the International COVID Summit (ICS) in Rome, Italy, to sign the petition called the Physicians Declaration. There they shared their positive experiences and evidence when using safe and effective medicines that proved to counter the early effects of COVID-19. The summit’s outcome was in stark contrast to the G20 Health and Ministers Summit, also held in Rome less than 10 days before the ICS; WHO’s central role in driving health policy guidelines was reinforced, and ministers committed to ensuring its ongoing funding.


    Physicians Declaration

    The Physicians declaration is a document signed by doctors and scientists on September 14, 2021, during the ICS, aiming to restore the right of physicians to treat patients by prescribing early treatments to patients with mild and severe symptoms. As of October 5, 2021, over 10,000 doctors and scientists have signed the document.


    Current Practice

    The recommendation of the World Health Organization (WHO) in treating COVID-19 patients depends on the severity of the symptoms.


    Patients with mild to moderate symptoms will be isolated at home with no immediate treatments.

    Those with severe symptoms can be admitted and treated in the hospital.

    Although limited resources constrain hospitals to prioritize severe cases of COVID-19, treatment for others showing early signs of COVID-19 is delayed, putting them at risk.


    Early Intervention

    Since the onset of the pandemic, some physicians and scientists have discussed the effectiveness of certain drugs as early intervention treatments for COVID-19. However, this idea has been continuously shut down by multiple organizations and agencies, citing limited data. The European Medicines Agency, Department of Health, and WHO have imposed a severe strain on doctors’ abilities to prescribe effective treatments.


    Dr. George Fareed is a Harvard Medical School graduate and HIV/AIDS medicine specialist family medicine doctor with the F. Plesner Award for Rural Doctor of the Year and Border Hero Award. In his ICS speech, he claimed that the greatest medical failure is the “wait and see” protocol for COVID-19 treatment, asserting that deaths could have been prevented with early intervention and treatment. He discussed the onset of flu-like symptoms during the replication of the virus in the first stage of COVID and explained that the goal is to stop the viral replication.


    Dr. Peter McCullough, a clinical cardiologist in preventive cardiology and advanced lipidology, explained the function of ionophore drugs that allow zinc into the cell, which interferes with viral replication. Currently, the two main ionophore drugs used in treating COVID-19 are hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin.


    COVID-19 Drugs Suggested at the ICS

    The COVID-19 virus has been continually demonstrated by the media as an incurable monster, putting great fear of the virus into the world. However, scientists and doctors worldwide believe that the virus does not need to be demonized in this way, given that there are effective treatments available to use. TrialSite has followed the stories of doctors advocating for a number of drugs, which include hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin. The antivirals discussed at the ICS are briefly summarized here.


    Hydroxychloroquine


    The use of hydroxychloroquine was pioneered by Dr. Luigi Cavanna, the head of the oncology ward in Piacenza hospital in Italy. He became a candidate for the Nobel Prize in 2021 after realizing that the severe symptoms of seriously ill COVID-19 patients could have been prevented if treated early.


    Dr. Brian Tyson, a family medicine doctor in the Urgent Care Covid Clinic, Imperial Valley, California, worked with Dr. Fareed on potential treatments in 2020. They treated patients with a combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin or doxycycline on top of the usual zinc, vitamin D, and C given to patients. This is similar to the treatment used by Dr. Ira Bernstein, the co-founder of the Canadian Covid Care Alliance and lecturer of the Department of Family and Community Medicine University of Toronto.


    Dr. McCullough also promotes the use of hydroxychloroquine. It is worth noting, however, that Dr. Peter McCullough is currently facing a lawsuit due to his illegitimate affiliation with Baylor Scott & White Health, or so they claim. TrialSite suggests that these doctors during the pandemic have sought out to do nothing but help patients. To viciously attack doctors, the ultimate providers of health is a shame that will be overcome. Dr. McCullough has expressed his concerns about vaccine safety and efficacy, suggesting that healthy people under 50 and COVID survivors have no scientific reason to get the vaccine.


    Despite some early success of hydroxychloroquine as an early intervention for the virus, the WHO still does not recommend the drug as an effective COVID-19 treatment based on the drug’s failure to reduce mortality and need for mechanical ventilation in 30 trials with more than 10,000 COVID-19 patients. There was also a tremendous backlash in mainstream media surrounding statements made by then-President Trump, who declared that the drug was proving to be an excellent preventive for COVID-19 among the “thousands and thousands of front-line workers” who were using hydroxychloroquine so that “they don’t catch the horrible disease.”


    President Trump’s remarks sparked a huge controversy, as the American Medical Association (AMA) disclaimed any record of tracking the use of the drug among health care workers. The drug trials came under immediate scrutiny and polarized the scientific community, many of whom questioned the methodologies adopted by ongoing clinical trials. Subsequently, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) laid out restrictions on drug supplies, cautioning that hydroxychloroquine could cause heart rhythm issues when used outside of hospital settings.


    This chain of events discredited the drug’s use in preventing COVID-19, and hydroxychloroquine continues to be reported with tremendous skepticism in the media. However, studies on the drug are still ongoing and are interpreted variously with contentious results. In May, TrialSite interviewed preeminent Yale physician Dr. Risch, who reviewed nine COVID-19 patient case studies to reveal that hydroxychloroquine reduced the risk of hospitalization and death two-fold.


    Ivermectin


    Ivermectin, aspirin, and budesonide were added to the hydroxychloroquine treatment protocol of Dr. Fareed. This similar combination therapy was used by other doctors as well, such as Dr. Jackie Stone from Zimbabwe, who discussed the importance of combination therapy and the addition of ivermectin to treatment protocols. Her data shows a decrease in mortality of up to 10-fold upon the addition of ivermectin, supporting her point that combination therapy is more effective than monotherapy.


    Although results are promising, New Zimbabwe reported in January 2021 that the Medical and Dental Practitioners Council of Zimbabwe (MDPCZ) warned that Dr. Stone does not have a valid license to practice medicine in Zimbabwe and that she has been working with unregistered people to dispense the drugs to patients, conducting unapproved clinical trials.


    Faced with formidable opposition, Dr. Stone continued to stand by her treatment regimen and was eventually validated by an abrupt change in Zimbabwe’s stance toward ivermectin. TrialSite interviewed Dr. Stone, who shared that the combination treatment regimen with ivermectin significantly reduced mortality by 1.5% in a community setting.


    Canada’s Dr. Ira Bernstein, the co-founder of the Canadian Covid Care Alliance and lecturer at the University of Toronto, believes in the ability of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin in treating COVID-19 early.


    With the majority of 65 clinical trials exhibiting positive data points and a few published meta-analyses—from the U.S.A, U.K, Italy, and India all calling out positive study data, the possibility of an orchestrated suppression of the drug’s positive attributes against COVID-19 is a distinct possibility.


    Delegates from England, Croatia, Spain, Brazil, Peru, France, and the USA had their fair share of experiences that prompted them to firmly promote the use of Ivermectin. However, its use is still under debate due to lack of data as defined by a combination of agencies from the World Health Organization (WHO), the U.S.A National Institute of Health (NIH), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and Centre for Disease and Control (CDC).


    Currently, the WHO and nearly all regulatory bodies only recommend the use of ivermectin in clinical trials. A couple of major studies on ivermectin in the U.S.A include COVID-OUT (NCT04510194), from the University of Minnesota and UnitedHealthcare, and the NIH’s ACTIV-6 (NCT04885530).


    Proponents of ivermectin argue, however, that the protocols include underdosed regimen, much like they highlight in the McMaster University Together trial headed by Dr. Ed Mills. Critics also point out that insufficient duration of ivermectin dosage and lack of adapting the treatment protocol to a virulent variant could also play a role in disappointing results. Dr. Ira Bernstein raised a concern regarding the Together trial design: the study did not exclude those who had previously used ivermectin. Therefore, there was a likelihood that the treatment group did not show substantial differences from placebo due to previous ivermectin exposure in participants.


    The Physicians Declaration highlights the widespread frustration at the steps being taken to limit doctors’ abilities to treat their patients on a global scale. There is also a need for further coverage and research about ongoing clinical trials on antivirals which could very well control the transmission of COVID-19 in its early stages, reducing case numbers and deaths. Doctors must be able to care for their patients—it’s an intimate, very localized affair…not one that was designed for federal or international health agency oversight, even in a pandemic.

    Court Initially Orders Ivermectin then Cuts Off Severely Ill COVID-19 Patient: Due to a Failed Hospital Protocol Jeffrey Smith Died


    Court Initially Orders Ivermectin then Cuts Off Severely Ill COVID-19 Patient: Due to a Failed Hospital Protocol Jeffrey Smith Died
    In September, TrialSite reported that an Ohio judge initially compelled UC West Chester Hospital to treat Jeffrey Smith, a severely infected COVID-19
    trialsitenews.com


    In September, TrialSite reported that an Ohio judge initially compelled UC West Chester Hospital to treat Jeffrey Smith, a severely infected COVID-19 patient, with ivermectin after the official hospital protocol failed to work. We reported that Smith was “on death’s doorstep” in the hospital’s intensive care unit (ICU). Mr. Smith’s family had hope as Butler County Common Pleas Judge Gregory Howard ordered in favor of Smith’s family, compelling the hospital to give the patient ivermectin for up to 14 days. TrialSite reported that the patient’s condition seemed to have improved since the court-enforced temporary mandate, reported family attorney Ralph Lorigo and Julie Smith, Mr. Smith’s wife. We reported on bad news, however, that upon the expiration of the 14-day temporary order, a new presiding Judge, Michael Oster, ordered a delay so he could review the evidence. Days later, Oster changed the order cutting the patient off ivermectin, even though the hospital had nothing else to try and the patient’s condition looked like it was improving–at least that’s what both the plaintiff’s lawyer and wife declared. The judge ultimately sided with the hospital administration denying Smith permanently from using the FDA-approved drug off-label for COVID-19 even though it seemed to have helped. Jeffrey Smith has since died.


    Judge Oster declared that because the federal authorities are not recommending ivermectin for COVID-19 and felt there was a lack of sufficient evidence that ivermectin helps with COVID-19, he cut the supply off to the severely ill Jeffrey Smith. This is another example of a death that did not have to occur. If attorney Lorigo and wife Julie Smith were correct in stating that the ivermectin was indeed improving Jeffrey Smith’s condition, it is extremely unfortunate that the hospital couldn’t offer the patient a chance for some treatment. All their options had failed, and sadly, the result was death.


    COVID-19 patient treated with ivermectin dies, attorney says
    A man with COVID-19 whose wife sued to force a hospital to treat him with ivermectin has died, according to his attorney.
    www.wagmtv.com

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    VAERS, given a new vaccine, will tend (as it should) to record any suspicious death close in time to a vaccination.

    "Tend" is the wrong word. When any person dies under the care of a physician in the U.S., or is autopsied by a medical examiner, when the physician or examiner knows that the person was recently vaccinated, they must report that death in the VAERS database. That is a Federal law. I do not know whether there is any punishment, but I am sure they would get into serious trouble if they fail to do this.


    VAERS is optional for the patient, but doctors must report adverse reactions and deaths. The rules for what constitute an adverse reaction are spelled out clearly in the regulations, along with the time limits for each type of adverse reaction. That is for all vaccinations, not just COVID:


    Reporting Adverse Events Following Vaccination | Vaccine Safety | CDC


    What to Report After Any Vaccination

    Healthcare providers are required by law to report to VAERS:


    The CDC regulations say there is no time limit for reporting deaths. There must be some practical, widely-agreed upon time limit, because after all, everyone is vaccinated in childhood, and most of us nowadays in adulthood for things like influenza and tetanus. Doctors will not report that a patient may have died from a polio vaccine given 60 years ago. Whatever the usual time limit is, doctors are not going to risk their careers by failing to report a death most medical professionals would say is within a reasonable timeframe, with at least some plausible causality. They are not going to report a death caused by getting run over by a bus. I doubt they will report someone with terminal cancer who dies two months after a vaccination, although I wouldn't know.


    I suppose doctors use common sense, plus a large dose of protecting their careers with a superabundance of caution. All in all, I think it is extremely unlikely that many deaths have been caused by the vaccines but no one noticed. As I said, we notice all deaths in the U.S. They are all examined. Doctors usually know what killed a person. Granted, it is impossible to state with absolute certainty that no one has died from a mRNA COVID vaccine. That level of certainty cannot be achieved by medical science or any kind of biology. But we can know that is unlikely anyone has died, and we can establish the statistical bounds of just how unlikely it is (the margin of error).


    It is true that coincidental deaths are probably underreported. As shown in the following analysis, probably 210,000 people have died within a month of vaccination:


    Interpreting VAERs: What is the expected background death rate for the USA vaccinated population?
    VAERs is an open reporting system put together by the FDA and CDC for people to enter in adverse events after vaccination for post approval safety assessments.…
    www.covid-datascience.com


    QUOTE:


    To interpret in relation to vaccination, if vaccines were given at a random time, we would expect ~7k people to die the day of vaccination by random chance alone, even if the vaccines were perfectly safe and causing no deaths, >49k to die the week of vaccination, and >210k to die within a month of vaccination. These are the background rates of death for the vaccinated subpopulation of the USA.


    It is important to take this into account when interpreting VAERs counts, since many of these would be reported to VAERs as post-vaccination events. In fact, according to law, healthcare workers would be required to report all of these events to VAERs whether they thought they might be related to vaccines or not. Thus, in principle, ALL of these deaths should be reported to VAERs.


    Of course, whatever the law says, clearly not all deaths after vaccination are reported, so we still have to deal with the underreporting rate. . . .

    Quote from gerold.s

    it seems to be a common problem, Moderna in Japan a prominent one.

    A "common" problem meaning it happened to 2 people in Japan out of 170,282,260 doses. I do not think "common" means what you think it means. You antivaxxers tend to hijack words to mean whatever the hell you want. Like Humpty Dumpty:


    “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”

     “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”

     “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that's all.”


    - Lewis Carroll: Through the Looking-Glass

    Sweden Halts Use of Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine for People Under 30 Due to Safety Concerns


    Sweden Halts Use of Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine for People Under 30 Due to Safety Concerns
    Two Scandinavian countries have declared that their health authorities will place at least a temporary pause on using the Moderna mRNA-based COVID-19
    trialsitenews.com


    Sweden Halts Use of Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine for People Under 30 Due to Safety Concerns


    Two Scandinavian countries have declared that their health authorities will place at least a temporary pause on using the Moderna mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine due to safety concerns based on reports of side effects such as myocarditis. The Swedish health agency’s chief epidemiologist, Anders Tegnell, went on the record stating, “The connection is especially clear when it comes to Moderna’s Spikevax, especially after the second dose.” While the health authorities here acknowledge the incidences are rare, there is enough concern to issue the halt, at least temporarily for young people.


    The agency making the call is known as Folkhalsomyndigheten or The Public Health Agency of Sweden. In a recent statement, the Public Health Agency of Sweden reported that all mRNA-1273 vaccinations would be paused for people born in 1991 and after as data indicates the higher risk of inflammation of the heart or heart lining—challenges known as myocarditis and pericarditis among those that fall in the age cohort—that is age 30 and under.


    Multiple press outlets such as Reuters shared that Tegnell declared, “Sweden would follow the situation closely and act quickly to ensure that vaccinations against COVID-19 are always safe as possible and at the same time provide effective protection” against SARS-CoV-2.


    An analysis covering the Nordic region suggests that the connection between vaccination and heart inflammation was more prominent with Moderna over Pfizer-BioNTech, particularly after the second dose.


    More Pfizer Business

    Two days ago, Reuters reported part of the Moderna rejection for young people 12 to 15 would send more business to Pfizer-BioNTech as the Public Health Agency of Sweden declared Monday that it would only recommend Comirnaty (BNT162b2) as a COVID-19 vaccine for children between the ages of 12-15.


    Denmark Ditches Moderna

    In Denmark, reports from around the world indicate the country of about 5 million people would stop the use of Moderna for people under 18. The Danish Health Authority reported this move today after collecting data from four Nordic nations indicating a greater risk of heart inflammation when vaccinated with mRNA-1273.

    Sweden, Denmark pause Moderna COVID-19 vaccine for younger age groups
    Sweden and Denmark said on Wednesday they are pausing the use of Moderna's COVID-19 vaccine for younger age groups after reports of possible rare…
    www.reuters.com


    Studies confirm waning immunity from Pfizer's Covid-19 vaccine


    Studies confirm waning immunity from Pfizer's Covid-19 vaccine
    Two real-world studies published Wednesday confirm that the immune protection offered by two doses of Pfizer's Covid-19 vaccine drops off after two months or…
    www.cnn.com


    A second study from Qatar looked at actual infections among the highly vaccinated population of that small Gulf nation. People there mostly got Pfizer/BioNTech's vaccine, also known as BNT162b2.

    "BNT162b2-induced protection against infection builds rapidly after the first dose, peaks in the first month after the second dose, and then gradually wanes in subsequent months," Laith Abu-Raddad of Weill Cornell Medicine-Qatar and colleagues wrote. "The waning appears to accelerate after the fourth month, to reach a low level of approximately 20% in subsequent months," they added.


    Nonetheless, protection against hospitalization and death stayed at above 90%, they said. [my bold]

    The waning protection may involve behavior, they noted. "Vaccinated persons presumably have a higher rate of social contact than unvaccinated persons and may also have lower adherence to safety measures," they wrote. "This behavior could reduce real-world effectiveness of the vaccine as compared with its biologic effectiveness, possibly explaining the waning of protection."

    Quote from stefan

    Vaccine works very well and do have side effect but they are small. But the risk is small also with covid for the young population. Comparing small probabilities are difficult and unknowns like long term effect means that vaccinating the young population can be questioned without being anti vacc in general.

    Absolutely.


    My beef with the antivaxxers here is that they are not engaging with the literature and doing a careful estimate of these risks. They are using partial data and pure speculation without checking its validity. I would not mind if noone else was doing this, but it is exactly what the regulatory risk surveillance reports do, and there is also a lot of data available in the literature which shows these antivax memes plain wrong.


    Of course the COVID risk goes down with age. The vaccine risks are miuch smaller, and much more difficult to determine age dependence.


    The more you subgroup the questions: what are the risks for children between ages of 8 and 9 - The more difficult it is to get accurate data, but having said that you can look at overall slopes of curves and make estimates.


    The main problem in estimating risks is that many vaccine side effects will be indistinguishable from normal illness, and they happen well below the natural background, so you cannot work out a signal is there without enormous numbers. And the COVID risks are similarly low.


    My stance is that I reckon everyone in the world will catch COVID within 5 years, and most within 3 years, if unprotected. So these small vaccine risks can be compared against the (better understood and larger) COVID risks.


    If your child is vaccinated they may with very low probability die. But if not vaccinated they may also die from COVID, with a higher, but also very low, probability.

    In terms of uncertainty the possibility of uncertain vaccine risks is dwarfed by the possibility of uncertain long COVID risks.


    The UK regulators are doing a best effort personal risk comparison, and they go down to age 12 quite happily, but say the (health) personal benefits are not clear at age 12. They are by the way not saying the vaccine has the same risk as COVID at that age - they are saying we do not yet have enough data to be sure the vaccine risks are lower than COVID risks. With time, that will change. 6 months ago the UK regulators were unwilling to allow vaccine for anyone younger than 18.


    That is pretty typical of what regulators in different countries do - and they all take different decisions. their decision is also affected by likley COVID rates. If you reckon your children will NOT catch COVID you are less likley, as a regulator, to reckon giving them vaccine is personally advantageous.


    One more thing: the UK decision here was based on medicine and did not consider indirect benefits: less time isolating off school, less chance of infecting carers who might be worse affected, and this in turn could affect the life chances of the child, those ar valid extra considerations. it is the same argument as the (valid) argument against lockdown that it damages child schooling and possibly development - in fact it tends to affect socially deprived children hard, and well supported at home children not at all.


    The antivaxxers here are not doing a balanced best effort risk assessment. You may argue that not enough effort is put into that, but if you dig into the literature there is lots. It is just that sensible people working in this area give all the caveats on their data, and put it into context. No-one wants to fuel antivaxxer hysteria.


    There is a proper debate about whether age 9 the vaccine or COVID will end up more risky to children in medical terms, I can't get very excited because the risks in both cases are so very low.

    The risk balance for anyone 18 or over is very strongly on the side of vaccine saving lives, and also more important nasty long-term damage from MIS-C, long COVID, etc.

    Quote from Fm1

    Two Scandinavian countries have declared that their health authorities will place at least a temporary pause on using the Moderna mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine due to safety concerns based on reports of side effects such as myocarditis. The Swedish health agency’s chief epidemiologist, Anders Tegnell, went on the record stating, “The connection is especially clear when it comes to Moderna’s Spikevax, especially after the second dose.” While the health authorities here acknowledge the incidences are rare, there is enough concern to issue the halt, at least temporarily for young people.

    And this proves my point that the regulators look really carefully at all the risks. This pause may or may not continue, it shows regulators doing their jobs. Of course in trms of personal benefit when you have multiple vaccines it is easy to stop one for a given age-group - since they do not end up unvaccinated and at risk!

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.