Health professionals had adverse reactions when a vial of CoronaVac was broken and they were exposed to the contents.  They experienced ocular surface erosion and skin rashes. It may be naïve, but if the vax did this to skin, what could it do when injected under the skin?

https://dailyexpose.uk/2022/01/31/vaccinators-have-adverse-reactions-to-spilt-vial-contents/

“An April 2021 study of health professionals who developed adverse reactions after a vial of CoronaVac was broken was published in Karger on 27 October 2021.  The health personnel exposed to the evaporated vial contents suffered ocular surface erosion and skin rashes.

“Proximity and timing suggest CoronaVac correlation with the ocular and skin reactions. Cautions should be taken to avoid broken vials, spills, and aerosolisation of CoronaVac during the vaccination,” the study authors suggested, “we recommend caution during vaccine handling and fastidious clean-up of any spills.”

Karger, an ophthalmology journal, is dedicated exclusively to case reports. It is a peer-reviewed, open-access journal publishing original case reports covering the entire spectrum of ophthalmology.

A campaign of CoronaVac vaccinations was deployed at Rajavithi Hospital, Thailand, for three days during which a total of 2,296 people were vaccinated.

CoronaVac (Sinovac Biotech, Beijing, China) is a vaccine made of beta-propiolactone inactivated SARS-CoV-2 virus particles with an aluminum hydroxide adjuvant.  It has an efficacy rate of 50.4% for preventing symptomatic infection, according to data from a Brazilian trial, and an effectiveness of 67%, according to a real-world study in Chile.

On 1 June 2021, the World Health Organisation (“WHO”) authorised the Sinovac-CoronaVac Covid-19 vaccine for emergency use. WHO’s Emergency Use Listing (EUL) assesses the quality, safety and efficacy of Covid-19 vaccines.

“WHO’s Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunisation (SAGE) has also completed its review of the vaccine. On the basis of available evidence, WHO recommends the vaccine for use in adults 18 years and older, in a two-dose schedule with a spacing of two to four weeks,” WHO’s EUL announcement stated.

The WHO identified two serious adverse events that were possibly linked to the vaccine: serious nausea and a rare neurological disorder known as acute disseminated encephalomyelitis, Medical News Today wrote.  Despite this and that safety data is limited for persons above 60 years of age, WHO recommended its use for people aged 18 and above.

During the three-day vaccination campaign at Rajavithi Hospital a total of 20 health personnel worked in the vaccination rooms of an indoor facility. All were vaccinated with CoronaVac on the first two days.  On the third day of the campaign a vial, containing a single dose of the vaccine, was dropped accidentally onto the floor and broken by a nurse. She promptly wiped the solution up using a piece of tissue paper and disposed of it in a garbage can where it remained for the rest of the day.

A total of 15 personnel had symptoms and signs of ocular surface erosion from 3 to 17 hours after the accident; 4 personnel also had a skin rash.  These 15 personnel worked in the rooms for between 3-6 hours either during or after the accident occurred while the other 5, who showed no adverse reactions, were in the room after the accident for only half an hour.

All 15 personnel with ocular symptoms had some degree of conjunctivitis including: eye irritation (9); red eyes (7); tearing (7); and swollen eyelids (4).

The nurse who accidentally dropped the vaccine vial and the assistant who wore contact lenses manifested the most severe and longest clinical manifestations, for 2 weeks. 

None of the 2,296 vaccine recipients reported symptoms.

“We hypothesise, after finding no other likely association, such as contamination of cleaning agents or malfunction of ventilation system, that the evaporated solution of the vaccine was associated with ocular surface erosions of the affected personnel” the study authors wrote, “the excipients or aluminum hydroxide adjuvant may be the likely chemicals that associated with the adverse reactions.”

https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/520500

Four chemistry professors have puzzled about the grey shade in vaccine vials: ““It may well be that a pill, a liquid or a dispersion is coloured. But the colour grey, i.e. a ‘diluted black’, is hardly created in a process that would be expected. We need to know if it is an impurity. If a pill is not white, there is a suspicion that something has gone wrong. We need clarification from BioNTech on this.”

https://freewestmedia.com/2022/01/27/four-chemistry-professors-question-the-grey-shade-in-vaccines/

“Four chemistry professors question the ‘grey shade’ in vaccine vials

Four German chemistry professors have sent a list of questions to BioNTech founder Ugur Sahin. They are concerned about a possibility of defective products.

The four are: Jörg Matysik, Professor of Analytical Chemistry at the University of Leipzig; Gerald Dyker, Professor of Organic Chemistry at the Ruhr University Bochum; Andreas Schnepf, Professor of Inorganic Chemistry at the University of Tübingen; Martin Winkler, Professor Materials and Process Engineering at the Zurich University of Applied Sciences.

The professors sent a letter to Sahin, seen by the Berliner Zeitung. “We find the possibility of stabilising mRNA so that it can be used for vaccinations very exciting. We understand that this biotechnological innovation can open up very significant new possibilities in medical practice.”

They are “interested in both general public health and a successful chemical and pharmaceutical industry”, the professors said. But Matysik explained in an interview with the Berliner Zeitung: “As chemists, we don’t have the impression that this product can be used as a mass vaccine at the moment.”

A central question facing the researchers at BioNTech arises from an observation that there is something strange in the vials: “The vaccine is a white to grey-white dispersion. How does this significant colour difference come about; virtually all the substances used are colourless, so white would be expected. Where does the shade of grey come from? Are these impurities?”

Andreas Schnepf explained the problem: “It may well be that a pill, a liquid or a dispersion is coloured. But the colour grey, i.e. a ‘diluted black’, is hardly created in a process that would be expected. We need to know if it is an impurity. If a pill is not white, there is a suspicion that something has gone wrong. We need clarification from BioNTech on this.”

In their letter, the professors specifically ask: “How is a uniform product quality ensured, or rather how can you ensure that the mRNA to be packaged is present in the lipid nanoparticles and to what extent? How do you continue to control the concentration of mRNA active ingredient in each batch, and how do you control the concentration of active ingredient in the lipid nanoparticles relative to that outside the particles?”

A second issue of concern to the chemists is the “components used in the vaccine that are not approved for human medicine”. This concerns “the components ALC-0159 and ALC 0315 used to form the lipid nanoparticles”, which are “not directly approved for use on or in the human body”. The safety data sheet for ALC-0315 describes “that ALC-0315 irritates both eyes and skin or mucous membranes”. Schnepf sees a problem here: “If it can irritate the eyes or skin, what about the relationship to tissue? Here we need clarity.”

The added: “Are there any further planned or ongoing studies to determine the toxicological effects of the substances or their biological degradation?”

Finally, the scientists are concerned with reports of side effects. They are concerned because there are apparently different side effects with different batch numbers and wanted to know whether “the side effects are correlated with a small number of batch numbers”.

Specifically, they ask in their letter: “How can this circumstance be explained and what distinguishes these batches from the others, and are efforts underway to investigate this important aspect in more detail, especially with regard to quality assurance? Are there or are clinical studies planned to investigate the side effects and their causes as well as to increase the safety of the new Covid vaccines?”