We have not heard much about the magical Covid-19 vaccine, largely because of the difficulties of getting it to work. Here is Dr Mercola informing us of the messy politics behind the trials. Disclaimer, I am just reporting not offering medical or health advice!
“There’s been a lot of talk lately about whether or not the fast-tracked COVID-19 vaccine will in fact be safe and effective. While vaccine makers insist that any vaccine reaching the market will have undergone rigorous testing, the way trial protocols are designed suggests these vaccines may leave a lot to be desired.
As reported by Forbes contributor William Haseltine, a former professor at Harvard Medical School and Harvard School of Public Health, while Moderna, Pfizer, AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson have all published their vaccine trial protocols in a rare display of transparency, “close inspection of the protocols raises surprising concerns.”
In a nutshell, the trial designs are such that the vaccines will get a passing grade even if their efficacy is minimal. Of course, we must also consider vaccine side effects and I’ve also written several articles about mounting safety concerns.
Covid-19 vaccine trials rigged to pass efficacy test
As noted by Haseltine, prevention of infection would typically be a critical endpoint of any vaccine trial. In other words, you want to ensure that when you take the vaccine, your risk of infection is significantly reduced.
However, when it comes to the COVID-19 vaccine, shockingly, preventing infection is not a criterion for success in any of these trials. The only criterion for a successful COVID-19 vaccine is a reduction of COVID-19 symptoms, and even then, the reduction required is minimal.
“We all expect an effective vaccine to prevent serious illness if infected. Three of the vaccine protocols — Moderna, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca — do not require that their vaccine prevent serious disease only that they prevent moderate symptoms which may be as mild as cough, or headache,” Haseltine writes, adding:
“The pharmaceutical companies intend to do trials ranging from 30,000 to 60,000 participants. This scale of study would be sufficient for testing vaccine efficacy.
The first surprise found upon a closer reading of the protocols reveals that each study intends to complete interim and primary analyses that at most include 164 participants. These companies likely intend to apply for an emergency use authorization (EUA) from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) with just their limited preliminary results.”
To get a “passing” grade in the limited interim analysis, a vaccine must show a 70% efficacy. However, again, this does not mean it will prevent infection in 7 of 10 people. As explained by Haseltine:
“For Moderna, the initial interim analysis will be based on the results of infection of only 53 people. The judgment reached in interim analysis is dependent upon the difference in the number of people with symptoms … in the vaccinated group versus the unvaccinated group. Moderna’s success margin is for 13 or less of those 53 to develop symptoms compared to 40 or more in their control group.”
The other vaccine makers are basing results on a similar protocol, where only a limited number of vaccinated participants are exposed to the virus to evaluate the extent of their symptoms.
Johnson & Johnson’s interim analysis will include results from 77 vaccine recipients who have been infected with SARS-CoV-2, and if fewer than 18 of them develop symptoms of COVID-19, compared to 59 in the control group, the vaccine will be considered successful.
In AstraZeneca’s case, the interim analysis includes 50 vaccine recipients. The vaccine will be a success if 12 or fewer develop symptoms after exposure to SARS-CoV-2, compared to 19 in the 25-person control group.
Pfizer’s interim analysis is the smallest of the bunch, with just 32 vaccine recipients. Their success margin is seven or fewer vaccine recipients developing symptoms, compared to 25 in the control group. In the primary analysis, efficacy is set to about 60%, and at most, 164 volunteers will be included in that analysis.
Especially concerning are that those receiving the vaccine in these trials are young and healthy individuals who are not really at high risk of dying from COVID-19. This makes the results of these trials highly questionable in the far more vulnerable population of the elderly.
Trials Are Merely Testing Reduction of Common Cold Symptoms
As if that’s not eyebrow-raising enough, the minimum qualification for a “case of COVID-19” amounts to just one positive PCR test and one or two mild symptoms, such as headache, fever, cough or mild nausea. As noted by Haseltine, “This is far from adequate.”
All they’re doing is testing to see if this COVID-19 vaccine will minimize common cold symptoms. They are not actually ensuring the vaccine will prevent serious COVID-19 complications. Johnson & Johnson’s trial is the only one that requires at least five severe COVID-19 cases to be included in the interim analysis.
“One of the more immediate questions a trial needs to answer is whether a vaccine prevents infection. If someone takes this vaccine, are they far less likely to become infected with the virus?
These trials all clearly focus on eliminating symptoms of COVID-19, and not infections themselves. Asymptomatic infection is listed as a secondary objective in these trials when they should be of critical importance.
It appears that all the pharmaceutical companies assume that the vaccine will never prevent infection. Their criteria for approval is the difference in symptoms between an infected control group and an infected vaccine group. They do not measure the difference between infection and noninfection as a primary motivation,” Haseltine writes.4
Severe illness and death are also secondary objectives in these trials, and none of them include failure to prevent hospitalization or death as an important barrier to success. The increasingly disappearing common sense tells us that if the vaccine cannot reduce infection, hospitalization or death, then it cannot end the pandemic, which means everyone who takes the vaccine will be doing so in vain.
Some COVID-19 Vaccine Trials Are Not Using Inert Placebos
In addition to all of that, some COVID-19 vaccine trials are using other vaccines as “placebo” rather than truly biologically inert substances such as saline, which effectively makes if far easier to hide any vaccine side effects. While Moderna is using a saline solution placebo, AstraZeneca is using injected meningococcal vaccine rather than a true placebo.
Another way AstraZeneca is masking potential side effects is by administering the vaccine along with certain drugs. In one of its study arms, subjects are given acetaminophen every six hours for the first 24 hours after inoculation. The pain and fever reducer could potentially mask and downplay side effects such as pain, fever, headache or general malaise.
In addition to masking side effects, it is widely recognized among literate natural medicine physicians that using acetaminophen during acute viral infections is not a wise strategy as it impairs the immune response to fight the infection.”
The short of the long here is that there is likely to be many vaccines, with the possibility of them being of limited effectiveness even in conventional terms, if Dr Mercola’s analysis is correct, which is something I am not qualified to say, given my above disclaimer of not offering any health or medical advice. But, politically, we can see a continuous repeat of 2020, for if vaccinated people end up getting Covid-19, the media will engage in the fear campaign to end all fear campaigns, and the West, except Sweden, will live as we do in Melbourne, in eternal lockdown, the new normal. Then there is the other problem of side effects, and just ask Korea about that:
“The South Korean government is currently offering free flu vaccines to 19 million people across the country. The Korean Medical Association has deduced that the flu vaccine could potentially offset complications from covid-19, promising to keep people healthy and out of the hospital. This same theory (that a flu shot would stop covid-19) was peddled by the New York Times in March 2020.
Now the head of the Korean Medical Association is trying to halt the flu shot drive because twenty-five citizens were pronounced DEAD after taking the vaccine. The victims came from all age groups and include a 17-year-old boy and a man in his 70s. Because vaccine makers enjoy legal immunity, the human sacrifice ritual will go on and any problems will be swept under the rug and deemed “necessary” for the greater good.
Vaccine drive resumes despite twenty-five deaths and three hundred fifty acute injuries
This same vaccination drive was previously suspended for three weeks, after South Korean health officials found that five million doses were being transported without proper refrigeration. This massive lot of vaccines, improperly stored, put countless citizens at risk. The vaccination campaign ultimately resumed on October 13. In just one week, the vaccine had already claimed the lives of two dozen people.
Choi Dae-zip, president of the Korean Medical Association requested to halt the flu shot campaign, but Korean health authorities (and other blind worshipers of vaccine ‘science’) are trying to claim that the deaths were probably not related to the vaccine. “The number of deaths has increased, but our team sees low possibility that the deaths resulted from the shots,” said Jeong Eun-kyeong, director of the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency.
Health Minister Park Neung-hoo told Parliament that the vaccine program will continue despite the deaths and public safety concerns. After resuming, at least three hundred and fifty more people have come down with severe reactions to the shots.
Flu vaccine leads the way for causing vaccine injury, hospitalizations, death and greater susceptibility to coronaviruses.
A 2015 study investigated deaths reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event’s Reporting System (VAERS) in the United States from 1997 to 2013. The researchers studied the cause of death and found that 51.4 percent of all vaccine-induced deaths in adults were caused by inactivated influenza vaccines. The flu vaccine remains the most ineffective vaccine on the market, with the largest number of adverse events reported to VAERS.
For children, the prognosis is just as bleak. A study published in the Thoracic Society found that children vaccinated with the inactivated flu vaccine are three times more likely than their non-vaccinated peers to be hospitalized with flu-like illness. These results were especially true for children with asthma.
A Department of Defense study, published in 2020, studied a phenomenon called virus interference among military personnel. The researchers found that influenza vaccination may increase the risk of the vaccine recipient succumbing to specific respiratory viruses, namely coronaviruses and metapneumovirus. When researchers examined the prevalence of non-influenza viruses specifically, the odds of both coronavirus and human metapneumovirus in vaccinated individuals were significantly higher when compared to non-vaccinated individuals. These results were corroborated in a study titled, Increased Risk of Non-influenza Respiratory Virus Infections Associated With Receipt of Inactivated Influenza Vaccine. The study confirmed that children vaccinated with the inactivated flu vaccine were 440 percent more likely to be infected with non-influenza respiratory viruses such as coronaviruses.”
What joys will the Covid-1984 vaccines deliver?