The Time of Covid: Report by Phillip M. Altman By Brian Simpson
An excellent report has been presented by Dr Phillip M. Altman, A Time of Covid (2022). This scholarly, scientific report consolidates most of the criticisms made of the Covid vaxxes by the leading Covid critics, and defends the thesis that the Covid vaccines, especially the mRNA ones, are far from safe, and indeed have numerous adverse effects. The merits of this report is that it sets the debate within the Australian context, while much of the time, due to limited technical data, we here deal with American and European material. A good reference guide for students who are pursuing this issue.
The Time of COVID A Report by Phillip M. Altman BPharm(Hons), MSc, PhD Clinical Trial & Pharmaceutical Regulatory Affairs Consultant 9 August 2022 Contributing editors Julian Gillespie LLB, BJuris Associate Professor Peter Parry MBBS, PhD, FRANZCP Katie Ashby-Koppens LLB
Foreword
I am pleased and proud to endorse the attached letter and monograph, meticulously compiled by Dr Phillip Altman and his colleagues. They address some important aspects of COVID19 management and policy, especially in Australia, with a focus on the nature, deployment and effects of “vaccines”. It is abundantly clear that there has been repression and suppression in scientific circles and the media of any views or suggestions that run counter to the government/mainstream narrative. However, many studies now indicate that the Covid19 vaccines, especially the mRNA vaccines, are less than 'safe and effective', and the ramifications are truly confronting. Armed with these facts, the scientific and medical communities can now begin proper discussions of potential solutions that improve the benefit/risk ratios for the public and do not harm careers and livelihoods of professionals seeking the best outcomes for their patients. Wendy Hoy AO FAA FRACP Professor of Medicine Director, Centre for Chronic Disease University of Queensland Brisbane, Australia
- Serious Adverse Effects of the COVID-19 ‘Vaccines’ 8.1. Very limited relatively short-term safety data is available from the individuals involved in the controlled clinical trials submitted to drug regulatory agencies in support of the
emergency authorisations or provisional approvals of the COVID-19 ‘vaccines’. As such, there is a heavy reliance upon post-marketing adverse drug reaction report (ADR) systems to identify the type and incidence of adverse effects which are caused by the ‘vaccines’. There are a number of such systems. Australia has the Drug Adverse Event Reporting system (DAEN), and the US has the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) which reports both US and international adverse events. 8.2. The problem with these systems is that they involve voluntary reporting and most doctors are reluctant to report adverse drug reactions to vaccines due to fear of being accused by health regulators (Australian Health Practitioner Regulatory Agency, AHPRA) of being considered to be “anti-vax”.30 Many doctors both here and overseas and other health professionals fear losing their licence to practice if they even apply for vaccine exemptions, and many investigations are currently underway by AHPRA at the present time. Also, the criteria for assessing a causal relationship between a vaccine and an adverse event can be set so high that only a small percentage of serious adverse events or deaths are officially reported as being caused by a vaccine. These are some of the reasons why it is widely acknowledged all adverse event reporting systems suffer from notorious underreporting31 . This can result in an underreporting factor of between 10-30 or more, i.e.: one must multiply the official incidence of adverse events by 10-30, to obtain a real-world estimate of the true incidence of the adverse event. For US VAERS reporting in respect of the Covid-19 ‘vaccines’, the underreporting factor (URF) is estimated to be between 40x-49x32 . 8.3. In Australia, it is difficult to obtain statistics regarding details of the number of deaths caused by the gene-based ‘vaccines’. A Freedom of Information request (FOI-3586) was made to the TGA for data on the deaths reported as possibly related to the COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ and the 196-page report is available online but is almost completely redacted.33 In the US the VAERS adverse drug reporting system has recorded 27,758 deaths associated with gene-based “vaccine” administration through to 29 April 2022. The TGA COVID-19 vaccine weekly safety report released 23 June 202234 indicates a total of 889 deaths in association with COVID-19 gene-based ‘vaccines’ of which only 13 have been identified by the TGA as definitely causing death. However, there are no public details available as to the criteria used by the TGA in arriving at this number of 13 deaths. This reported incidence of death does not account for any underreporting factor.
Further confounding a proper of assessment of reported deaths is the complete lack of guidance or directions from the TGA or State or Territory health departments, with respect to any requirement to conduct autopsies on persons dying at any time post COVID-19 vaccination. This is an unfortunate state of affairs when it is known to the TGA as a consequence of its Pharmacovigilance duties, that by employing new histopathological methods developed in Germany, that identify the mRNA generated spike proteins at the scene of fatal pathological inflammatory reactions, deaths that could be easily attributed to a 'normal' heart attack, or a 'normal' stroke, are now instead being found to have been caused by COVID-19 vaccines. Critically, in the German studies, of the 15 deceased examined, deaths due to the vaccines were found to be 'likely' and 'very likely' in 80% of cases.35 8.5. Prior to COVID-19 vaccinations, over the last 10 years there has been an average of about 155 deaths per year reported in relation to all conventional vaccines to the US VAERS. This includes all standard childhood vaccines on vaccine schedules, annual flu vaccines, travel vaccines, hepatitis, human papilloma virus vaccines, tetanus vaccines, meningococcal vaccines and herpes vaccines. 8.6. The website OpenVAERS extracts VAERS data each week specifically in relation to adverse event reports for the Covid-19 ‘vaccines’. An inspection shows the contrast in reported mortality for the gene-based COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ compared to all other vaccines combined since 1990.36
Potential Toxicity of the Spike Protein Produced by Gene-Based ‘Vaccines’ 9.1. The Spike Protein contained on the surface of the SARS-CoV-2 virus facilitates the binding of the viral particle to human cells, allowing infection of those cells, and has inherent toxicity in its own right.78 However, the Spike Proteins produced by the COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ are not identical to the Spike Protein on the natural SARS-CoV2 virus79 in that some uracil nucleotide bases (there are 4 different nucleotide bases in RNA: uridine, cytosine, guanine and adenine) are replaced with pseudouridine (a methylated derivative). This seemingly small change imparts profound pharmacological characteristics to the mRNA molecule produced by the COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ including the ability to evade natural degradation as happens to natural mRNA. Further, the synthetic mRNA Spike Proteins interfere with the body’s natural immune system (including Toll Like Receptors) which explains why these mRNA particles can provoke latent viral eruptions of Herpes Zoster and Epstein-Barr viruses as reported in adverse drug reaction reporting systems. 9.2. Reactivation of the dormant virus Herpes Zoster, which is responsible for shingles, has been reported in relation to COVID-19 vaccination but at the moment no cause-andeffect relationship has been acknowledged. In order to investigate a possible causeeffect relationship, a systematic review of the literature was undertaken80 . A total of 54 cases reported in the literature were found and reviewed. Thirty-six patients out of 45 (80%) developed herpes zoster following the priming dose of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine. Furthermore, 96% of patients developed it within a temporal timeframe defined by WHO as indicative of a causal relationship. The authors even suggested possible use of prophylactic herpes zoster anti-viral medication prior to vaccination to herpes prone individuals.
Multiple modes of Spike Protein toxicity have been reported including those related to blood clotting and mitochondrial damage81 . 9.4. It has been a widespread belief that the Spike Protein produced by the gene-based ‘vaccines’ is the same as the Spike Protein on the surface of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, therefore, the effects of both will be similar. Furthermore, it has been assumed that exposing an individual to just the Spike Protein of the ‘vaccines’ is safer than exposure to the natural virus. However, these reasonings are now being questioned. It is now understood that the mRNA produced by the gene-based ‘vaccines’ contains pseudouridine instead of uridine as a nucleotide base and remains in circulation for much longer. 10. mRNA Does Not Remain at the Injection Site and Is Not Rapidly Destroyed 10.1. The normal biochemical protective mechanisms ensure that mRNA molecules are normally rapidly destroyed outside cells. Initially, it was thought that mRNA produced from COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ would be rapidly destroyed. However, evidence now shows that the mRNA from these ‘vaccines’ may linger for 15 days or more post-vaccination82 . The persistence of this mRNA has implications for continued production of Spike Protein and associated possible toxicity associated with the Spike Protein. Another study suggests mRNA produced following COVID-19 vaccination may remain in lymph nodes for up to 60 days83 . 10.2. These nucleotide manipulations of the ‘vaccine’ mRNAs to reduce its rate of degradation and therefore to enhance its capacity to drive Spike Protein production per molecule of mRNA, may produce concentrations much higher than those observed with natural infection in some individuals. Gene-based ‘vaccines’ appear to drive production of incredibly high numbers of Spike Protein mRNA molecules (13 trillion to 40 trillion) almost instantaneously as compared to natural infection. This may account for the serious adverse effects and deaths reported following administration of genebased COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ in adverse drug reporting systems, and further research is needed with regard to this important observation. 10.3. The immediate injection of literally trillions of Spike Protein producing mRNA molecules, as distinct from the slower accumulation of Spike Protein by natural infection, could be responsible for the numbers of deaths reported within 48 hours of COVID-19 ‘vaccine’ injection, although this is yet to be proven. This is why COVID-19
Natural immunity plays an important role in COVID-19. There is no evidence to suggest that COVID-19 gene-based ‘vaccination’ offers superior protection from COVID-19 as compared to natural immunity. Indeed, many believe the reverse is true
In acknowledgement of the important role of natural immunity, even Bill Gates, perhaps the most prominent vaccine proponent, speaking at the Munich Security Conference reported 23 February 2022103 , admitted that “the virus itself, particularly the variant called Omicron, is a type of vaccine”. 14.4. The important role of natural immunity from both a personal and societal point of view needs to be recognised. This societal natural immunity was commonly referred to as ‘herd immunity’ and was initially widely considered important to limit the impact of the virus. 14.5. Conventional wisdom suggests that natural immunity following COVID-19 infection provides a high level of durable protection from re-infection in many ways superior to “vaccination” because natural immune response is a multifaceted immune response directed against a number of components including the envelope, the membrane, the nucleocapsid and the spike within the virus – unlike the immune response produced by gene-based ‘vaccines’ which only direct the production of specific antibodies only towards the virus Spike Protein. 14.6. It has been likely that hundreds of millions of people have recovered from COVID-19. Numerous scientists have found that natural immunity offers a decreased risk of reinfection and extremely low rates of hospitalisation in relation to repeat infection104 . 14.7. A study in Qatar found that ‘natural infection appears to elicit strong protection against reinfection with an efficacy ~95% for at least seven months’ 105 . 14.8. The UK study by Hall et al, with funding from the UK Government, reported a similar level of protection due to natural immunity106 . 14.9. A study in Austria found that the frequency of re-infection from COVID-19 caused hospitalisation in only five out of 14,840 (0.03%) people and death in one out of 14,840 (0.01%)107 . 14.10. In many ways, natural immunity protection will be superior to the protection afforded by gene-based COVID-19 ‘vaccines’. In such circumstances, voluntary or mandatory
vaccination with gene-based COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ do not offer any additional protection. There is no scientific theoretical basis or reliable evidence to suggest that a person with natural immunity might benefit from administration of a Provisionally Approved gene-based COVID-19 ‘vaccine’ while the ‘vaccine’ itself has significant adverse effects and no long-term safety data to support its use. 14.11. A retrospective observational study of 124,500 individuals, conducted during the Delta wave of SARS-CoV-2 compared two groups: people who had not been previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and received a 2-dose regimen of the Pfizer COVID-19 “vaccine” and previously infected individuals who had not been vaccinated108 . Individuals who had been vaccinated had a 13-fold greater chance of breakthrough infection compared to re-infection in the non-vaccinated group. 14.12. The conclusion of the authors was: ‘Naturally acquired immunity confers stronger protection against infection and symptomatic disease caused by the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2-2 [Pfizer COVID-19 ‘vaccine’] dose vaccine-induced immunity’. 14.13. While the current SARS-CoV-2 variant is Omicron, in the absence of data to the contrary, these data provide a compelling case to support the importance of natural immunity in protecting against SARS-CoV-2 infection. 14.14. The Swedish drug regulator is regarded as one of the most respected regulatory agencies and they have recently reversed its recommendation on the administration of COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ to adolescent children as they do not see any clear benefit in COVID-19 vaccination. According to a Reuters news release in Stockholm on 27 January 2022, Sweden decided against recommending COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ for children aged 5-11, the Swedish Health Agency said that the benefits did not outweigh the risks: ‘With the knowledge we have today, with a low risk for serious disease for kids, we don't see any clear benefit with vaccinating them’ 109 .
Conclusion The introduction and worldwide use of COVID-19 gene-based ‘vaccines’ has been associated, in the short term, with far more deaths, illnesses, injuries, and disabilities than any other therapeutic agent in the history of medicine. Due to the total lack of any long-term safety data, the potential future iatrogenic effects (including neurological, immunological and carcinogenic effects) may be even more devasting. Despite initial claims, the COVID-19 gene-based ‘vaccines’ have now been shown to possess disappointing clinical efficacy - they neither prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection nor do they prevent transmission of the virus; any immunological protection wanes rapidly and, coincident with the emergence of the Omicron variant, evidence of negative vaccine efficacy is being reported in many countries including Australia. In light of widely reported emerging and compelling evidence, there appears to be little scientific or clinical justification to support vaccine mandates as a health policy. The latest hospital admission statistics do not support the claim that unvaccinated individuals are more at risk of serious COVID-19 disease, hospitalisation or death. Excess non-COVID-19 related deaths coincident with the introduction of the genebased ‘vaccines’ are now being reported by many countries, and suggest a surge in heart attack and stroke among both the young, adolescents and middle age individuals (especially males). Advocating the worldwide use of a new class of serious COVID-19 gene-based ‘vaccines’ never before deployed, and advocated for use in healthy individuals of all ages regardless of clinical status (eg. natural immunity, pregnancy etc), with relatively little short-term safety data and no long-term safety data, is neither prudent or necessary and defies the Precautionary Principle. The knowledge that the synthetic mRNA in both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines can enter the nucleus of human liver cells in culture, raises the serious questions about genotoxicity and carcinogenicity, and adverse impact on future generations. Disturbing safety signals regarding fertility and miscarriages are emerging. Given the statistically or virtually nil risk of serious COVID-19 in general affecting children aged 6 months to 11 or 12 years of age and the clear and significant risk of serious adverse effects including myocarditis, pericarditis and death in this age group – there seems to be little benefit to be gained by vaccinating these children. Considerable scientific, clinical and statistical epidemiological data and understanding has been acquired since the introduction (on a provisional basis only) of the investigational COVID-19 gene-based “vaccines”. Many of the initial ambitious claims and assumed perceptions regarding the safety and efficacy of these serious therapeutics have now been invalidated and it is now time to review and reconsider the utility of these products in light of the known unprecedented level of serious adverse reactions and death attributed to their use. The urgency for this review cannot be overestimated given.”
Comments