Continues.....
The finding that the mRNA in the shots was of questionable quality was revealed in a BMJ feature investigation article2 published in March 2021. As explained by the author, journalist Serena Tinari, cyber attackers retrieved more than 40 megabytes of Pfizer COVID jab data from the European Medicines Agency (EMA) in December 2020.The hacked data was subsequently sent to journalists and academics worldwide. It was also published on the dark web. Some of the documents show European regulators had significant concerns over the lack of intact mRNA in the commercial batches sampled.
Compared to the clinical batches, i.e., the shots used in the clinical trial, 55% to 78% of the commercial shots had “a significant difference in % RNA integrity/truncated species.”
In one email, dated November 23, 2020, a high-ranking EMA official noted that the commercial batches failed to meet expected specifications, and that the implications of this RNA integrity loss were unclear. In response to the findings, the EMA sent a list of questions and concerns to Pfizer.
While we do not know if and how the EMA’s concerns were actually addressed and corrected, the EMA authorized Pfizer’s COVID jab December 21, 2020. According to its public assessment report, “the quality of this medicinal product, submitted in the emergency context of the current (COVID-19) pandemic, is considered to be sufficiently consistent and acceptable.”
Intact mRNA Is Essential to Its Effectiveness
Curiously, when The BMJ asked Pfizer, Moderna, CureVac and several regulators to specify the percentage of mRNA integrity considered acceptable, none replied with specifics.
Even a minor degradation reaction, anywhere along a mRNA strand, can severely slow or stop proper translation performance of that strand and thus result in the incomplete expression of the target antigen. ~ Daan J.A. Crommelin, Professor of Biopharmaceutics
According to the British Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, the FDA and Health Canada, the specification limit on RNA integrity is “commercially confidential.” What we do know — and the EMA has acknowledged — is that intact mRNA is essential for efficacy. As noted by The BMJ.
As noted by Rogers, Pfizer’s bivalent booster against Omicron variants BA.4 and BA.5 was tested on a total of eight mice, and only to check antibody levels. Moderna also used mice to ascertain antibody responses, but have not disclosed the number of mice used.
That’s the extent to which these shots were tested. The original COVID jabs are the most dangerous drugs ever released to the public, and these newer boosters may turn out to be even worse.
As explained by Rogers, the shots “imprint” your immune system to respond only to the antigen in the shot, while simultaneously impairing your immune system so that it’s less capable of protecting you against other pathogens. Another term for this process is “original antigenic sin.” It essentially explains why those are jabbed are getting infected and sicker than those who avoided the jabs.
Rogers predicts we’ll be faced with a winter of severe illness and death among those who have gotten the jabs. All the rest of us can do is stand back, avoid the shots at all cost and “let the mainstream system self-destruct.” Hopefully, he’s correct in his other prediction, which is that the vast majority of Americans will reject these boosters.
Originally published September 12, 2022 on Mercola.com
2 comments:
Just wonder why there is nobody interested in this report written by so many medical professionals, compiled by Dr Mercola?
COVID-19 Vaccine Boosters for Young Adults: A Risk-Benefit Assessment and Five Ethical Arguments against Mandates at Universities
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4206070
50 Pages Posted: 12 Sep 2022
Kevin Bardosh
University of Washington; University of Edinburgh - Edinburgh Medical School
Allison Krug
Artemis Biomedical Communications LLC
Euzebiusz Jamrozik
University of Oxford
Trudo Lemmens
University of Toronto - Faculty of Law
Salmaan Keshavjee
Harvard University - Harvard Medical School
Vinay Prasad
University of California, San Francisco (UCSF)
Martin A. Makary
Johns Hopkins University - Department of Surgery
Stefan Baral
John Hopkins University
Tracy Beth Høeg
Florida Department of Health; Sierra Nevada Memorial Hospital
Abstract
Students at North American universities risk disenrollment due to third dose COVID-19 vaccine mandates. We present a risk-benefit assessment of boosters in this age group and provide five ethical arguments against mandates. We estimate that 22,000 - 30,000 previously uninfected adults aged 18-29 must be boosted with an mRNA vaccine to prevent one COVID-19 hospitalisation.
Using CDC and sponsor-reported adverse event data, we find that booster mandates may cause a net expected harm:
per COVID-19 hospitalisation prevented in previously uninfected young adults, we anticipate 18 to 98 serious adverse events, including 1.7 to 3.0 booster-associated myocarditis cases in males, and 1,373 to 3,234 cases of grade ≥3 reactogenicity which interferes with daily activities. Given the high prevalence of post-infection immunity, this risk-benefit profile is even less favourable.
University booster mandates are unethical because:
1) no formal risk-benefit assessment exists for this age group;
2) vaccine mandates may result in a net expected harm to individual young people;
3) mandates are not proportionate: expected harms are not outweighed by public health benefits given the modest and transient effectiveness of vaccines against transmission;
4) US mandates violate the reciprocity principle because rare serious vaccine-related harms will not be reliably compensated due to gaps in current vaccine injury schemes; and
5) mandates create wider social harms.
We consider counter-arguments such as a desire for socialisation and safety and show that such arguments lack scientific and/or ethical support. Finally, we discuss the relevance of our analysis for current 2-dose COVIDovid-19 vaccine mandates in North America.
Post a Comment