Health & Fitness

COVID-19 jabs continue to be pushed as the only solution to the pandemic, even as “breakthrough” infections increasingly occur. A group of Japanese researchers has also released research showing that the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant “is poised to acquire complete resistance” to existing COVID-19 jabs like Pfizer and BioNTech’s BNT162b2,¹ now being sold as Comirnaty.

What’s more, when four common mutations were introduced to the Delta variant, Pfizer’s mRNA injection enhanced its infectivity, causing it to become resistant. A Delta variant with three mutations has already emerged,² which suggests it’s only a matter of time before a fourth mutation develops, at which point complete resistance to Pfizer’s jab may be imminent.

mRNA COVID-19 Injection Made Delta Variant More Infectious

The spike protein used in mRNA COVID-19 vaccines consists of the original SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, without mutations. Multiple variants of concern (VOC) have emerged, however, which have numerous mutations and are highly infectious. As mutations increase, so do concerns over vaccine resistance and enhanced infectivity. As the researchers explained in bioRxiv, the preprint server for biology:³

“The receptor binding domain (RBD) of the spike protein binds to the host cell receptor ACE2, and the interaction mediates membrane fusion during SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Neutralizing antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 are mainly directed to the RBD and block the interaction between the RBD and ACE2. Most SARS-CoV-2 variants have acquired mutations in the neutralizing antibody epitopes of the RBD, resulting in escape from neutralizing antibodies.”

When a single mutation was added to the Delta spike, most of the anti-RBD antibodies still recognized it. This wasn’t the case with four mutations, however, which the researchers called Delta 4+. Not only was Delta 4+ not recognized, but infectivity was enhanced:⁴

“… we analyzed the Delta 4+ pseudovirus with four additional RBD mutations. Surprisingly, most BNT162b2-immune sera enhanced infectivity of the Delta 4+ pseudovirus in a dose-dependent manner at relatively low concentrations of BNT162b2-immune sera, but showed weak neutralization only at the highest concentration of the sera.

Especially, PFZ7 greatly enhanced the infectivity at relatively low serum concentration. Some sera, such as PFZ13 and PFZ14, did not show neutralizing activity even at the highest concentration of the sera.”

In short, while Pfizer’s COVID-19 jab still neutralized the Delta variant, when four common mutations were introduced to the RBD, the vaccine lost the ability to neutralize the variant and instead enhanced its infectivity.

Although Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2-immune sera neutralized the Delta variant, when four common mutations were introduced into the receptor binding domain (RBD) of the Delta variant (Delta 4+), some BNT162b2-immune sera lost neutralizing activity and enhanced the infectivity. This has implications for booster shots on the horizon as well, which are unlikely to be effective.

“A third round of booster immunization with the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine is currently under consideration,” the researchers explained. “Our data suggest that repeated immunization with the wild-type spike may not be effective in controlling the newly emerging Delta variants.”⁵

Despite the growing recognition that increasing injections may only make matters worse, President Biden said he has spoken with Dr. Anthony Fauci about giving booster shots at the five-month mark after the initial round of injections rather than waiting eight months, as previously suggested.⁶

Immune Escape: How the Injections Could Make Variants Worse

A number of experts have raised concerns that COVID-19 jabs and the mass vaccination program could worsen the pandemic by triggering the development of new variants, via a concept known as antigenic, or immune, escape.

A general principle in biology, vaccinology and microbiology is that if you put living organisms like bacteria or viruses under pressure, via antibiotics, antibodies or chemotherapeutics, for example, but don’t kill them off completely, you can inadvertently encourage their mutation into more virulent strains. Those that escape your immune system end up surviving and selecting mutations to ensure their further survival.

Geert Vanden Bossche, Ph.D., a vaccinology expert and former global director of vaccine programs, including work for the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, is among those who have warned about immune escape due to the pressure being placed upon the virus during mass vaccination.

“It will have a very tough time … and a lot of these microorganisms will die,” Bossche says. “But if you cannot really kill them all, if you cannot prevent, completely, the infection and if there are still some microorganisms that can replicate despite this huge pressure, they will start to select mutations that enable them to survive.”⁷

COVID-19 has a high capacity for mutation but, according to Bossche, if the virus isn’t under pressure, it won’t necessarily see a need to select mutations to, for instance, become more infectious. But if you put it under pressure, as is occurring during the mass vaccination campaign — or as Bossche calls it the “one big experiment” — this may change.

Dr. Peter McCullough — an internist, cardiologist, epidemiologist and a full professor of medicine at Texas A&M College of Medicine in Dallas, who is also the editor of two medical journals and has published hundreds of studies in the literature — is also concerned about immune escape:⁸

“If we keep this up with the injections, there is going to be one variant after another … We’re playing with fire here with this mass vaccination … My interpretation as an internist and cardiologist — I’m a trained epidemiologist, I’ve literally done a year of intense COVID research and training — I’m going to tell you, I think this Delta outbreak that we have right now is the product of mass vaccination.

If we didn’t have the jab, we would have been better off. We had already treated this down to a very acceptable level.”

Mass Vaccination Driving Vaccine-Resistant Mutants

Another study — this one based on a mathematical model — simulates how vaccination rates and the rate of viral transmission influence SARS-CoV-2 variants.⁹ They found that a worst-case scenario can develop when a large percentage of a population is vaccinated but viral transmission remains high — much as it is now. This represents the prime scenario for the development of resistant mutant strains. As noted in the study, published in Scientific Reports:¹⁰

“… [A] counterintuitive result of our analysis is that the highest risk of resistant strain establishment occurs when a large fraction of the population has already been vaccinated but the transmission is not controlled.

Similar conclusions have been reached in a SIR model of the ongoing pandemic and a model of pathogen escape from host immunity. Furthermore, empirical data consistent with this result has been reported for influenza.”

It's very similar to the development of antibiotic resistance, during which bacteria mutate and get stronger to survive the assault of antibacterial agents. COVID-19 shots do not block infection completely; they allow infection to occur and may lessen symptoms, but during that time viruses can mutate to evade the immune system.

In an unvaccinated person, the virus does not encounter the same evolutionary pressure to mutate into something stronger but, according to Paul Bieniasz, a Howard Hughes investigator at the Rockefeller University, partially vaccinated individuals “might serve as sort of a breeding ground for the virus to acquire new mutations.”¹¹

Mu, Lambda Variants Showing Resistance

Already, variants have emerged that are showing signs of vaccine resistance. August 30, 2021, the World Health Organization highlighted the mu variant as a variant of interest (VOI), stating it has “a constellation of mutations that indicate potential properties of immune escape."¹²

As of August 31, 2021, 39 countries had reported mu cases.¹³ The lambda variant, which WHO designated as a VOI on June 14, 2021,¹⁴ also shows signs of increased infectivity and resistance to vaccines. Writing in medRxiv, researchers from Chile noted:¹⁵

“Our results indicate that mutations present in the spike protein of the Lambda variant of interest confer increased infectivity and immune escape from neutralizing antibodies elicited by CoronaVac.

These data reinforce the idea that massive vaccination campaigns in countries with high SARS-CoV-2 circulation must be accompanied by strict genomic surveillance allowing the identification of new isolates carrying spike mutations and immunology studies aimed to determine the impact of these mutations in immune escape and vaccines breakthrough.”

Is Natural Immunity Superior for Variants?

As further evidence of COVID shots’ waning effectiveness and the superiority of natural immunity, data presented July 17, 2021, to the Israeli Health Ministry revealed that, of the more than 7,700 COVID-19 cases reported since May 2021, only 72 occurred in people who had previously had COVID-19 — a rate of less than 1%. In contrast, more than 3,000 cases — or approximately 40% — occurred in people who had received a COVID-19 vaccine.¹⁶

In other words, those who were vaccinated were 6.72 times — nearly 700% — more likely to develop COVID-19 than those who had natural immunity from a prior infection. Speaking with journalist Daniel Horowitz, pathologist Dr. Ryan Cole explained that natural immunity produces broad immunity that can’t be matched by vaccination:¹⁷

"A natural infection induces hundreds upon hundreds of antibodies against all proteins of the virus, including the envelope, the membrane, the nucleocapsid, and the spike. Dozens upon dozens of these antibodies neutralize the virus when encountered again.

Additionally, because of the immune system exposure to these numerous proteins (epitomes), our T cells mount a robust memory, as well. Our T cells are the 'marines' of the immune system and the first line of defense against pathogens. T cell memory to those infected with SARSCOV1 is at 17 years and running still."

A retrospective observational study published August 25, 2021,¹⁸ also found that natural immunity is superior to immunity from COVID-19 jabs, with researchers stating, “This study demonstrated that natural immunity confers longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization caused by the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity.”

Further, according to a team of researchers from the Washington University School of Medicine, if you’ve had COVID-19 — even a mild case — you’re likely to be immune for life, as is the case with recovery from many infectious agents.¹⁹

Unfortunately, health officials aren’t making a distinction for those who have recovered from COVID-19 and continue to recommend injections for all, which may be adding fuel to the fire instead of extinguishing it.

from Articles https://ift.tt/3lDeqGn
via IFTTT

This article was previously published on March 24, 2021, and has been updated with new information.

As noted by Russel Brand in a recent video commentary (above), some of the same drug companies now responsible for developing and manufacturing fast-tracked COVID-19 vaccines were also responsible for creating the opioid crisis in the U.S., which has killed as many Americans as have died from COVID-19.

Most have also been convicted of other unethical and criminal activities over the years, any of which puts their ethical fitness into question. Not surprisingly, opioid addiction and overdose deaths skyrocketed during 2020 lockdowns and, now, COVID-19 vaccines are taking their toll as well.

Johnson & Johnson Found Partly Liable for Opioid Crisis

In 2019, Johnson & Johnson was found partially liable for the “human and financial costs” of the opioid epidemic in the U.S. and was ordered to pay $572 million to the state of Oklahoma. While the company denied any wrongdoing, “data revealed during the trial proved a culture of downplaying the risks of opioids to customers and physicians,” Cassiobury Court reported, adding:¹

“Sales representatives were trained to tell doctors that the risk of addiction was 2.6% or less if the drugs were prescribed by a doctor and, most shockingly, doctors were specifically targeted as ‘key customers’ if they had a history of prescribing a high amount of opioids.”

In “Capitalism Gone Wrong: How Big Pharma Created America’s Opioid Carnage,” published in The Guardian July 24, 2019, Chris McGreal, author of “American Overdose, the Opioid Tragedy in Three Acts,” wrote:²

“Oklahoma’s attorney general accused the company of a ‘cunning, cynical and deceitful scheme’ to ramp up narcotic painkiller sales as one of a web of firms that created the biggest drug epidemic in American history as profits surged. The companies worked in step to change medical culture and practice by influencing doctors, researchers, federal regulators and politicians.”

Curiously, as noted by Brand, Johnson & Johnson’s stock price rose by 5% immediately following that verdict. What this means, he suggests, is that we’ve created systems that encourage malpractice. Profit motives override all other concerns, including lethal effects.

When companies engage in unethical behavior, especially the falsification and manipulation of science, they create distrust and cynicism. This should be obvious, and it’s nobody’s fault but their own.

Importantly, Johnson & Johnson made false claims about the safety of its opioid, going so far as to manipulate scientific papers to support its assertion that the risk of addiction was less than 2.6%.³ As Brand points out, when companies engage in unethical behavior, especially the falsification and manipulation of science, they create distrust and cynicism.

This should be obvious, and it’s nobody’s fault but their own. We can point to these very specific examples and say, “Look here. They manipulated and falsified science to make money. When they were caught, all they had to do was pay a manageable fine, which they recouped through a rise in stock price.”

If it happened once (and believe me, it’s happened more than once), it can happen again. And if it can happen at all, why couldn’t this unethical behavior occur when creating what is expected to be a phenomenally profitable pandemic vaccine? We’re told we must not question the safety or effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines, yet the histories of the makers are such that not questioning everything they do would be naïve in the extreme.

Johnson & Johnson has also been involved in a long list of product safety and contamination issues, marketing and safety violations, government contract violations and foreign corrupt practices resulting in hundreds of millions of dollars in fines. You can find their rap sheet on the Corporate Research Project’s website.⁴

Pfizer’s Long History of Unethical Behavior

Another COVID-19 vaccine maker, Pfizer, has been sued in multiple venues over unethical behavior,⁵ including unethical drug testing and illegal marketing practices.

In 2014, it was ordered to pay $75 million to settle charges relating to its testing of a new broad spectrum antibiotic on critically ill Nigerian children. As reported by the Independent⁶ at the time, Pfizer sent a team of doctors into Nigeria in the midst of a meningitis epidemic.

For two weeks, the team set up “within meters” of a medical station run by Doctors Without Borders and began dispensing the experimental drug, Trovan. Of the 200 children picked, half got the experimental drug and the other half the already licensed antibiotic Rocephin. Eleven of the children treated by the Pfizer team died, and many others suffered side effects such as brain damage and organ failure.

Pfizer denied wrongdoing. According to the company, only five of the children given Trovan died, compared to six who received Rocephin, so their drug was not to blame. The problem was they apparently never told the parents that their children were being given an experimental drug.

What’s more, while Pfizer produced a permission letter from a Nigerian ethics committee, the letter turned out to have been backdated. The ethics committee itself wasn’t set up until a year after the trial had already taken place.

In his 2010 paper,⁷ “Tough on Crime? Pfizer and the CIHR,” Robert G. Evans, Ph.D., Emeritus Professor at Vancouver School of Economics, described Pfizer as “a ‘habitual offender,’ persistently engaging in illegal and corrupt marketing practices, bribing physicians and suppressing adverse trial results.” Between 2002 and 2010 alone, Pfizer and its subsidiaries were fined $3 billion in criminal convictions, civil penalties and jury awards.

Such sums did nothing to deter bad behavior. In 2011, Pfizer agreed to pay $14.5 million to settle federal charges of illegal marketing,⁸ and in 2014 they settled federal charges relating to improper marketing of the kidney transplant drug Rapamune to the tune of $35 million.⁹

The Corporate Research Project also details Pfizer’s history of bribery, environmental violations, labor and worker safety violations and more.¹⁰ Pfizer has also been bullying countries to put up sovereign assets as collateral for expected vaccine injury lawsuits resulting from its vaccine.¹¹

Pfizer’s Vaccine Plant Has History of Recalls

A March 10, 2021, article¹² by KHN also highlights persistent, long-standing problems at Pfizer’s vaccine plant in Kansas, which is slated to start producing COVID-19 vaccines:

“The McPherson, Kansas, facility, which FDA inspectors wrote is the nation’s largest manufacturer of sterile injectable controlled substances, has a long, troubled history. Nearly a decade’s worth of FDA inspection reports, recalls and reprimands reviewed by KHN show the facility as a repeat offender.

FDA investigators have repeatedly noted in reports that the plant has failed to control quality and contamination or fully investigate after production failures.

The 1970s-era manufacturing site has had persistent mold concerns over the years and been the focus of at least four intense FDA inspections since Pfizer took over its operations in late 2015, when it acquired Hospira.”

The plant is going to be a fill-and-finish site for the Pfizer vaccine. The question is whether the site has really cleaned up its act, or whether contamination might become an issue.

"The facility’s record of recalls and field alerts include vials of medication that contained glass and cardboard particles and, as one customer complained, a ‘small insect or speck of dust,'" KHN reports.

“A 2017 FDA warning letter … said the contaminants such as cardboard and glass found in vials posed a ‘severe risk of harm to patients’ and indicated that the facility’s process for manufacturing sterile injectable products was ‘out of control.’”

AstraZeneca’s Extensive Rap Sheet

Then there’s AstraZeneca, whose director of research for the drug Seroquel, Wayne MacFadden, confessed to entering into multiple sexual affairs for the sole purpose of obtaining information and favors that might benefit the company.¹³

Aside from that eyebrow-raising scandal, AstraZeneca has been brought into the halls of justice more than once. Below is but a sampling of its criminal history. Even more can be found on the Corporate Research Project’s “AstraZeneca: Corporate Rap Sheet” page:¹⁴

• In 2003, AstraZeneca was fined $355 million to settle Medicare fraud charges relating to its marketing of the cancer drug Zoladex.^15,16 Among the many charges they pleaded guilty to was that they had encouraged doctors to illegally request Medicare reimbursements. Four years later, in 2007, the company was ordered to pay another $12.9 million in damages for its overcharging Medicare and private insurance for Zoladex¹⁷
• In 2005, the European Commission fined AstraZeneca 60 million euros for misusing the patent system to delay market entry of competing generics^18,19
• In 2010, AstraZeneca was fined $520 million for off-label drug marketing²⁰
• Also in 2010, the company agreed to pay $198 million to settle more than 25,000 lawsuits filed by patients harmed by three of its psychiatric drugs²¹
• In 2016, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission fined the company $4.3 million for improperly influencing and rewarding prescribers to use their products, in other words, bribery²²

AstraZeneca’s Vaccine Is For-Profit After All

Now, AstraZeneca has made a big deal about its vow not to profit from its COVID-19 vaccine. Adrian Hill, director of Oxford’s Jenner Institute and the co-developer of the AstraZeneca vaccine, has gone on record saying “I personally don’t believe that in a time of pandemic there should be exclusive licenses.”²³ As reported by KHN:²⁴

“Oxford University surprised and pleased advocates of overhauling the vaccine business in April by promising to donate the rights to its promising coronavirus vaccine to any drugmaker. The idea was to provide medicines preventing or treating COVID-19 at a low cost or free of charge, the British university said …

‘We actually thought they were going to do that,’ James Love, director of Knowledge Ecology International, a nonprofit that works to expand access to medical technology, said of Oxford’s pledge. ‘Why wouldn’t people agree to let everyone have access to the best vaccines possible?’”

The fantasy didn’t last long. A few weeks later, Oxford University caved to the urgings of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and signed an exclusive contract with AstraZeneca. According to an article in The Nation,²⁵ “Gates himself describes his foundation as intimately involved in the partnership between AstraZeneca and the University of Oxford.”

This vaccine deal gives AstraZeneca “sole rights and no guarantee of low prices,” KHN writes.²⁶ Indeed, the not-for-profit vow expires once the pandemic is over, and AstraZeneca itself appears to have a say when it comes to declaring the end date. It could be as early as July 1, 2021, according to a company memo obtained by the Financial Times.²⁷

As explained by investigative journalist Whitney Webb in a Corbett Report interview,²⁸ the actual patents and royalties for the AstraZeneca vaccine are held by a private company called Vaccitech, which has been quite open about the future profit potential with its shareholders, noting that the COVID-19 vaccine will most likely become an annual vaccine that is updated each season. Oxford University itself also stands to make millions from the deal. According to KHN:²⁹

“Other companies working on coronavirus vaccines have followed the same line, collecting billions in government grants, hoarding patents, revealing as little as possible about their deals — and planning to charge up to $37 a dose for potentially hundreds of millions of shots.”

All of this tells you that the same greed that drove these drug companies into criminal acts before is still at play today, and they have repeatedly proven that profit potential wins over harm potential every time.

Leaked Data Warn of mRNA Instability

A recent feature investigation³⁰ by journalist Serena Tinari published in The BMJ reviews the content of leaked — possibly hacked — documents showing the European Medicines Agency (EMA) had concerns about early batches of the Pfizer vaccine having lower than expected levels of intact mRNA:

“EMA scientists tasked with ensuring manufacturing quality — the chemistry, manufacturing, and control aspects of Pfizer’s submission to the EMA — worried about ‘truncated and modified mRNA species present in the finished product.’

Among the many files leaked to The BMJ, an email dated 23 November [2020] by a high ranking EMA official outlined a raft of issues. In short, commercial manufacturing was not producing vaccines to the specifications expected, and regulators were unsure of the implications. EMA responded by filing two ‘major objections’ with Pfizer, along with a host of other questions it wanted addressed.

The email identified ‘a significant difference in % RNA integrity/truncated species’ between the clinical batches and proposed commercial batches — from around 78% to 55%. The root cause was unknown and the impact of this loss of RNA integrity on safety and efficacy of the vaccine was ‘yet to be defined,’ the email said.”

Considering the delivery of intact mRNA is of crucial importance for the efficacy of this vaccine, the suspicion is that the lower levels might render the vaccine ineffective.

One problem is that while the EMA has authorized Pfizer’s vaccine and issued a public assessment stating the quality is “considered to be sufficiently consistent and acceptable,” it’s not clear if and how the agency’s concerns about inadequate mRNA levels were actually corrected.

The EMA has explained away the issue by stating that some of the leaked information was “partially doctored” by essentially cutting and pasting data from different users into valid emails.

“But the documents offer the broader medical community a chance to reflect on the complexities of quality assurance for novel mRNA vaccines,” Tinari writes, “which include everything from the quantification and integrity of mRNA and carrier lipids to measuring the distribution of particle sizes and encapsulation efficiency.”

It’s well-recognized that RNA instability is of the utmost importance when it comes to this kind of technology, as even minor degradation anywhere along the RNA strand can slow the translation performance and result in the incomplete expression of the target antigen (in this case the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein).

One problem is there’s no regulatory guidance for mRNA based “vaccines.” Yet another problem is that the data currently available are so scant that regulators probably wouldn’t be able to make an appropriate assessment about the percentage of intact mRNA required for efficacy.

Lipid Nanoparticles Are Highly Inflammatory

mRNA fragility and instability are the reasons why Pfizer and Moderna use a lipid nanoparticle delivery system, which brings a whole separate set of problems. Scientist and researcher Judy Mikovits, Ph.D., believes the nanoparticle allows the mRNA to escape the normal degradation by enzymes that normally remove mRNA, thereby allowing it to persist in your tissues for a long time, continuing to produce spike proteins all the while.

As previously suspected, research³¹ posted March 4, 2021, on the preprint server bioRxiv now warns that the lipid nanoparticle component of these mRNA vaccines is in fact “highly inflammatory” and may be responsible for many of the side effects being reported. According to the authors:

“Vaccines based on mRNA-containing lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) are a promising new platform used by two leading vaccines … Clinical trials and ongoing vaccinations present with very high protection levels and varying degrees of side effects. However, the nature of the reported side effects remains poorly defined.

Here we present evidence that LNPs used in many preclinical studies are highly inflammatory in mice.

Intradermal injection of these LNPs led to rapid and robust inflammatory responses, characterized by massive neutrophil infiltration, activation of diverse inflammatory pathways, and production of various inflammatory cytokines and chemokines. The same dose of LNP delivered intranasally led to similar inflammatory responses in the lung and resulted in a high mortality rate …

Their potent adjuvant activity and reported superiority comparing to other adjuvants in supporting the induction of adaptive immune responses could stem from their inflammatory nature. Furthermore, the preclinical LNPs are similar to the ones used for human vaccines, which could also explain the observed side effects in humans using this platform.”

Can You Trust Big Pharma to Safeguard Your Health?

Considering their long histories of unethical, illegal and criminal behaviors, Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca are hardly beacons of hope for mankind when it comes to COVID-19 — or any other pandemic, for that matter.

Sadly, the rapidly escalating reports of serious side effects and deaths from these injections, and the companies’ dismissal of these events as coincidental or insignificant further prove that profit is still the primary driver. If they can make a buck by ignoring a problem, they will.

from Articles https://ift.tt/3nrLMuh
via IFTTT

In what one major news source is calling a “major blow to vaccine efforts,” two senior U.S. Food and Drug Administration officials have suddenly turned in their resignations.

Thirty-two-year FDA veteran Marion Gruber is leaving her position as director of FDA’s Office of Vaccines Research & Review (OVVR) in October, and her deputy, Dr. Philip Krause, who has worked in the OVVR for 10 years, is leaving in November. According to The Defender,¹ Gruber and Krause:

“… reportedly said they don’t believe there is data to support the Biden administration’s push to offer COVID booster shots later this month …

However, a former senior FDA leader told Endpoints News, Gruber and Krause are departing because they’re frustrated the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and its advisory panel — the Advisory Committee on Immunizations and Practices (ACIP) — are involved in decisions they think should be up to the FDA.

The source said he heard Gruber and Krause were upset with [FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, CBER, director Dr. Peter] Marks for not insisting those decisions be kept inside the FDA, and with the White House for getting ahead of FDA on booster shots.”

“The news, first reported by BioCentury, is a massive blow to confidence in the agency’s ability to regulate vaccines,” Endpoints News said.² Former director of Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) Rick Bright called the resignations a “huge global loss.”

Boosters Planned Despite Inadequate Data

August 12, 2021, health officials authorized a third booster shot for people with weakened immune systems who had initially received the Pfizer or Moderna injections. Since then, at least 955,000 COVID-19 boosters have been administered, though it’s unclear whether all of these were technically authorized. Dr. Jesse Goodman, a former chief scientist with the FDA, told STAT News:³

“Normally, what you do is lay out the data first, and then say how the data supports the decision. When the White House made its announcement on booster shots, it did essentially the opposite. This was a serious mistake in how it was handled.”

ACIP member Helen Keipp Talbot, associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University, worries that health care providers may be putting themselves at risk by immunizing patients outside FDA and CDC recommendations, based on premature White House pronouncements alone.^4,5

The rollout of booster shots for adults who got their second dose at least six months ago is expected to begin September 20, 2021. According to CNN,⁶ this rollout may be limited to Pfizer’s injection to start. Moderna’s boosters may be delayed by another few weeks due to inadequate data.

In its September 3, 2021, report, CNN claimed federal health officials warned White House staff that we still don’t have enough data to recommend boosters for all adults.⁷

The administration pushed forward anyway — a decision that appears to have prompted or played a role in Gruber’s and Krause’s resignations. FDA officials had also urged the Biden administration not to put a specific date on the rollout of boosters. They didn’t follow that recommendation either. Children’s Health Defense chairman Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., commented:⁸

“With 50% of its overall budget and 75% of its drug-testing budget coming from industry, the FDA long ago won its notoriety as the most corrupt and pliable of all federal agencies. Now, the White House has torn away its last shred of integrity by ordering top regulators to put politics before science.”

How Many Shots Will Be Required?

According to Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the recommended “full regimen” for the Pfizer and Moderna shots will likely end up being three doses. During a White House COVID-19 response team briefing, he stated:⁹

“… I would not at all be surprised that the adequate full regimen for vaccination will likely be three doses. It is entirely understandable why the results … reported from the Israeli boost is so dramatic.

And we all hope, and I believe we have good reason to believe, that that only will not be a strong response, but that it will actually be durable, and if it is durable, then you're going to have very likely a three-dose regimen being the routine regimen."

Can we trust Fauci’s “educated predictions”? I’ll let you decide.

It seems more than obvious to me, that it won’t end at three doses. First of all, there are many dozens of COVID shots under research and development,¹⁰ so are we to believe they will simply be scrapped? Drug company officials have also stated they fully expect their COVID shots will turn into an annual requirement as the pandemic morphs into a “perennial endemic.”¹¹

More importantly though, a finite set of shots would negate the ongoing need for vaccine passports, which they want to tie to banking, personal ID and a social credit score.

Without a never-ending series of booster shots that you’d have to get in order to maintain a valid passport, they won’t have the same leverage over people. Of course, they could just transition to other mandated injections, such as seasonal mRNA flu shots and the like, several of which are also in the pipeline.

FDA Dismissed Early COVID Shot Concerns

While the resignations of Gruber and Krause might indicate to some that the COVID boosters have a political foundation rather than a scientific one, concerns over FDA misconduct have been present for over a year.

In a June 2021 DarkHorse interview,¹² the inventor of the mRNA and DNA vaccine core platform technology,¹³ Dr. Robert Malone, said he’d warned the FDA that the spike protein — which the COVID-19 “vaccines” instruct your cells to make — could be dangerous.

The FDA dismissed his concerns, saying they did not believe the spike protein was biologically active. Besides, the vaccine makers specifically designed the injections so the spike protein would stick and not float about freely.

Well, they were wrong on both accounts. It’s since been well-established that, indeed, the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein gets free,¹⁴ and that it is biologically active and causes severe problems.

The spike protein itself is actually responsible for the most severe effects seen in COVID-19, such as bleeding disorders, blood clots throughout the body and heart problems. These are also the same problems we now see in a staggering number of people having received one or two COVID shots. The spike protein may also have reproductive toxicity, and Pfizer’s biodistribution data¹⁵ show it accumulates in women’s ovaries.

FDA Enabled Data Vacuum

Even more egregious, Malone pointed out that, in re-reading the most current version of the emergency use authorization that governs these COVID shots, he discovered the FDA opted to not require stringent post-vaccination data collection and evaluation, even though they had the authority to do so.

Why did they opt for such lax data capture? Without it, there’s no way of evaluating the safety of these products. You cannot identify the danger signals if you don’t have a process for capturing effects data and evaluating all of it. Now, Gruber and Krause appear to have resigned in protest because the Biden administration and the CDC are moving ahead with boosters despite a lack of data — a data vacuum the FDA itself enabled from the start.

Lack of Clarity Around Comirnaty Approval

The FDA has also caused unnecessary widespread confusion about what COVID shot was actually approved August 23, 2021.¹⁶ In an interview with Stephen Bannon (above),¹⁷ Malone claimed the FDA and media were yet again misleading the public, as they had not approved the Pfizer shot currently given but rather a Pfizer/BioNTech version that is not yet available. Malone explained:

“The little trick that they’ve done here, is they’ve issued two separate letters for two separate vaccines. The Pfizer vaccine, which is what is currently available, is still under emergency use authorization and it still has the liability shield …

The product that’s licensed is the BioNTech product, which is substantially similar but not necessarily identical, called Comirnaty, and it’s not yet available. They haven’t started manufacturing it or labeling it. And that’s the one the liability waiver will no longer apply to.

So, the one that’s actually licensed is not yet available, and when it does become available it will no longer have the liability shield. In the interim, the one that does have the liability shield is the Pfizer product and that is what is currently available and it’s still under emergency use authorization.”

If Malone is correct, this would mean that if employers demand that employees get vaccinated because there’s now a licensed COVID injection, employees could then demand to actually receive the FDA licensed Comirnaty,¹⁸ not the emergency use only¹⁹ Pfizer product that is currently given, and for which you cannot sue for damages in case of vaccine injury.

Others insist Malone is mistaken; that Comirnaty and the Pfizer shot for which the emergency use authorization (EUA) was extended are one and the same and therefore interchangeable, and the reason the EUA was extended while simultaneously granting full approval for the identical product is because the EUA covers the 12 through 15 age-group, which is not covered under the full approval.

The crux of the dispute appears to hinge on the issue of whether the two products have interchangeable legal liability in the real world. Meaning, if you get the EUA version, can you sue Pfizer/BioNTech, since Comirnaty does not have the EUA liability shield?

The FDA has not clarified the issue, but I believe it’s doubtful that the EUA version would lose its liability shield, even if treated as interchangeable with the fully approved version. And it seems to me that this is the deception that Malone was really trying to highlight.

For years, we’ve known the FDA is a captured agency that does the bidding of Big Pharma. Its behavior during this pandemic has eroded public trust even further, as the agency seems perfectly willing to sacrifice public health altogether, forgoing standard procedures and requirements meant to safeguard patient safety.

Never in my life did I imagine the FDA would approve a drug that has tens of thousands of deaths and hundreds of thousands of side effects associated with it,^20,21,22 and I’m hardly alone in my astonishment.

Who knows, perhaps Gruber and Krause recognized the treacherous path the agency is on as well, over and beyond any disputes they may have had with the Biden administration and the CDC over COVID boosters. If or when the agency finally falls, others may wish they’d followed in their footsteps and parted ways sooner.

from Articles https://ift.tt/3tC8T6p
via IFTTT

It's a year and a half into the pandemic and Covid messaging and sufficed to say, we're kinda over it. This means government messaging needs to shift to adjust to this new mental state.

from Health | body+soul https://ift.tt/2Xky9Cc

With Covid numbers staying high in Australia’s most populous states, many of us want to avoid going to the doctor in fear of contracting the virus. But there are certain routine tests you shouldn’t skip, according to Dr. Andrew Thompson.

from Health | body+soul https://ift.tt/3z3XGfP

A perspective article challenges the 'energy balance model,' which says weight gain occurs because individuals consume more energy than they expend. According to the authors, 'conceptualizing obesity as a disorder of energy balance restates a principle of physics without considering the biological mechanisms underlying weight gain.' The authors argue for the 'carbohydrate insulin model,' which explains obesity as a metabolic disorder driven by what we eat, rather than how much. *Public health messaging exhorting people to eat less and exercise more has failed to stem rising rates of obesity and obesity-related diseases. *The energy balance model, which says weight gain is caused by consuming more energy than we expend, "restates a principle of physics without considering the biological mechanisms driving weight gain." *The carbohydrate-insulin model makes a bold claim: overeating doesn't cause obesity; the process of getting fat causes overeating. *The current obesity epidemic is due, in part, to hormonal responses to changes in food quality: in particular, high-glycemic load foods, which fundamentally change metabolism. *Focusing on what we eat rather than how much we eat is a better strategy for weight management.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3lo9Pr5

Researchers have now demonstrated a method by which specific cell types in human organs can be studied with micrometer precision. The method can be used to reveal previously unrecognized alterations in the pancreas, but it can also be used to study other human organs and diseases.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3CcAFtl

Engineers developed a way to grow tiny replicas of the pancreas, using either healthy or cancerous pancreatic cells. Their models could help researchers develop and test potential drugs for pancreatic cancer.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/2YXEFQ9

With warm weather is just around the corner, a lot of us will want to head outdoors for some sunshine. But sun damage can be fatal, which is why this new technology is so exciting.

from Health | body+soul https://ift.tt/2YTkWAZ

Findings suggest that a family's socio-economic status (SES) may influence children's composition of gut microbiome -- the mix of microscopic organisms within the digestive tract. SES includes economic resources such as education, income and occupation, and are reflected in living conditions, nutrition and psychosocial stress, according to the study, which focused on the education levels of mothers and fathers.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3hrXHnU

A team of researchers is using a novel technique to comb through the data and to reconstruct major branches in the linguistic tree.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/2VE9XKt

School-aged children who spend more time in front of screens are only slightly more likely to have attention disorders, disturbed sleep or lower grades and are no more likely to suffer from depression and anxiety. Meanwhile, they tend to have more close friends.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3k4M87Q