no bars or pool roms open in my area. sucks!
Cops called to the pool hall
- Thread starter lorider
- Start date
This is a tricky question and not straight forward, just as you may expect. I will break this down into a little more detail:
Efficacy:
Here is a good write up Pfizer/BioNTech-
AAAS
Moderna's:
AAAS
Bottom line: Both vaccines provide a robust response and provide protection.
How long will protection last?:
There isn't a real good answer here other than to wait and see. However, the data so far seem promising that longer lasting immunity can be obtained. Here are some studies that outline that possibility.
Immunological memory to SARS-CoV-2 assessed for greater than six months after infection
Understanding immune memory to SARS-CoV-2 is critical for improving diagnostics and vaccines, and for assessing the likely future course of the pandemic. We analyzed multiple compartments of circulating immune memory to SARS-CoV-2 in 185 COVID-19 cases, including 41 cases at ≥6 months...
www.biorxiv.org
Writeups that talk about longer lasting immunity:
Science | AAAS
AAAS
Bottom line: With the studies and vaccine data published thus far, all give us a consistent picture of a strong lasting immune response in a good majority of people. Studies from the vaccine data show immune responses as strong as those who were naturally infected.
Safety:
The Moderna write up above shows about 10% of people that received the vaccine had noticeable side effects (joint and muscle pain, fatigue, pain at the injection site, etc...). However, those were short lived. FYI, those numbers are very close to Shingrix (approved shingles vaccine). Pfizer published milder side effects. Only 3.8% reported fatigue and all the other side effects had lower incident rates.
Edit: I should clarify that the statistics above are grade 3 events (classified as severe)
Bottom line: Immediate safety looks good so far. Rare and long term side effects are still possible, but based what we have seen with other vaccines, those events should be few and far between. Long term safety for vaccines in general is very good.
https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-r...ntech-conclude-phase-3-study-covid-19-vaccine
AAAS
The writeups that I posted links to are from Derek Lowe. He has is a PhD Medicinal Chemist that has worked in pharma for over 30 years. He knows how to interpret data and what that data means.
I don't know if I answered your question or not, but I will say that I will get the vaccine as soon as I possibly can. I hope that helps and feel free to reach out with any other questions. I will be more than happy to help in any way I can.
Last edited:
Here is the FDA Briefing Book on Pfizer's data:
Here is Pfizer's Report that was submitted to the FDA:
Thank you for this. I assume there have been no deaths as a result of the testing so far. As for me I'm not in a big hurry to be first in line. Of course the First Responders will be the first ones to receive the vaccine, as well they should be.This is a tricky question and not straight forward, just as you may expect. I will break this down into a little more detail:
Efficacy:
Here is a good write up Pfizer/BioNTech-
AAAS
blogs.sciencemag.org
Moderna's:
AAAS
blogs.sciencemag.org
Bottom line: Both vaccines provide a robust response and provide protection.
How long will protection last?:
There isn't a real good answer here other than to wait and see. However, the data so far seem promising that longer lasting immunity can be obtained. Here are some studies that outline that possibility.
Immunological memory to SARS-CoV-2 assessed for greater than six months after infection
Understanding immune memory to SARS-CoV-2 is critical for improving diagnostics and vaccines, and for assessing the likely future course of the pandemic. We analyzed multiple compartments of circulating immune memory to SARS-CoV-2 in 185 COVID-19 cases, including 41 cases at ≥6 months...
Writeups that talk about longer lasting immunity:
Science | AAAS
blogs.sciencemag.org
AAAS
blogs.sciencemag.org
Bottom line: With the studies and vaccine data published thus far, all give us a consistent picture of a strong lasting immune response in a good majority of people. Studies from the vaccine data show immune responses as strong as those who were naturally infected.
Safety:
The Moderna write up above shows about 10% of people that received the vaccine had noticeable side effects (joint and muscle pain, fatigue, pain at the injection site, etc...). However, those were short lived. FYI, those numbers are very close to Shingrix (approved shingles vaccine). Pfizer published milder side effects. Only 3.8% reported fatigue and all the other side effects had lower incident rates.
Bottom line: Immediate safety looks good so far. Rare and long term side effects are still possible, but based what we have seen with other vaccines, those events should be few and far between. Long term safety for vaccines in general is very good.
https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-r...ntech-conclude-phase-3-study-covid-19-vaccine
AAAS
blogs.sciencemag.org
The writeups that I posted links to are from Derek Lowe. He has is a PhD Medicinal Chemist that has worked in pharma for over 30 years. He knows how to interpret data and what that data means.
I don't know if I answered your question or not, but I will say that I will get the vaccine as soon as I possibly can. I hope that helps and feel free to reach out with any other questions. I will be more than happy to help in any way I can.
I'm with ya there Jay. As nice as it would be to lean on a vaccine that did not cause more issues than the disease itself so far there is evidence that COVID has taken a heavy toll irregardless of catching it or the deaths because of contracting it.
Yeadon and Wodarg say the studies should be halted until a design study is available which addresses a host of serious safety concerns expressed by a growing body of renowned scientists who are skeptical of how quickly the vaccines are being developed, according to Germany's 2020 News.
On the one hand, the petitioners demand that, due to the known lack of accuracy of the PCR test in a serious study, a so-called Sanger sequencing must be used. This is the only way to make reliable statements on the effectiveness of a vaccine against Covid-19. On the basis of the many different PCR tests of highly varying quality, neither the risk of disease nor a possible vaccine benefit can be determined with the necessary certainty, which is why testing the vaccine on humans is unethical per se. -2020 News
The pair also point to concerns raised in previous studies involving other coronaviruses - including (via 2020 News):
Yeadon and Wodarg say the studies should be halted until a design study is available which addresses a host of serious safety concerns expressed by a growing body of renowned scientists who are skeptical of how quickly the vaccines are being developed, according to Germany's 2020 News.
On the one hand, the petitioners demand that, due to the known lack of accuracy of the PCR test in a serious study, a so-called Sanger sequencing must be used. This is the only way to make reliable statements on the effectiveness of a vaccine against Covid-19. On the basis of the many different PCR tests of highly varying quality, neither the risk of disease nor a possible vaccine benefit can be determined with the necessary certainty, which is why testing the vaccine on humans is unethical per se. -2020 News
The pair also point to concerns raised in previous studies involving other coronaviruses - including (via 2020 News):
- The formation of so-called “non-neutralizing antibodies” can lead to an exaggerated immune reaction, especially when the test person is confronted with the real, “wild” virus after vaccination. This so-called antibody-dependent amplification, ADE, has long been known from experiments with corona vaccines in cats, for example. In the course of these studies all cats that initially tolerated the vaccination well died after catching the wild virus.
- The vaccinations are expected to produce antibodies against spike proteins of SARS-CoV-2. However, spike proteins also contain syncytin-homologous proteins, which are essential for the formation of the placenta in mammals such as humans. It must be absolutely ruled out that a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 could trigger an immune reaction against syncytin-1, as otherwise infertility of indefinite duration could result in vaccinated women.
- The mRNA vaccines from BioNTech/Pfizer contain polyethylene glycol (PEG). 70% of people develop antibodies against this substance – this means that many people can develop allergic, potentially fatal reactions to the vaccination.
- The much too short duration of the study does not allow a realistic estimation of the late effects. As in the narcolepsy cases after the swine flu vaccination, millions of healthy people would be exposed to an unacceptable risk if an emergency approval were to be granted and the possibility of observing the late effects of the vaccination were to follow. Nevertheless, BioNTech/Pfizer apparently submitted an application for emergency approval on December 1, 2020.
UK has had some allergic reactions since vaccines started yesterday. They are currently advising anyone who has previously had a significant allergic reaction (anaphylaxis) to any medications, foods etc not to have the vaccine for now as a precautionary measure.
I would say yes!! There is always a risk with any medicine.. vaccine or procedure when it is new.
This shows how dangerous social media can be.
Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg (one of the authors) is a German physician and politician. He is well known for his polarizing viewpoints. In 2009/2010 he recommended to the Council of Europe that an investigation take place into the WHO for "faked pandemics". The investigation found that those claims were baseless and unfounded. Dr. Wodarg also made some very controversial statements early on in the pandemic. He said "SARS-CoV-2 was only one many seasonal viruses and that the pandemic hype should stop." He has since been suspended from his parliamentary duties.
Dr. Michael Yeadon (the other author) is very outspoken as well about this pandemic. He has made claims that the pandemic is over and that there is no need for a vaccine. He has also said that we are close to achieving herd immunity. We know that several European countries are seeing a large rise in cases and deaths.
Back to the article:
Statement "Yeadon and Wodarg say the studies should be halted until a design study is available which addresses a host of serious safety concerns expressed by a growing body of renowned scientists who are skeptical of how quickly the vaccines are being developed, according to Germany's 2020 News. "
The entire data set from from ~40,000 people is published. I will post another link. This was about as clean as a clinical study can be. And the FDA has already commented on the immediate safety. I will post that again as well. In short, there a no specific safety concerns. Please read the FDA's response.
Pfizer's entire data package: https://www.fda.gov/media/144246/do...sN_vY_128JU-U_f7LcXiyCTsR5munFNGCAVYFIc8512vE
FDA's response: https://www.fda.gov/media/144245/do...21tPYCFqejJt3hujn1JIwnX5jqYuNmxe5j84h4D8D5VyI
Statement- "On the one hand, the petitioners demand that, due to the known lack of accuracy of the PCR test in a serious study, a so-called Sanger sequencing must be used. This is the only way to make reliable statements on the effectiveness of a vaccine against Covid-19. On the basis of the many different PCR tests of highly varying quality, neither the risk of disease nor a possible vaccine benefit can be determined with the necessary certainty, which is why testing the vaccine on humans is unethical per se. -2020 News"
I have heard this argument many times. PCR stands for polymerase chain reaction. Basically, the test is trying to detect the genetic material of the virus. The way this is run is that primers that are specific for the virus are used to copy genetic material. If the virus is present, it's genetic makeup will copy and amplify to an amount large enough to detect. There are very specific parameters around this. If the virus isn't present, then no genetic material will be made. This has been cross checked against several common viruses (even other coronaviruses) and none of those were detected. Fact is, the PCR test is both specific and sensitive. We use PCR tests for several viruses as well as bacteria (flu, strep, etc....)
Here is a document that show the specificity and sensitivity of the PCR test for COVID: https://www.fda.gov/media/136151/download
Fact the inventor of PCR never said anything against PCR and COVID. He died in 2019, so unless he can speak posthumously, that isn't possible.
Statement- "The vaccinations are expected to produce antibodies against spike proteins of SARS-CoV-2. However, spike proteins also contain syncytin-homologous proteins, which are essential for the formation of the placenta in mammals such as humans. It must be absolutely ruled out that a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 could trigger an immune reaction against syncytin-1, as otherwise infertility of indefinite duration could result in vaccinated women."
This is a flat out lie. Both SARS-CoV-2 and syncytin-1 are membrane fusion proteins and are entirely unrelated. The way the vaccine works is the mRNA from the vaccine is injected into your blood, which then tells your body how to make the spike protein of the virus and trains your immune system to identify the real virus. They do not contain syncytin-1or mRNA encoding syncytin-1.
I could go on, but I will stop here and address another common myth.
Myth- The Pfizer and Moderna vaccine will change my DNA?
Truth- That is absolutely not true. The mRNA in the vaccine gets injected and tells your body how to make the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2. Your body makes that spike protein. Once that spike protein has been made from the mRNA, your body destroys the mRNA. Your body recognizes the spike protein as foreign which trains your immune system to fight it off. Your immune system has a powerful memory and will remember that spike protein and quickly attack the real virus if you are ever exposed. This mRNA sequence is biologically inert and does not alter your DNA. The mRNA doesn't interact with your DNA in any way.
Here is a good article explaining in more detail:
mRNA vaccines will harm your DNA!!! Nope, more anti-vaxxer nonsense
Once the new COVID-19 mRNA vaccines from Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna were both announced to have very high safety and effectiveness, the anti-vaccine
www.skepticalraptor.com
Last edited:
There were 2 deaths in the vaccine trial and 4 deaths in the placebo. There were more deaths in the non-vaccinated group. All of these deaths were determined to be unrelated to the vaccine. The details are in Pfizer's data package on page 50. Both deaths in the vaccine trial were cardiovascular related, not immune response related.
It is all about how much risk you can accept. Everyone is different. My wife's grandparents (who are in their late 80's) haven't left their house since March and will not allow visitors. All of their groceries are delivered. To them, leaving the house is too big of a risk. That is one extreme and there are many on here who carry on as normal, the other extreme. Most of the general population lie somewhere in the middle. There is always a risk of new medicines/vaccines. We can't account for the entire population in a phase 3 trial. There will be some serious adverse events from the vaccine, no question. Anti-vaxers will use that as a platform. However, based on Pfizer's data, those numbers will be small in comparison to the overall number of people receiving the vaccine. I am sure Moderna's data will say the same thing when it becomes available.
Both Pfizer and Moderna's vaccine are under FDA review for EUA. From what I have hear Pfizer's review is on 12/15 and Moderna's is on 12/17. Those timelines may have moved a little though. Canada approved Pfizer's vaccine today.
Last edited:
Since this has turned into a covid-19 thread...
A friend recently mentioned to me that the IFR (infective fatality rate) "is only 1%" meaning that only 1% of those who get infected with it are statistically going to die. He was trying to make the point that concern about covid-19 is overblown. However, the IFR for the flu in most seasons is .15%, so doing the math, that makes it about 6 times more deadly than the flu.
The other thing different is that statistically speaking each person that gets the flu spreads it to 1 other person. So far, that number is at least 3 for covid-19. Add to that the fact that it now appears that someone can catch and spread covid-19 for up to 5 days before they themselves show symptoms (if they ever do) it makes for a nasty disease that loves close contact between humans.
An acquaintance of mine put together this website... https://covidgraph.com/usa/ that shows the stats and trends in an understandable way. We are up to about 70 million total cases (recovered and active) world wide, and the US is once again in first place, with almost double the number of cases and deaths of any other country, even though we only have 4% of the world's population.
It is understandable that we are having trouble getting our heads around this; the last time something like it occurred was 102 years ago.
49,513,350 Cases which had an outcome:
47,938,950 (97%) Recovered / Discharged
1,574,400 (3%) Deaths
The death rate worldwide is actually 3% of the cases to date. This would make it 20 times more deadly than the flu.
So, back to the original subject, I am a co-manager of one of the local leagues (VNEA). On Monday the State Health Officer issued two public health orders that took effect today. One was a statewide mask mandate, with exceptions, and the other stipulated distancing and other measures that was directed towards places that people gather, including bars, which is where we play. Our county already had a mask order but there is no enforcement teeth along with it, so compliance is up to the individual and the place of business.
Per the second health order the bars are required to close by 10 pm, so I am trying to herd the cats that are our players into getting to the match on time and asking the team captains to herd their cats so that they are done by 10. They can start early if they wish but any games that are not done by the time the bar closes will be scored as both players getting a big fat zero.
Because we are in a relatively small rural town, there are only a handful of tables in town that we can play on as a sanctioned league and we are already using all of them.
Sorry, I was talking about the US and that stat is from a while back. Just took a look here... https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality and it looks like we are now approaching 2%, at least according to them.
The death rate is also influenced by how overwhelmed the hospitals are. Obviously, if they are so full that they can't provide adequate treatment, you are more likely to die if you develop a severe case. Unless, of course, you have connections that will allow you access to the best treatment.
Thinking about taking the vaccine?
Emergency COVID-19 Vaccines May Cause Massive Side Effects
Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola Fact Checked December 08, 2020
Emergency COVID-19 Vaccines May Cause Massive Side Effects
With COVID-19 vaccines on the precipice of mass distribution, news media are on fire as they talk about who will get the vaccine first and how it will be distributed. The one thing they aren’t discussing, however, is the definition of “effective” when it comes to these vaccines.
Early November 2020, Pfizer sent the stock market soaring1 when it announced its vaccine is more than 90% effective.2 One week later, Moderna — which designed its vaccine candidate in just two days3 — boasted a 94.5% effectiveness rating.4
However, if you read Pfizer’s and Moderna’s press releases and other clinical trial information, you’ll see that they have left out some really crucial information. For example:5
They don’t say how many cycles they used for the PCR tests they gave to count COVID-19 cases, which is crucial for determining the accuracy of those tests
They don’t say whether the “cases” had symptoms or not
They don’t mention anything about hospitalizations or deaths, meaning there is no indication it prevents either
There is no indication about how long the vaccine lasts if it truly is effective and protective. Some indications suggest you might need to take this vaccine every three to six months in order for it to be effective
Odds Ratios Can Be Misleading
In an article published by the Mises Institute, Dr. Gilbert Berdine, associate professor of medicine at Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, writes:6
“The Pfizer study had 43,538 participants and was analyzed after 164 cases. So, roughly 150 out 21,750 participants (less than 0.7%) became PCR positive in the control group and about one-tenth that number in the vaccine group became PCR positive.
The Moderna trial had 30,000 participants. There were 95 ‘cases’ in the 15,000 control participants (about 0.6%) and five ‘cases’ in the 15,000 vaccine participants (about one-twentieth of 0.6%). The ‘efficacy’ figures quoted in these announcements are odds ratios …
When the risks of an event are small, odds ratios can be misleading about absolute risk. A more meaningful measure of efficacy would be the number [needed] to vaccinate to prevent one hospitalization or one death. Those numbers are not available.
An estimate of the number [needed] to treat from the Moderna trial to prevent a single ‘case’ would be 15,000 vaccinations to prevent 90 ‘cases’ or 167 vaccinations per ‘case’ prevented, which does not sound nearly as good as 94.5% effective.”
Pfizer’s Number Needed to Vaccinate = 256
In a letter to the editor, Dr. Allan Cunningham, a retired pediatrician in New York, also points out that Pfizer’s 90% effectiveness rating fails to tell the story in a way that people can understand, and goes on to estimate the number needed to vaccinate for Pfizer’s vaccine. He writes:7
“Specific data are not given but it is easy enough to approximate the numbers involved, based on the 94 cases in a trial that has enrolled about 40,000 subjects: 8 cases in a vaccine group of 20,000 and 86 cases in a placebo group of 20,000.
This yields a COVID-19 attack rate of 0.0004 in the vaccine group and 0.0043 in the placebo group. Relative risk (RR) for vaccination = 0.093, which translates into a ‘vaccine effectiveness’ of 90.7% [100(1-0.093)]. This sounds impressive, but the absolute risk reduction for an individual is only about 0.4% (0.0043-0.0004=0.0039).
The Number Needed to Vaccinate (NNTV) = 256 (1/0.0039), which means that to prevent just one COVID-19 case 256 individuals must get the vaccine; the other 255 individuals derive no benefit, but are subject to vaccine adverse effects, whatever they may be and whenever we learn about them.”
Major Safety Questions Still Remain
Indeed, when it comes to safety, it’s important to realize that since only a few thousand verified healthy volunteers have been exposed to the actual vaccine, the real beta testers will be the masses of people who line up first to take the vaccines when they come to market.
In his article, Berdine stresses he has yet to find a medical colleague who is willing to be among the first to take the experimental vaccine. Most say they want to review the safety data after a year or so of use before they’ll consider getting it.
“These colleagues are concerned about possible autoimmune side effects that may not appear for months after vaccination,” Berdine writes. It’s worth noting that none of the trials currently underway include immunocompromised volunteers, so the effects of these vaccines on people with suppressed immune function is wholly unknown.
This is a significant problem, seeing how an estimated 14.7 million to 23.5 million Americans suffer from some form of autoimmune disease,8 and these people are also at increased risk for COVID-19 complications and death.
If the vaccine exacerbates autoimmune problems, the outcome could be devastating for an extraordinary number of people. The volunteers currently enrolled in trials are all healthier than the average American, yet side effects appear commonplace even among this “elite” group.
What You Can Expect From the COVID-19 Vaccine
Emergency COVID-19 Vaccines May Cause Massive Side Effects
Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola Fact Checked December 08, 2020
Emergency COVID-19 Vaccines May Cause Massive Side Effects
With COVID-19 vaccines on the precipice of mass distribution, news media are on fire as they talk about who will get the vaccine first and how it will be distributed. The one thing they aren’t discussing, however, is the definition of “effective” when it comes to these vaccines.
Early November 2020, Pfizer sent the stock market soaring1 when it announced its vaccine is more than 90% effective.2 One week later, Moderna — which designed its vaccine candidate in just two days3 — boasted a 94.5% effectiveness rating.4
However, if you read Pfizer’s and Moderna’s press releases and other clinical trial information, you’ll see that they have left out some really crucial information. For example:5
They don’t say how many cycles they used for the PCR tests they gave to count COVID-19 cases, which is crucial for determining the accuracy of those tests
They don’t say whether the “cases” had symptoms or not
They don’t mention anything about hospitalizations or deaths, meaning there is no indication it prevents either
There is no indication about how long the vaccine lasts if it truly is effective and protective. Some indications suggest you might need to take this vaccine every three to six months in order for it to be effective
Odds Ratios Can Be Misleading
In an article published by the Mises Institute, Dr. Gilbert Berdine, associate professor of medicine at Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, writes:6
“The Pfizer study had 43,538 participants and was analyzed after 164 cases. So, roughly 150 out 21,750 participants (less than 0.7%) became PCR positive in the control group and about one-tenth that number in the vaccine group became PCR positive.
The Moderna trial had 30,000 participants. There were 95 ‘cases’ in the 15,000 control participants (about 0.6%) and five ‘cases’ in the 15,000 vaccine participants (about one-twentieth of 0.6%). The ‘efficacy’ figures quoted in these announcements are odds ratios …
When the risks of an event are small, odds ratios can be misleading about absolute risk. A more meaningful measure of efficacy would be the number [needed] to vaccinate to prevent one hospitalization or one death. Those numbers are not available.
An estimate of the number [needed] to treat from the Moderna trial to prevent a single ‘case’ would be 15,000 vaccinations to prevent 90 ‘cases’ or 167 vaccinations per ‘case’ prevented, which does not sound nearly as good as 94.5% effective.”
Pfizer’s Number Needed to Vaccinate = 256
In a letter to the editor, Dr. Allan Cunningham, a retired pediatrician in New York, also points out that Pfizer’s 90% effectiveness rating fails to tell the story in a way that people can understand, and goes on to estimate the number needed to vaccinate for Pfizer’s vaccine. He writes:7
“Specific data are not given but it is easy enough to approximate the numbers involved, based on the 94 cases in a trial that has enrolled about 40,000 subjects: 8 cases in a vaccine group of 20,000 and 86 cases in a placebo group of 20,000.
This yields a COVID-19 attack rate of 0.0004 in the vaccine group and 0.0043 in the placebo group. Relative risk (RR) for vaccination = 0.093, which translates into a ‘vaccine effectiveness’ of 90.7% [100(1-0.093)]. This sounds impressive, but the absolute risk reduction for an individual is only about 0.4% (0.0043-0.0004=0.0039).
The Number Needed to Vaccinate (NNTV) = 256 (1/0.0039), which means that to prevent just one COVID-19 case 256 individuals must get the vaccine; the other 255 individuals derive no benefit, but are subject to vaccine adverse effects, whatever they may be and whenever we learn about them.”
Major Safety Questions Still Remain
Indeed, when it comes to safety, it’s important to realize that since only a few thousand verified healthy volunteers have been exposed to the actual vaccine, the real beta testers will be the masses of people who line up first to take the vaccines when they come to market.
In his article, Berdine stresses he has yet to find a medical colleague who is willing to be among the first to take the experimental vaccine. Most say they want to review the safety data after a year or so of use before they’ll consider getting it.
“These colleagues are concerned about possible autoimmune side effects that may not appear for months after vaccination,” Berdine writes. It’s worth noting that none of the trials currently underway include immunocompromised volunteers, so the effects of these vaccines on people with suppressed immune function is wholly unknown.
This is a significant problem, seeing how an estimated 14.7 million to 23.5 million Americans suffer from some form of autoimmune disease,8 and these people are also at increased risk for COVID-19 complications and death.
If the vaccine exacerbates autoimmune problems, the outcome could be devastating for an extraordinary number of people. The volunteers currently enrolled in trials are all healthier than the average American, yet side effects appear commonplace even among this “elite” group.
What You Can Expect From the COVID-19 Vaccine
An October 20, 2020, article9 in the Observer lists the known side effects that have emerged in the various trials. Chills, fever, body aches and headache are the most commonplace, but at least two cases of transverse myelitis — inflammation of the spinal cord — have also occurred.
Even the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention warns that the vaccine’s side effects are “no walk in the park,”10 and Saad Omer, director of the Yale Institute for Global Health, has stressed the need for a broad-based outreach campaign to discuss the reality of side effects, as patients might not come back for the required second dose if the side effects take them by surprise.11
Dr. Eli Perencevich, a professor of internal medicine and epidemiology at the University of Iowa Health Care, has suggested essential workers should be granted three days of paid leave after they’re vaccinated, as many will feel too sick to work.12
A December 1, 2020, CNBC article,13 which looked at the frequency of adverse reactions, noted that 10% to 15% of participants in the Pfizer and Moderna trials reported “significantly noticeable” side effects.
Buried way down at the bottom of the article is a suggestion from a past advisory committee member, who proposes the nomenclature of “serious adverse reaction” be changed to "immune response," so they can reprogram how people think about these side effects, even if they end up having to stay home from work because of them.
The article also admits they have no idea what, if any, long-term reactions there might be, which means (as we already knew) that this is a great big public health experiment and, of course, anything that happens post-marketing will be labeled a "coincidence."
In related news, a participant in India’s AstraZeneca trial is now suing the company claiming the vaccine caused “serious neurological damage,”14 and a group of researchers warn the COVID-19 vaccines could potentially increase your risk of HIV infection.15 Then there are the concerns about the COVID-19 vaccine permanently altering your DNA, effectively turning you into a transhuman.16 As you can see, there’s a lot to consider before taking this vaccine.
Do We Really Need a COVID-19 Vaccine?
Berdine also points out that most of his colleagues believe “the uncertainties about safety exceed what they perceive to be a small benefit.”17 Indeed, at this point, a range of data suggest the COVID-19 vaccine may be completely unnecessary. For example:
• COVID-19 mortality is extremely low outside of nursing homes — 99.7% of people recover from COVID-19.18 If you’re under 60 years of age, your chance of dying from seasonal influenza is greater than your chance of dying from COVID-19.19
• Data clearly show that COVID-19 has not resulted in excess mortality, meaning the same number of people who die in any given year, on average, have died in this year of the pandemic.20,21 This is true even among the elderly, as evidenced in a Johns Hopkins University article published just before Thanksgiving. According to the article:22
“The deaths of older people stayed the same before and after COVID-19. Since COVID-19 mainly affects the elderly, experts expected an increase in the percentage of deaths in older age groups. However, this increase is not seen from the CDC data. In fact, the percentages of deaths among all age groups remain relatively the same.”
As soon as the article started trending on Twitter, Johns Hopkins deleted it saying it “was being used to support false and dangerous inaccuracies about the impact of the pandemic.”23
percentage-of-total-deaths-per-age-category.jpg
• Studies24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31 suggest immunity against SARS-CoV-2 infection is more widespread than suspected, thanks to cross-reactivity with other coronaviruses that cause the common cold.
• Asymptomatic people are highly unlikely to spread SARS-CoV-2 — A study32 looking at PCR test data from nearly 10 million residents in Wuhan city found that not a single one of those who had been in close contact with an asymptomatic individual (someone who tested positive but had no symptoms) had been infected with the virus. In all instances, virus cultures from people who tested positive but had no symptoms also came up negative for live virus.
Will COVID-19 Vaccine Save Lives?
Peter Doshi, associate editor of The BMJ, also questions the effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccines, pointing out that current trials are not designed to tell us whether the vaccines will actually save lives. And, if they don’t, are they really worth the risks involved? Doshi writes:33
“What will it mean exactly when a vaccine is declared ‘effective’? To the public this seems fairly obvious. ‘The primary goal of a COVID-19 vaccine is to keep people from getting very sick and dying,’ a National Public Radio broadcast said bluntly …
Yet the current phase III trials are not actually set up to prove either. None of the trials currently under way are designed to detect a reduction in any serious outcome such as hospital admissions, use of intensive care, or deaths. Nor are the vaccines being studied to determine whether they can interrupt transmission of the virus.”
Doshi points out that when Dr. Paul Offit was asked in an interview whether a recorded “event” in these trials meant moderate to severe illness, he replied yes, “that’s right.” But that’s not, in fact, correct. All Phase 3 trials count mild symptoms, such as a cough, as a “COVID-19 event,” and all will finalize their analyses after a mere 150 or 160 of the volunteers develop symptomatic COVID-19 — regardless of severity.
“Part of the reason may be numbers. Severe illness requiring hospital admission, which happens in only a small fraction of symptomatic COVID-19 cases, would be unlikely to occur in significant numbers in trials.
Data published by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in late April reported a symptomatic case hospitalization ratio of 3.4% overall, varying from 1.7% in 0-49 year olds and 4.5% in 50-64 year olds to 7.4% in those 65 and over.
Because most people with symptomatic COVID-19 experience only mild symptoms even trials involving 30,000 or more patients would turn up relatively few cases of severe disease,” Doshi writes.34
“Hospital admissions and deaths from COVID-19 are simply too uncommon in the population being studied for an effective vaccine to demonstrate statistically significant differences in a trial of 30,000 people.”
These trials also do not tell us anything about the vaccine’s ability to prevent transmission, as this would require testing volunteers twice a week for long periods of time — a strategy that is “operationally untenable,” according to Tal Zaks, chief medical officer at Moderna.35
COVID-19 Vaccine Poses Rare Distribution Challenges
Questions have also been raised about the potential for the COVID-19 vaccines to “go bad” due to improper storage. Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine has to be stored at an unheard of cold temperature even for Antarctica — minus 70 degrees Celsius, or 94 degrees below zero, Fahrenheit. Moderna’s can be kept a bit warmer, at “just” minus 20 degrees C, or 4 below zero F. Both pose a problem for providers who will be administering the shots.
To get an idea of why the vaccines have to be frozen, NPR compares them to chocolates that melt easily.36 The reason the vaccines are so fragile is because they’re made with messenger RNA (mRNA), which turn your own cells into little factories that produce SARS-CoV-2 protein that in turn trigger antibody production.
The problem is that mRNA is easily broken down, so it needs the freezing temperatures to keep stable. Pfizer said its special packaging keeps the vaccines frozen with the help of dry ice. Even so, providers will still have to abide by strict guidelines, one of which says the freezer compartment storing the vaccines cannot be opened more than twice a day, and when opened, must be closed within one minute. Once thawed, the vaccine can be kept refrigerated for five days.
The whole situation makes distribution a challenge, too since the smallest amount you can order is 975 doses. That means the vaccines most likely will have to go to places capable of administering large numbers of vaccines in a short period of time to avoid spoilage. What happens if the vaccine is mishandled and spoils? No one knows. At best, it may be ineffective. At worst, it may cause completely unexpected side effects.
Even the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention warns that the vaccine’s side effects are “no walk in the park,”10 and Saad Omer, director of the Yale Institute for Global Health, has stressed the need for a broad-based outreach campaign to discuss the reality of side effects, as patients might not come back for the required second dose if the side effects take them by surprise.11
Dr. Eli Perencevich, a professor of internal medicine and epidemiology at the University of Iowa Health Care, has suggested essential workers should be granted three days of paid leave after they’re vaccinated, as many will feel too sick to work.12
A December 1, 2020, CNBC article,13 which looked at the frequency of adverse reactions, noted that 10% to 15% of participants in the Pfizer and Moderna trials reported “significantly noticeable” side effects.
Buried way down at the bottom of the article is a suggestion from a past advisory committee member, who proposes the nomenclature of “serious adverse reaction” be changed to "immune response," so they can reprogram how people think about these side effects, even if they end up having to stay home from work because of them.
The article also admits they have no idea what, if any, long-term reactions there might be, which means (as we already knew) that this is a great big public health experiment and, of course, anything that happens post-marketing will be labeled a "coincidence."
In related news, a participant in India’s AstraZeneca trial is now suing the company claiming the vaccine caused “serious neurological damage,”14 and a group of researchers warn the COVID-19 vaccines could potentially increase your risk of HIV infection.15 Then there are the concerns about the COVID-19 vaccine permanently altering your DNA, effectively turning you into a transhuman.16 As you can see, there’s a lot to consider before taking this vaccine.
Do We Really Need a COVID-19 Vaccine?
Berdine also points out that most of his colleagues believe “the uncertainties about safety exceed what they perceive to be a small benefit.”17 Indeed, at this point, a range of data suggest the COVID-19 vaccine may be completely unnecessary. For example:
• COVID-19 mortality is extremely low outside of nursing homes — 99.7% of people recover from COVID-19.18 If you’re under 60 years of age, your chance of dying from seasonal influenza is greater than your chance of dying from COVID-19.19
• Data clearly show that COVID-19 has not resulted in excess mortality, meaning the same number of people who die in any given year, on average, have died in this year of the pandemic.20,21 This is true even among the elderly, as evidenced in a Johns Hopkins University article published just before Thanksgiving. According to the article:22
“The deaths of older people stayed the same before and after COVID-19. Since COVID-19 mainly affects the elderly, experts expected an increase in the percentage of deaths in older age groups. However, this increase is not seen from the CDC data. In fact, the percentages of deaths among all age groups remain relatively the same.”
As soon as the article started trending on Twitter, Johns Hopkins deleted it saying it “was being used to support false and dangerous inaccuracies about the impact of the pandemic.”23
percentage-of-total-deaths-per-age-category.jpg
• Studies24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31 suggest immunity against SARS-CoV-2 infection is more widespread than suspected, thanks to cross-reactivity with other coronaviruses that cause the common cold.
• Asymptomatic people are highly unlikely to spread SARS-CoV-2 — A study32 looking at PCR test data from nearly 10 million residents in Wuhan city found that not a single one of those who had been in close contact with an asymptomatic individual (someone who tested positive but had no symptoms) had been infected with the virus. In all instances, virus cultures from people who tested positive but had no symptoms also came up negative for live virus.
Will COVID-19 Vaccine Save Lives?
Peter Doshi, associate editor of The BMJ, also questions the effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccines, pointing out that current trials are not designed to tell us whether the vaccines will actually save lives. And, if they don’t, are they really worth the risks involved? Doshi writes:33
“What will it mean exactly when a vaccine is declared ‘effective’? To the public this seems fairly obvious. ‘The primary goal of a COVID-19 vaccine is to keep people from getting very sick and dying,’ a National Public Radio broadcast said bluntly …
Yet the current phase III trials are not actually set up to prove either. None of the trials currently under way are designed to detect a reduction in any serious outcome such as hospital admissions, use of intensive care, or deaths. Nor are the vaccines being studied to determine whether they can interrupt transmission of the virus.”
Doshi points out that when Dr. Paul Offit was asked in an interview whether a recorded “event” in these trials meant moderate to severe illness, he replied yes, “that’s right.” But that’s not, in fact, correct. All Phase 3 trials count mild symptoms, such as a cough, as a “COVID-19 event,” and all will finalize their analyses after a mere 150 or 160 of the volunteers develop symptomatic COVID-19 — regardless of severity.
“Part of the reason may be numbers. Severe illness requiring hospital admission, which happens in only a small fraction of symptomatic COVID-19 cases, would be unlikely to occur in significant numbers in trials.
Data published by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in late April reported a symptomatic case hospitalization ratio of 3.4% overall, varying from 1.7% in 0-49 year olds and 4.5% in 50-64 year olds to 7.4% in those 65 and over.
Because most people with symptomatic COVID-19 experience only mild symptoms even trials involving 30,000 or more patients would turn up relatively few cases of severe disease,” Doshi writes.34
“Hospital admissions and deaths from COVID-19 are simply too uncommon in the population being studied for an effective vaccine to demonstrate statistically significant differences in a trial of 30,000 people.”
These trials also do not tell us anything about the vaccine’s ability to prevent transmission, as this would require testing volunteers twice a week for long periods of time — a strategy that is “operationally untenable,” according to Tal Zaks, chief medical officer at Moderna.35
COVID-19 Vaccine Poses Rare Distribution Challenges
Questions have also been raised about the potential for the COVID-19 vaccines to “go bad” due to improper storage. Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine has to be stored at an unheard of cold temperature even for Antarctica — minus 70 degrees Celsius, or 94 degrees below zero, Fahrenheit. Moderna’s can be kept a bit warmer, at “just” minus 20 degrees C, or 4 below zero F. Both pose a problem for providers who will be administering the shots.
To get an idea of why the vaccines have to be frozen, NPR compares them to chocolates that melt easily.36 The reason the vaccines are so fragile is because they’re made with messenger RNA (mRNA), which turn your own cells into little factories that produce SARS-CoV-2 protein that in turn trigger antibody production.
The problem is that mRNA is easily broken down, so it needs the freezing temperatures to keep stable. Pfizer said its special packaging keeps the vaccines frozen with the help of dry ice. Even so, providers will still have to abide by strict guidelines, one of which says the freezer compartment storing the vaccines cannot be opened more than twice a day, and when opened, must be closed within one minute. Once thawed, the vaccine can be kept refrigerated for five days.
The whole situation makes distribution a challenge, too since the smallest amount you can order is 975 doses. That means the vaccines most likely will have to go to places capable of administering large numbers of vaccines in a short period of time to avoid spoilage. What happens if the vaccine is mishandled and spoils? No one knows. At best, it may be ineffective. At worst, it may cause completely unexpected side effects.
The Gold Rush of Vaccines and Indemnity
THE JAB: Featuring GlaxoSmithKline
The risk of side effects is particularly troubling in light of the fact that vaccine manufacturers are indemnified against any harm that occurs from the use of their vaccines. In the video above, Children’s Health Defense (CHD), founded by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., highlights the gold rush that occurred for pharmaceutical companies when the World Health Organization declared swine flu a pandemic in 2009.
In 2011, the swine flu vaccine Pandemrix (used in Europe but not in the U.S. during 2009-2010) was causally linked to childhood narcolepsy.
Several experimental vaccines were hastily rushed to market following the WHO’s pandemic declaration, one of which resulted in thousands of European children and teens developing chronic narcolepsy and cataplexy (the sudden collapse due to loss of voluntary muscle control triggered by strong emotions or laughter).
In 2011, the ASO3-adjuvanted swine flu vaccine Pandemrix (used in Europe but not in the U.S. during 2009-2010) was causally linked37 to childhood narcolepsy, which had abruptly skyrocketed in several countries.38,39 Children and teens in Finland,40 the U.K.41 and Sweden42 were among the hardest hit.
Further analyses also discerned a rise in narcolepsy among adults who received the vaccine, although the link wasn’t as obvious as that in children and adolescents.43
A 2019 study44 reported finding a “novel association between Pandemrix-associated narcolepsy and the non-coding RNA gene GDNF-AS1” — a gene thought to regulate the production of glial cell line-derived neurotrophic factor or GDNF, a protein that plays an important role in neuronal survival.
They also confirmed a strong association between vaccine-induced narcolepsy and a certain haplotype, suggesting “variation in genes related to immunity and neuronal survival may interact to increase the susceptibility to Pandemrix-induced narcolepsy in certain individuals.”
Now, in the midst of another controversial pandemic, we’re facing an eerily similar playbook — with pharmaceutical companies eager to cash in on the first COVID-19 vaccine, which begs the question, “Are we are being played — again?”
Not the First Hoax — Practice Makes Perfect
Pandemics have come and gone around the globe for centuries, but in recent history they’ve been used as points of manipulation that have profited corporations, particularly pharmaceutical companies.
The 2005 bird flu epidemic, for example, was predicted to kill from 2 million to 150 million people. It killed just 98 people, globally, in 2005, 115 in 2006 and 86 in 2007.45 No one in the U.S. died from this infection. The brazenness of the hoax prompted me to write my New York Times best seller book “The Great Bird Flu Hoax.”
In 2006, 2007 and again in 2008, hyped warnings over the bird flu were repeatedly exposed as little more than a cruel hoax, designed to instill fear and line the pocketbooks of industry and various vested individuals. In 2009, there was the swine flu hoax, the vaccination campaign for which, as mentioned, turned into a disaster.
The summer of 2012 was again filled with dire predictions of bird flu sufficiently mutating to cause a human pandemic, immediately followed by urgent calls for fast-tracked vaccines. None of these pandemics ever turned into global killers, and COVID-19 is no different. As mentioned earlier, there’s no evidence of excess deaths due to this novel virus.
The COVID-19 pandemic differs from previous ones, however, in that it’s being used not just to enrich drug companies and justify the existence of gain-of-function research, but also to usher in a “reset” of the entire global economy by the technocrats. While failing economies around the world are blamed on the pandemic, the central bank system has been faltering for some time and is now on its last leg.
The global debt load is now so high, countries cannot even pay off the interest, and thus the system no longer works. It needs to be “reset,” but rather than ditching the central bank system and resetting it to something stable (such as returning to a gold-backed system), the technocrats in charge are ushering in an all-digital centralized currency that will give them total control over the finances of every human on earth.
What’s more, the economic reset is only one part of this all-encompassing totalitarian takeover. The COVID-19 vaccine fits into the scheme by providing an excuse to track and trace everyone’s whereabouts, and connect this medical surveillance together with the digital economy. You can learn more about this in “What You Need to Know About the Great Reset.”
No Accountability for Vaccine Harms
As noted by Barbara Loe Fisher, co-founder of the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), based on the historical failures of past coronavirus vaccines, a fast-tracked COVID-19 vaccine could become one of the biggest public health disasters in history.
And, no one involved will be held accountable or face any repercussions, just as GlaxoSmithKline was not held accountable for the narcolepsy cases caused by Pandemrix. Instead, they will all continue to profit while an unsuspecting public will beta test yet another potentially dangerous vaccine.
Even if severe side effects are rare, when you’re talking about vaccinating some 7 billion people, even a tiny percentage will translate into millions of people affected.
Protect Your Right to Informed Consent and Defend Vaccine Exemptions
With all the uncertainty surrounding the safety and efficacy of vaccines, it's critical to protect your right to make independent health choices and exercise voluntary informed consent to vaccination. It is urgent that everyone in America stand up and fight to protect and expand vaccine informed consent protections in state public health and employment laws. The best way to do this is to get personally involved with your state legislators and educate the leaders in your community.
Sources and References
1 Axios November 9, 2020
2 NPR November 9, 2020
3 Business Insider November 26, 2020
4 NPR November 16, 2020
5, 6, 17 Mises Institute November 24, 2020
7 The BMJ Letter to the Editor November 13, 2020
8 Autoimmune Registry, Estimates of Prevalence
9 Observer October 20, 2020
10 The Hill November 24, 2020
11, 12 Kaiser Health News November 12, 2020
13 CNBC December 1, 2020
14 RT November 29, 2020
15 Forbes October 20, 2020
16 The Vaccine Reaction September 29, 2020
18, 19 Annals of Internal Medicine September 2, 2020 DOI: 10.7326/M20-5352
20 YouTube, SARS-CoV-2 and the rise of medical technocracy, Lee Merritt, MD, aprox 8 minutes in (Lie No. 1: Death Risk)
21 Technical Report June 2020 DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.24350.77125
22 Johns Hopkins Newsletter November 26, 2020 (Archived)
23 Twitter JHU News-Letter November 26, 2020
24 Cell June 25, 2020; 181(7): 1489-1501.E15
25 Wall Street Journal June 12, 2020 (Archived)
26 Nature Immunology September 30, 2020 DOI: 10.1038/s41590-020-00808-x
27 The Lancet Microbe September 4, 2020 DOI: 10.1016/S2666-5247(20)30114-2
28 UPI September 4, 2020
29 Nature July 15, 2020; 584: 457-462
30 Daily Mail June 12, 2020
31 Science Times June 12, 2020
32 Nature Communications November 20, 2020; 11 Article number 5917
33, 34, 35 The BMJ 2020;371:m4037
36 NPR November 17, 2020
37, 42 Eurosurveillance June 30, 2011; 16(26)
38 European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control September 20, 2012
39, 43 CIDRAP January 30, 2013
40 PLoS One. 2012;7(3):e33536
41 BMJ 2013;346:f794
44 EBioMedicine. 2019 Feb; 40: 595–604
45 AIER March 22, 2020
THE JAB: Featuring GlaxoSmithKline
The risk of side effects is particularly troubling in light of the fact that vaccine manufacturers are indemnified against any harm that occurs from the use of their vaccines. In the video above, Children’s Health Defense (CHD), founded by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., highlights the gold rush that occurred for pharmaceutical companies when the World Health Organization declared swine flu a pandemic in 2009.
In 2011, the swine flu vaccine Pandemrix (used in Europe but not in the U.S. during 2009-2010) was causally linked to childhood narcolepsy.
Several experimental vaccines were hastily rushed to market following the WHO’s pandemic declaration, one of which resulted in thousands of European children and teens developing chronic narcolepsy and cataplexy (the sudden collapse due to loss of voluntary muscle control triggered by strong emotions or laughter).
In 2011, the ASO3-adjuvanted swine flu vaccine Pandemrix (used in Europe but not in the U.S. during 2009-2010) was causally linked37 to childhood narcolepsy, which had abruptly skyrocketed in several countries.38,39 Children and teens in Finland,40 the U.K.41 and Sweden42 were among the hardest hit.
Further analyses also discerned a rise in narcolepsy among adults who received the vaccine, although the link wasn’t as obvious as that in children and adolescents.43
A 2019 study44 reported finding a “novel association between Pandemrix-associated narcolepsy and the non-coding RNA gene GDNF-AS1” — a gene thought to regulate the production of glial cell line-derived neurotrophic factor or GDNF, a protein that plays an important role in neuronal survival.
They also confirmed a strong association between vaccine-induced narcolepsy and a certain haplotype, suggesting “variation in genes related to immunity and neuronal survival may interact to increase the susceptibility to Pandemrix-induced narcolepsy in certain individuals.”
Now, in the midst of another controversial pandemic, we’re facing an eerily similar playbook — with pharmaceutical companies eager to cash in on the first COVID-19 vaccine, which begs the question, “Are we are being played — again?”
Not the First Hoax — Practice Makes Perfect
Pandemics have come and gone around the globe for centuries, but in recent history they’ve been used as points of manipulation that have profited corporations, particularly pharmaceutical companies.
The 2005 bird flu epidemic, for example, was predicted to kill from 2 million to 150 million people. It killed just 98 people, globally, in 2005, 115 in 2006 and 86 in 2007.45 No one in the U.S. died from this infection. The brazenness of the hoax prompted me to write my New York Times best seller book “The Great Bird Flu Hoax.”
In 2006, 2007 and again in 2008, hyped warnings over the bird flu were repeatedly exposed as little more than a cruel hoax, designed to instill fear and line the pocketbooks of industry and various vested individuals. In 2009, there was the swine flu hoax, the vaccination campaign for which, as mentioned, turned into a disaster.
The summer of 2012 was again filled with dire predictions of bird flu sufficiently mutating to cause a human pandemic, immediately followed by urgent calls for fast-tracked vaccines. None of these pandemics ever turned into global killers, and COVID-19 is no different. As mentioned earlier, there’s no evidence of excess deaths due to this novel virus.
The COVID-19 pandemic differs from previous ones, however, in that it’s being used not just to enrich drug companies and justify the existence of gain-of-function research, but also to usher in a “reset” of the entire global economy by the technocrats. While failing economies around the world are blamed on the pandemic, the central bank system has been faltering for some time and is now on its last leg.
The global debt load is now so high, countries cannot even pay off the interest, and thus the system no longer works. It needs to be “reset,” but rather than ditching the central bank system and resetting it to something stable (such as returning to a gold-backed system), the technocrats in charge are ushering in an all-digital centralized currency that will give them total control over the finances of every human on earth.
What’s more, the economic reset is only one part of this all-encompassing totalitarian takeover. The COVID-19 vaccine fits into the scheme by providing an excuse to track and trace everyone’s whereabouts, and connect this medical surveillance together with the digital economy. You can learn more about this in “What You Need to Know About the Great Reset.”
No Accountability for Vaccine Harms
As noted by Barbara Loe Fisher, co-founder of the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), based on the historical failures of past coronavirus vaccines, a fast-tracked COVID-19 vaccine could become one of the biggest public health disasters in history.
And, no one involved will be held accountable or face any repercussions, just as GlaxoSmithKline was not held accountable for the narcolepsy cases caused by Pandemrix. Instead, they will all continue to profit while an unsuspecting public will beta test yet another potentially dangerous vaccine.
Even if severe side effects are rare, when you’re talking about vaccinating some 7 billion people, even a tiny percentage will translate into millions of people affected.
Protect Your Right to Informed Consent and Defend Vaccine Exemptions
With all the uncertainty surrounding the safety and efficacy of vaccines, it's critical to protect your right to make independent health choices and exercise voluntary informed consent to vaccination. It is urgent that everyone in America stand up and fight to protect and expand vaccine informed consent protections in state public health and employment laws. The best way to do this is to get personally involved with your state legislators and educate the leaders in your community.
Sources and References
1 Axios November 9, 2020
2 NPR November 9, 2020
3 Business Insider November 26, 2020
4 NPR November 16, 2020
5, 6, 17 Mises Institute November 24, 2020
7 The BMJ Letter to the Editor November 13, 2020
8 Autoimmune Registry, Estimates of Prevalence
9 Observer October 20, 2020
10 The Hill November 24, 2020
11, 12 Kaiser Health News November 12, 2020
13 CNBC December 1, 2020
14 RT November 29, 2020
15 Forbes October 20, 2020
16 The Vaccine Reaction September 29, 2020
18, 19 Annals of Internal Medicine September 2, 2020 DOI: 10.7326/M20-5352
20 YouTube, SARS-CoV-2 and the rise of medical technocracy, Lee Merritt, MD, aprox 8 minutes in (Lie No. 1: Death Risk)
21 Technical Report June 2020 DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.24350.77125
22 Johns Hopkins Newsletter November 26, 2020 (Archived)
23 Twitter JHU News-Letter November 26, 2020
24 Cell June 25, 2020; 181(7): 1489-1501.E15
25 Wall Street Journal June 12, 2020 (Archived)
26 Nature Immunology September 30, 2020 DOI: 10.1038/s41590-020-00808-x
27 The Lancet Microbe September 4, 2020 DOI: 10.1016/S2666-5247(20)30114-2
28 UPI September 4, 2020
29 Nature July 15, 2020; 584: 457-462
30 Daily Mail June 12, 2020
31 Science Times June 12, 2020
32 Nature Communications November 20, 2020; 11 Article number 5917
33, 34, 35 The BMJ 2020;371:m4037
36 NPR November 17, 2020
37, 42 Eurosurveillance June 30, 2011; 16(26)
38 European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control September 20, 2012
39, 43 CIDRAP January 30, 2013
40 PLoS One. 2012;7(3):e33536
41 BMJ 2013;346:f794
44 EBioMedicine. 2019 Feb; 40: 595–604
45 AIER March 22, 2020