The mRNA vaccines were released globally in early 2021 with the slogan ‘safe and effective’. Unusually for a new class of medicine, they were soon recommended by public health authorities for pregnant women. By late 2021, working age women, including those who were pregnant, were being thrown out of employment for not agreeing to be injected. Those who took the mRNA vaccines did so based on trust in health authorities – the assumption being that they would not have been approved if the evidence was not absolutely clear. The role of regulatory agencies was to protect the public and, therefore, if they were approved, the drugs were safe.
Recently, a lengthy vaccine evaluation report sponsored by Pfizer and submitted to the Australian regulator, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) dated January 2021 was released under a Freedom of Information request. The report contains significant new information that had been supressed by the TGA and by Pfizer itself. Much of this relates directly to the issues of safety in pregnancy and impacts on the fertility of women of child-bearing age. The whole report is important, but four key data points stand out:
- The rapid decline in antibody and T cells in monkeys following a second dose;
- Biodistribution studies (previously released in 2021 through an FOI request in Japan);
- Data on the impact of fertility outcomes for rats;
- Data on foetal abnormalities in rats.
We focus on the last three items as, for the first point, it is enough to quote the report itself: “Antibodies and T cells in monkeys declined quickly over five weeks after the second dose of [Pfizer Covid vaccine] BNT162b2 (V9), raising concerns over long term immunity.” This point indicates that the regulators should have anticipated the rapid decline in efficacy and must have known at the outset that the initial two dose course was unlikely to confer lasting immunity and would, therefore, require multiple repeat doses. This expectation of failure was recently highlighted by Dr. Anthony Fauci, former director at the U.S. NIH.
The three remaining items should be a major cause for concern with the pharmaceutical regulatory system. The first, as revealed in 2021, involved biodistribution studies of the lipid nanoparticle carrier in rats, using a luciferase enzyme to substitute for the mRNA vaccine. The study demonstrated that the vaccine will travel throughout the body after injection and is found not only at the injection site but in all organs tested, with high concentration in the ovaries, liver, adrenal glands and spleen. Authorities who assured vaccinated people in early 2021 that the vaccine stays in the arm were, as we have known for two years, not being honest.
In terms of the impact on fertility and foetal abnormalities, the report includes a study of 44 rats and describes two main metrics, the pre-implantation loss rate and the number of abnormalities per foetus (also expressed per litter). In both cases the metrics were significantly higher for vaccinated rats than for unvaccinated rats.
Roughly speaking, the pre-implantation loss ratio compares the estimated number of fertilised ova and the ova implanted in the uterus. The table below is taken from the report itself and clearly shows the loss rate for vaccinated (BNT162b2) is more than double the unvaccinated control group.
In a case control study, a doubling of pregnancy loss in the intervention group would represent a serious safety signal. Rather than take this seriously, the authors of the report then compared the outcomes to historical data on other rat populations – 27 studies of 568 rats – and ignored the outcome because other populations had recorded higher overall losses. This range is shown in the right hand column as 2.6% to 13.8%. This analysis is alarming as remaining below the highest previously recorded pregnancy loss levels in populations elsewhere is not a safe outcome when the intervention is also associated with double the harm of the control group.
A similar pattern is observed for foetal malformations with higher abnormality rate in each of the 12 categories studied. Of the 11 categories where Pfizer confirmed the data are correct, there are only two total abnormalities in the control group, versus 28 with the mRNA vaccine (BNT162b2). In the category which Pfizer labelled as unreliable (supernumerary lumbar ribs), there were three abnormalities in the control group and 12 in the vaccinated group.
As with the increased pregnancy losses, Pfizer simply ignored the trend and compared the results with historical data from other rat populations. This is very significant as it is seen across every malformation category. The case control nature of the study design is again ignored, in order to apparently hide the negative outcomes demonstrated.
These data indicate that there is no basis for saying the vaccine is safe in pregnancy. Concentration of lipid nanoparticles in ovaries, a doubled pregnancy loss rate and raised foetal abnormality rate across all measured categories indicates that designating a safe-in-pregnancy label (B1 category in Australia) was contrary to available evidence. The data imply that not only was the Government’s ‘safe and effective’ sloganeering not accurate, it was totally misleading with respect to the safety data available.
Despite the negative nature of these outcomes, the classification of this medicine as a ‘vaccine’ appears to have precluded further animal trials. Historically, new medicines, especially in classes never used in humans before, would require a very rigorous assessment. Vaccines, however, have a lower burden of proof requirement than ordinary medicines. By classifying mRNA injections as ‘vaccines’, this ensured regulatory approval with significantly less stringent safety requirements, as the TGA itself notes. In fact, these mRNA gene therapy products (to use the proper term) function more like medicines than vaccines in that they modify the internal functioning of cells, rather than stimulating an immune response to presence of an antigen. Labelling these gene therapy products as ‘vaccines’ means that, as far as we are aware, even today no genotoxicity or carcinogenicity studies have been carried out.
This report, which was only released after a FOI request, is extremely disturbing as it shows that authorities knew of major risks with mRNA COVID-19 vaccination while simultaneously assuring populations that it was safe. The fact that mainstream media have (as far as we are aware) completely ignored the newly released data should reinforce the need for caution when listening to the advice of public health messaging regarding COVID-19 vaccination.
Firstly, it is clear that regulators, drug companies and the Government would have known that vaccine induced immunity tails off very rapidly, with this being subsequently observed in real world data with efficacy against infection falling to zero. Accordingly, the single point in time figures of 95% and 62% efficacy against symptomatic PCR-positive infection quoted for Pfizer and AstraZeneca respectively meant almost nothing since a rapid decline was to be expected. Similarly, the concept of a two dose course was inaccurate as endless boosters would likely have been required given the rapid decline in antibodies and T-cells observed in the monkeys.
Most importantly, the data do not in any way support the ‘safe’ conclusion with respect to pregnancy; ‘dangerous’ would be much more accurate. The assurances of safety were, therefore, completely misleading given the data disclosures in the recent freedom of information release. Regulatory authorities knew that animal studies showed major red flags regarding both pregnancy loss and foetal abnormalities, consistent with the systemic distribution of the mRNA they had been hiding from the public. Even in March 2023, it is impossible to give these assurances, given the fact that important studies have not, to the best of our knowledge, been done. Pfizer elected not to follow up the vast majority of pregnancies in the original human trials, despite high miscarriage rates in the minority they did follow. Given all of the problems with efficacy and safety, the administration of these products to women of childbearing age and administration to healthy pregnant women is high risk and not justified.
Alex Kriel is by training a physicist and was one of the first people to highlight the flawed nature of the Imperial Covid model; he is a founder of the Thinking Coalition which comprises a group of citizens who are concerned about Government overreach. David Bell is a public health physician with a PhD in population health and formerly worked as a scientific and medical officer at the World Health Organisation.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
As ever with a Mr Tucker article, far too many words. He probably didn’t have enough time to write a concise piece so produced this instead.
You should stick to reading posts on Twitter/X. Have you ever read a book?
Thanks for your advice. I have read a book. To be fair, not recently though.
You said the article has “far too many words”. Not a little too many words but FAR too many words. How many words do you think the article should have? Half as many? Or fewer than that?
As opposed to some of the others, I thought this one was really ok.
Almost wish I had read it now. I get a few paragraphs in and there is no purpose and then I read on and it’s more periphery stuff and I scroll up to see author and when I see Tucker (and to be fair a couple of others in recent times) and just scroll down to next article. That’s the problem when the editors don’t edit….
Dystopian and why the Police need a thorough cleansing, as do our ‘laws’.
Pets and minorities can now be offended by something and register a crime against you.
As the author asks – is hating the non-crime of a hate-crime, itself a thought or hate crime?
Massive government and state power. And we are to worship the police as ‘heroes’. They are no such thing, too many of them are useless and most of them are part of the problem.
Indeed the process is in itself the punishment; doing it to a high-profile journalist ensures that the message will get publicity. The message being “keep quiet or the police will turn up on your doorstep”.
The police visiting you is in itself a punishment. You are only human: you will feel stressed out, intimidated and humiliated just by them knocking on your door. That’s the aim here. That will teach you a lesson. Next time you’ll keep quiet.
The fact that “hate crime incident” is such a vaguely defined term is deliberate too. Its aim is to include anything that the government doesn’t want you to do.
The whole thing is not even particularly original: it is a copy of the 1927 Stalinist “Counter-revolutionary activity” law that allowed people to be sentenced to 10 years in the Gulag for making a joke.
Not for me it won’t.
I’ll follow my own conscience, post what I want when I want, say what I want to say.
Always have, always will.
There’s more of us than them and they’re terrified of us.
The point remains, however, why British police officers would cherrfully stand to be photograohed next to a flag which represents any nation other than ours which I doubt they understood. The article says it was a flag for a Pakistan political party which British police and other officials have no business being associated with.
I have no idea of the policies or charavter of that party but it does not matter.
It is also important to recall just how the police and UK public authorities generally have stood by Hamas and Palestinian demonstrations. At the wholly peaceful protest by naturally peacable farmers the Met rolled out 20 vans of police. When anyone protests for Israel or Jews they better beware. The contrast is binary.
Sam Melia is to be released from prison but the punishment continues;
”UPDATE: Sam Melia will be released before Christmas. However, they’re not allowing him to spend Christmas at home with his family. The state ensured he missed the birth of his baby girl and now they’re denying him her first Christmas. Sam will be placed in accommodation and monitored for 6 months because they claim his stickering makes him high risk of “serious harm”
https://x.com/MrNChance/status/1861905073904980376
An update from his partner, Laura Towler, here. It all sounds completely over the top and disproportionate when you consider who they’ve let out early and who gets suspended sentences;
https://x.com/MrNChance/status/1862038872621760746/photo/1
Thanks for these.
That we have an anti-white government and an anti-white Establishment is becoming clearer and clearer to more and more people.
In this context “high risk of serious harm” means “He could still have some stickers left and put them somewhere!” That’s the actual issue here: The notion that speech can be harmful in itself, ie, that people may be harmed by being exposed to opinions they really don’t like (or rather, the government really doesn’t like).
The evil bastards.
Fascinating this morning to see on GBNews, the corbynista criticising the police for arresting protesters trying to stop the detention of suspected PKK members because they had the cheek to search the community centre and ask the people living in the same house as the suspects to vacate, so the properties could be searched. In his view, these people of faith were all innocent and should not face jail time for the protest because it’s the police who were heavy handed, but he still said that waving the St George cross should be an imprisonable offence when done near a mosque!!!
All social control is predicated on fear.
No system of authority has enough resources to keep a population under control by sheer force.
Brainwashing helps, but the further from reality the brainwashing is, the more reliant on the threat of force authority becomes.
The problem the UK and most western nations have is the ideology of established power has been diverging from reality for sometime and the population isn’t having it.
No, it’s achieved NOTHING. Roll on the 20th January 2025, when sanity will be returned to the world.
The purpose of NCHIs seems to be to discredit the legal system which is based upon one law for everyone. This is individual law