Pfizer

Concerns of Fraud in Pfizer Vaccine Trial as Participant’s Hospitalisation with Heart Inflammation is Swept Under Carpet

You may have heard the disturbing story of Maddie de Garay, who in July 2020, aged 12, participated in Pfizer’s Covid vaccine trial of adolescents aged 12-15. Within 24 hours of receiving the second dose in early January 2021, Maddie experienced “zapping pain up and down her spine with severe abdominal pain… her toes and fingers turned white and were ice cold”. She now can barely see, suffers from tinnitus, mobility issues, vomiting, blood in her urine, numbness in her body and has at least 10-20 seizures a day. Yet her injury was recorded in the vaccine trial data as “abdominal pain” and it was asserted without investigation to be not related to the vaccine.

Another case, similarly disturbing, has now emerged of an adverse reaction during a Pfizer trial that was not recorded in the trial data, raising concerns about the integrity of the trial data and the possibility of fraud.

Augusto Roux is a 35-year old lawyer from Buenos Aires, Argentina who volunteered for Pfizer’s Covid vaccine phase 3 trial. He did so to protect his mother, who has emphysema.

On the way home after his second dose on September 9th 2020, he began feeling unwell, developed a high fever and felt very ill. He fainted on September 11th and went to the hospital on September 12th. The hospital ran tests, including a CAT scan of his chest, which showed an abnormal collection of fluid around the outside of the heart, indicating pericarditis (a form of heart inflammation).

mRNA Vaccines Significantly Associated With Deadly Blood Clots, Major Study Finds

Blood-clotting condition cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT), which can cause serious neurological damage, is significantly associated with mRNA Covid vaccination, a major study in leading medical journal Vaccines has found.

The research team analysed 1,154,023 adverse event reports from more than 130 countries logged with VigiBase, the World Health Organisation’s global deduplicated database, and found a “potential safety signal for CVT occurrence after COVID-19 mRNA vaccination”.

The authors note many reports were in younger people and the conditions were serious: “CVTs were commonly reported in patients aged 18-44 and 45-64 years, more frequently in women, and mainly in Europe and America… More than 90% of the patients were in serious condition, and 33% did not recover or died.”

The researchers take into account under-reporting to produce estimates of increased risk above a baseline: around 3.5 times greater risk for mRNA vaccines and seven times greater risk for AstraZeneca. This means the CVT risk from mRNA vaccines, while high, is around half that of AstraZeneca.

Fourth Vaccine Dose Gives No Protection Against Infection After Just Eight Weeks, Israeli Study Finds

Protection against infection from a fourth Pfizer vaccine dose wanes to zero in just eight weeks, an Israeli study published in the NEJM has found.

The researchers looked at the records of all 1,252,331 people over 60 in Israel eligible for the fourth dose during the Omicron wave (January 10th to March 2nd 2022). They excluded various groups, including those with prior test-positive Covid to avoid confounding with natural immunity.

They compared infection rates and severe cases in the four-dose group to the three-dose group, and also to an “internal control” in the form of the four-dose group in the first week after the jab (excluding the first two days). They provided estimates of rate ratios (a measure of vaccine effectiveness) adjusted for age, sex, demographic group, and calendar day (to take into account the varying prevalence over the epidemic wave).

They found that although some fleeting protection against infection appeared to occur, it peaked two to three weeks after the injection (blue dots in the chart below) and was gone by the eighth week.

mRNA Vaccines Can Alter Human DNA, Study Shows

Pfizer’s Covid vaccine causes intracellular reverse transcription of BNT162b2 mRNA into human DNA in vitro, renewing concerns that vaccines may introduce spike protein into the nuclei of cells. TrialSite News has the story.

The findings emerged Friday in a peer-reviewed article entitled “Intracellular Reverse Transcription of Pfizer BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 In Vitro in Human Liver Cell Line” in the Current Issues in Molecular Biology Journal, an imprint of MDPI, the largest open-access publisher in the world and the fifth-largest publisher overall in terms of journal paper output.

Researchers Warn: Pfizer Vaccine May Affect Integrity of Genomic DNA

“Our study shows that BNT162b2 can be reverse transcribed to DNA in liver cell line Huh7, and this may give rise to the concern if BNT162b2-derived DNA may be integrated into the host genome and affect the integrity of genomic DNA, which may potentially mediate genotoxic side effects,” the authors warn.

The study, authored by a team of Swedish researchers at Lund University, concluded that Pfizer’s COVID-19 mRNA vaccine entered the human liver cell line Huh7 in vitro and BNT162b2 mRNA was subsequently transcribed intracellularly into DNA within six hours of exposure. …

The authors conclude that BNT162b2 transfects into human liver cell line huh7 in vitro, altering LINE-1 expression and distribution. The authors also find that “BNT162b2 mRNA is reverse transcribed intracellularly into DNA in as fast as six hours upon BNT162b2 exposure.”

BNT162b2 is a lipid nanoparticle (LNP)-encapsulated, nucleoside-modified RNA vaccine (modRNA) which resembles gene therapy platforms. Pfizer’s mRNA vaccine encodes the full-length of SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. That spike protein is modified by two proline mutations to ensure antigenically optimal pre-fusion conformation, mimicking the intact virus to elicit virus-neutralizing antibodies.

A recent study showed that SARS-CoV-2 RNAs can be reverse-transcribed and integrated into the genome of human cells, which the authors said led them to investigate whether spike transfected by mRNA vaccines might have comparable effects.

mRNA Vaccines Effect on “Genomic Integrity” Should Be Studied

“At this stage, we do not know if DNA reverse transcribed from BNT162b2 is integrated into the cell genome,” the authors wrote. “Further studies are needed to demonstrate the effect of BNT162b2 on genomic integrity, including whole genome sequencing of cells exposed to BNT162b2, as well as tissues from human subjects who received BNT162b2 vaccination.”

Worth reading in full.

Vaccines Have Failed to Prevent the Spread of Covid, Israeli Study Concludes

An Israeli study has looked at how much difference a fourth Covid vaccine dose makes compared with a third dose.

The study was restricted to triple-jabbed healthcare workers, and more specifically to those whose antibody levels were in the bottom 40% of the antibody levels in the cohort (a group comprising around 29% of the cohort). Of the 1,050 eligible healthcare workers, 154 were given a Pfizer fourth dose and 120 Moderna. The rest formed a triple-jabbed control group.

Measuring antibody levels, the researchers found an increase by around 10-fold following the fourth dose, restoring antibodies to the peak levels they hit following the third dose, though no higher.

The study was originally intended just to measure antibody levels and other indicators of immunogenicity. However, the Omicron surge in the country was so large that despite being a small study, enough infections occurred within the study groups to allow an estimate of vaccine effectiveness. The participants were PCR tested each week. The researchers reported that ‘breakthrough’ infections were common and, though mild, had high viral loads. During the study period, 25% of the control groups (triple-dosed) tested positive compared with 18-20% of the four-dose groups. This gave a fourth-dose versus three-dose vaccine effectiveness against PCR-positive infection of just 11-30% – though the small population size led to wide confidence intervals ranging from minus-43% to 55%.

Among the four-dose groups, there were 52 ‘breakthrough’ infections, of which 39 (75%) were classed as symptomatic. The vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic disease was estimated at 31-43%, though again with wide confidence intervals.

The symptoms of all PCR-positive infections were typically “negligible”, the researchers report, and in many cases the infections “would not have been tested or reported, without the active surveillance”. Yet they had relatively high viral loads (Ct around 25), so were presumably infectious. Thus, with a quarter of triple-vaccinated and a fifth of quadruple-vaccinated healthcare workers becoming infected and apparently infectious during the wave, the researchers conclude the vaccine programme is a failure as it is not preventing the spread of Covid: “The major objective for vaccinating [healthcare workers] was not achieved.” However, the apparent efficacy against severe disease and death means older and vulnerable people may benefit from a fourth vaccine dose, they say.

The study also looked at safety. It found that 80% of Pfizer recipients and 40% of Moderna recipients reported some kind of adverse reaction, though none were classed as serious. The adverse reactions are summarised in the chart below.

Larger studies on the efficacy and safety of the fourth dose, which has now been rolled out (having gone ahead without waiting for studies such as this one), are forthcoming, the researchers note.

Joe Rogan is Right That mRNA Vaccines Are Gene Therapy – And Other Ways the BBC’s ‘Fact Check’ Fails

The BBC has used some of its taxpayer funding to ‘reality check‘ Joe Rogan’s Covid ‘misinformation’. The state-funded broadcaster claims some episodes of the popular podcast have featured “false and misleading claims” and states: “Here are four of them fact-checked,” implying all are false. Let’s see.

Claim: A vaccine can alter your genes

Mr Rogan said: “This is not a vaccine, this is essentially a gene therapy.” But this is not true.

None of the Covid vaccines change your genetic material or DNA – essentially the recipe book containing the instructions of how to build your body.

The vaccines made by Pfizer and Moderna harness a different molecule called messenger RNA.

If DNA is the blueprint, RNA is the messenger, carrying instructions to your cells.

In the case of the Covid vaccine, the message to your cells is to turn the RNA into copies of the virus’s spike protein.

That’s what fires your immune system up to start producing antibodies and other cells to fight off the virus.

When the message has been received, the RNA is broken down and disposed of.

First of all, note that the claim the heading says is being ‘fact checked’ is not the same as the claim it quotes Joe Rogan making, which is: “This is not a vaccine, this is essentially a gene therapy.” Perhaps the Reality Check team think gene therapy is synonymous with altering genes, as their ‘fact check’ implies they think if they show the mRNA in the vaccine does not alter genes they have successfully proved it is “not true” to say it is gene therapy. This assumption is false – though it does appear to have become the official line and has started appearing in every ‘fact check’ on the topic. A Reuters fact check‘ from August, for instance, concludes: “Scientists told Reuters that while mRNA vaccines can be considered ‘genetic-based therapy’ because they use genetic code from COVID-19, they are not technically gene therapy. This is because the mRNA does not change the body’s genetic makeup.”

If you think this sounds like dancing on the head of a pin, you’d be right. In fact, it represents a sleight of hand introduced during the pandemic, in part at the behest of vaccine-maker Moderna in order to avoid the new vaccines having the negative associations of gene therapy. And while it’s awfully nice of media corporations like the BBC and Reuters to do the bidding of pharmaceutical companies, it doesn’t make the claim true. You might have thought the fact that virologist and mRNA expert Dr. Robert Malone is one of the people implicated in their ‘fact checks’ as referring to the vaccines as a form of gene therapy would have given them pause for thought. But he is persona non grata and they have their alternative experts to do the requisite pin-dancing, so they plough on regardless.

It isn’t actually hard to show that mRNA vaccine technology comes under the field of gene therapy, and that the attempt to distinguish the two has been invented in the very recent past as a way of making the vaccines look better. For instance, a 2011 article entitled “mRNA as gene therapeutic: How to control protein expression“, in a section headed “Applications for mRNA as a drug molecule: mRNA vaccination”, says this:

Myocarditis Risk Increases Up To 133-FOLD Following Covid Vaccination, Study Finds

A study published this week in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) has found that the risk of myocarditis (heart inflammation) after receiving an mRNA Covid vaccine (Pfizer or Moderna) was dramatically increased across many age groups and was highest after the second vaccination dose in young men.

The study found myocarditis reports were highest after the second vaccination dose in males aged 12 to 15 years at 70.7 per million Pfizer doses, compared to an expected rate of 0.53 per million, amounting to a 133-fold increase; in males aged 16 to 17 years at 105.9 per million Pfizer doses, compared to an expected rate of 1.34 per million, amounting to a 79-fold increase; and in young men aged 18 to 24 years at 52.4 per million Pfizer doses and 56.3 per million Moderna doses, compared to an expected rate of 1.76 per million, amounting to a 30-fold and 32-fold increase respectively. The full results are shown in the table below and a selection are depicted in the chart above.

Government Guidance to GPs on Vaccine Safety Omits Pfizer Trial Data Showing Twice as Many Cardiovascular Deaths in Vaccinated

When Daily Sceptic reader Ian Price experienced an alarming adverse reaction to his first AstraZeneca jab he decided that he did not want to risk a second dose. However, his GP had other ideas and told him he should have Pfizer for his second dose. Despite being presented with worrying safety data from Pfizer’s own trial results, the GP would not agree to an exemption. Ian writes:

I am pro-vaccine but anti-mandate. However, I have recently discovered via correspondence from my GP that the Department of Health is not ‘following the science’ in the guidance it gives to GPs on vaccine safety.

By way of background, I declined the second vaccine following an adverse reaction to the first AstraZeneca vaccine received in March 2021. I remain partially vaccinated which means that I fall into the category of citizens described by Sir Tony Blair as “idiots”. Resenting the increasing stigmatisation of the unvaccinated, I discovered via Google search that there was such a thing as a vaccine exemption. After all, even Blair acknowledges that it is possible to have a “health reason” for not being jabbed. So I called the NHS number and had a form posted to me. I filled it in and dropped it off at my GP’s surgery.

“I’m struggling a bit with the Covid exemption form,” wrote my GP to me in a text on December 1st. “I am not sure I am comfortable with precluding you from the option of a second injection.” He was about to go away but offered a phone consultation on his return. Puzzled by his framing of the issue as being about not limiting my options, I agreed to the follow-up call.

In our long discussion on December 29th, his advice remained that I should take the Pfizer vaccine. I explained that I felt my risk from Covid was negligible and I was not convinced that it was greater than the risk from a second vaccine. He remained reluctant to issue an exemption but agreed to look into it further and come back to me. His subsequent text message read as follows: “I have re-read the guidance extensively on issuing of vaccine exemptions and unfortunately it can only be issued if there is a medical contraindication to receiving an alternate vaccine.”

He was good enough to attach a link to the guidance document from the Department of Health and Social Care. I looked at this document and found a further link to the Green Book Chapter 14a. As outlined in my letter to him below, the paragraph on the safety of the Pfizer vaccine reads as if the scientific evidence is reassuring. The paragraph cites two published papers that describe safety studies of the Pfizer vaccine: Walsh et al, 2020 and Polack et al, 2020. Both studies demonstrated very limited evidence of systemic events – “generally mild and shortlived”. Reading this paragraph, as a layman, I would conclude that there is no cause for concern.

Coronavirus is Nowhere Near Endemic, Says WHO

The coronavirus is “nowhere near” endemic, the World Health Organisation has said, and will not reach this point until it is “stable” and stops triggering unpredictable waves of infection that don’t “rely on external forces being placed in order to maintain that stability”. The Telegraph has the story.

Speaking at a press conference on Tuesday Dr. Catherine Smallwood, a senior emergency officer at WHO Europe, said it’s still too soon to suggest the world is moving into an endemic phase of COVID-19 – in spite of assertions from politicians in countries including the U.K. and Spain. …

“In terms of endemicity, we’re still a way off,” Dr. Smallwood told journalists. “Endemicity assumes that there’s stable circulation of the virus, at predictable levels with predictable waves of transmission… that doesn’t rely on external forces being placed in order to maintain that stability. But what we’re seeing at the moment, coming into 2022, is nowhere near that… we can’t just sit back and see a stable rate of transmission,” she said. 

“We still have a huge amount of uncertainty, we still have a virus that’s evolving quite quickly and posing quite new challenges. So we’re certainly not at the point of being able to call it endemic. It may become endemic in due course, but pinning that down to 2022 is a little bit difficult at this stage.”

At the weekend the Cabinet Minister Nadhim Zahawi said he believes the country is “witnessing the transition of the virus from pandemic to endemic”, while Spain’s Prime Minister this week urged Europe to consider the possibility of treating COVID-19 as an endemic illness, such as flu. 

But Dr. Smallwood warned governments “to hold back on behaving as if it’s endemic before the virus is actually behaving as if it’s endemic”.  She added that widespread vaccination uptake on an equitable basis will be “very very key in moving toward this scenario”. 

Worth reading in full.

Note the multiple fantasies in this alarmist statement. “Widespread vaccination uptake on an equitable basis will be ‘very very key in moving toward this scenario'” – even though we already have very widespread vaccine take-up and infection rates are as high as ever.

Endemicity requires stability that “doesn’t rely on external forces being placed in order to maintain that stability” – even though there is no evidence “external forces” (i.e., interventions) have done anything to limit the spread of the virus.

Endemicity “assumes that there’s stable circulation of the virus, at predictable levels with predictable waves of transmission” – even though there’s nothing predictable about existing endemic viruses like those which cause colds and flu.

So what’s the idea now? Vaccines don’t stop the spread, restrictions don’t stop the spread, hardly anyone is getting very sick and health services can cope, but for some reason we still have to stay on an emergency footing and not move on from the pandemic?

Meanwhile, Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla has said that a vaccine for Omicron will be ready in March and the company has begun manufacturing the doses. He also admitted that two doses are no longer any good against severe disease – though he may have had other motives for implying more doses of his product are necessary for protection. The Independent has the story.

Why Did Pfizer Refuse to Distribute the Vaccine in Countries Which Didn’t Grant Indemnity?

A video has surfaced from what appears to be January 2021 of World Bank President David Malpass explaining that Pfizer is “hesitant” to distribute its vaccine in countries which refuse to grant legal indemnity from liability for adverse events. He says:

The immediate problem is indemnification. Pfizer has been hesitant to go into some of the countries because of the liability problems, they don’t have a liability shield. So we work with the countries to try to do that. But I think also some of the other vaccine manufacturers may be able to go into countries because they’re operating through subsidiaries. This is all something that we’re exploring, and our goal, my goal, is to have vaccines available throughout the developing world based on what their countries decide. We’ve got financing available but the countries need to choose systems and then begin buying or receiving the vaccines.

If Pfizer is so confident that its vaccine has been proven safe in rigorous trials, why is it unwilling to take responsibility for any problems? And if it is unwilling to take the risk with its own product, how is that going to persuade the vaccine-hesitant to take the risk themselves? The Pfizer vaccine has been linked with 388,618 adverse events in the UK to date, including 628 deaths. Taiwan has halted its use in teenagers due to concerns about the risk of myocarditis. Yet a cloak of secrecy has been thrown over the approvals process and the company has come under fire for “war profiteering” by making huge profits during the pandemic.

Pharmaceutical companies are profit-driven entities and rules on transparency and liability exist to keep them honest and ensure only safe, effective drugs are provided to the public. It may turn out to be a big mistake to have allowed them to avoid this scrutiny and accountability just because many were desperate for a medical way out of the pandemic.