First of all, up until this point, there has never been any successful vaccine for coronaviruses in humans due to a problem typical of coronavirus vaccine development called antibody-dependent enhancement or ADE. In preliminary animal trials for previous coronavirus vaccines (SARS and MERS), animals were vaccinated and seemed to exhibit a robust antibody response, but upon exposure to the wild virus, they developed a paradoxical immune enhancement leading to severe organ inflammation (especially in lungs), and they died. Paradoxical immune response in coronavirus vaccines has also taken place in human trials, which occurred during testing of the failed RSV vaccines of the 1950s. Alarmingly, there are some statistical indications of ADE in covid vaccine trials, but there is no way to know for sure because many key signifiers of ADE weren’t specifically addressed. Due to emergency protocol, the usual method of testing animals prior to humans was bypassed, limited animal testing occurred in parallel with humans, and the potential for ADE was not comprehensively assessed. Historical precedent would suggest, however, that ADE is a distinct possibility, and we may not know the true negative effects until years from now when vaccinated persons are exposed to SARS-CoV-2 or genetically similar versions of coronavirus.
Second, the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines contain lipid nanoparticles that are “PEGylated”, meaning the nanoparticles are coated with PEG (polyethylene glycol). PEGs can lead to life-threatening anaphylaxis or other conditions such as thrombocytopenia. Such reactions are already occurring during the initial vaccine rollout and PEGs are the most likely culprit. Approximately 72% of the US population have PEG antibodies, with 8% having extremely elevated levels (more than 500 ng/mL), putting them at risk for severe allergic reaction and/or future autoimmune disorders. These reactions were totally predictable, with many experts warning of the danger posed by PEGs, yet participants with a history of severe allergic reaction were excluded from the trials, serving to obscure the actual negative impact PEGs will have now that these vaccines are being given to members of the public who have not been screened for PEG antibodies. Also, there is some worrying evidence to suggest that PEGs cross the blood-brain barrier and accumulate in the brain, possibly causing inflammation and/or autoimmune conditions, a fact gleaned from previous animal studies on mRNA vaccines. PEGs were found to be distributed across a spectrum of tissues including the brain. Additionally, nanoparticles (such as PEGylated hydrogel) are known components for state of the art medical interventions, including biosurveillance technology currently being developed by DARPA and companies like Profusa Inc. The secretive nature of this technology necessitates a knowledge gap between developers and the general public, so although my research efforts have yet to verify a direct functional relationship between PEGylated nanoparticles used in covid vaccines and biosurveillance, I personally do not relish the prospect of being injected with such given their association with biosurveillance technology of the military-industrial complex.
Third, it is impossible to ascertain long term safety because of the foreshortened timeframe of Operation Warp Speed. Vaccines should be tested for multiple years to adequately assess their long-term effects. Short term safety is questionable too, as much of the data is still unavailable, and the current reports on safety and efficacy essentially amount to self-reported press releases from these companies themselves.
Fourth, the efficacy number of 90% for Pfizer and 94% for Moderna is statistically misleading, reporting a relative reduction instead of an absolute reduction of risk*. Also, the trials only assessed these vaccines’ ability to prevent mild symptoms and NOT their ability to prevent transmission. If they don’t prevent people from transmitting the virus (especially when safer, cheaper drugs like Ivermectin do) what’s the point?
Fifth, these are NOT vaccines in the normal sense. They are mRNA vaccines, which utilize a completely different process for achieving disease protection**; mRNA vaccines seek to introduce messenger RNA into the body in order to “trick” cells into producing immunogens, which then stimulate an immune response. These vaccines are the first of their kind ever to gain authorization. Current vaccinations are essentially an extension of phase 3 of the trials. Because of the lack of long term safety assessment and the new nature of this technology, people are participating in a mass human experiment with no way of knowing the long term health effects these could cause. Many problems from vaccines are known to have an incubatory period and do not manifest until much later, which is why testing needs to occur for multiple years in order to adequately assess risk.
One such problem currently being discussed is the mRNA technology’s possible impact on female fertility, as it encourages the production of antibodies against a SARS-CoV-2 spike protein that contains a very similar protein crucial for the development of placenta called syncytin-1. This could interfere with the reproductive process by encouraging the immune system to react against syncytin-1, thereby disrupting placental development. The vaccines’ impact on fertility is currently unknown as animal reproductive toxicity studies have not been completed.
Sixth, there was a signature for many different problems seen in the various trials and initial rollout for these vaccines, problems that are concurrent with commonly documented vaccine injuries. Injuries that did occur in the various trials/rollout have included, but are not limited to, anaphylaxis, Bell’s palsy, transverse myelitis, multi-system inflammatory syndrome, encephalomyelitis, idiopathic thrombocytopenia purpura, and death.
Seventh, and perhaps most importantly, the movement toward potential vaccine mandates or other coercive policies violates humanity’s most universally accepted principles of human rights and medical ethics, especially for medical intervention with so many known and unknown safety/efficacy concerns. The absolute bedrock of medical ethics is the right to informed consent, as individuals must be made fully aware of all the potential benefits and risks associated with medical intervention, while still maintaining the right to decline that intervention should they so choose.
Mandates or coercive measures fundamentally violate historical safeguards humanity has put in place to protect us from the ever-present threat of medical tyranny, including the Nuremberg Code, the United Nations’ International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and UNESCO’s Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights. Such would also be in violation of the Hippocratic Oath, for not only do oath keepers pledge first to do no harm, but also to treat the needs of the patient. This implies that a doctor’s duty primarily pertains to the needs of the individual before the needs of the collective, a vital distinction made by Hippocrates and understood for nearly 2 millennia. Privileging the needs of the collective is a “fallacy of misplaced concreteness”. While the individual need is directly apprehensible and consensual, the collective need is an abstract, subjective concept not easily defined. And yet who usually gets to define this concept? Such is most often defined by those in power with the most means to influence institutional narratives, turning medical professionals who treat the needs of the collective according to this definition into mere extensions of that power at the expense of individual informed consent.
* Regarding the reporting on the reduction of relative risk instead of absolute risk, in the phase 3 trial of the Pfizer vaccine, for example, 22,000 people were vaccinated and 22,000 were given a placebo, for a total of 44,000 trial participants. Of those 44,000, just 170 were diagnosed (via suspect application of RT-PCR tests) as having covid-19 post-vaccination. Of those 170, it was reported that 8 received the vaccine and 162 received the placebo. From this ratio, it was inferred that the vaccine would prevent 154 out of 162 from getting the disease for the efficacy of greater than 90%. But even as the British Medical Journal explained, “A relative risk reduction is being reported, not absolute risk reduction, which appears to be less than 1%.” The supposed sterling efficacy touted by both Pfizer and Moderna is great for instilling confidence in their product, yet they were based on figures derived from only a small fraction of trial participants (just 0.38% of total participants in the Pfizer trial, and the same misleading statistical reporting seen in the Moderna trial as well).
** Labeling the mRNA technology employed by Pfizer and Moderna as a “vaccine” stretches the term’s definition beyond reasonable limits. While it is true that such an intervention technically fulfills the purpose of vaccination by encouraging acquired immunity against infectious disease, it does not contain any attenuated biologics typical of traditional vaccination; it may be more accurate, therefore, to label such as a “synthetic pathogen delivery device” constituting a form of “gene therapy”.