Why it makes sense to focus more on mRNA vaccine safety
Is the renewed focus on AstraZeneca safety a distraction?
I recently saw a few tweets where some mainstream news channels are asking about the safety of the AstraZeneca vaccine.
I posted a Tweet about this:
And I think it makes sense to elaborate on this a little bit more.
Given that I live in India (where the main vaccine used was in fact AstraZeneca - it is called Covishield here), there is also a chance I have a somewhat different perspective on this than people who live outside India.
Pfizer was already secretly attacking AstraZeneca safety
Here is a very good interview by Paul Thacker, and this was when it was really hard to write anything critical of the vaccines.
It has this interesting piece:
We were passed those presentations, and they were given to pharmacists and physicians in Canada.
The key one was this claim that the AstraZeneca vaccine could potentially turn a healthy human cell into a cancer cell. These presentations were funded by Pfizer and were largely putting forward the benefits of the mRNA vaccine. What’s interesting is how that information got into the hands of people who were presenting it to doctors and pharmacists in Canada.
Those presenters were being paid by Pfizer or had received funds from Pfizer in the past. Pfizer, of course, denies it had anything to do with the materials.
So we already know that Pfizer is not above creating propaganda to make its vaccine look safer. Keep this in mind as you go through the rest of this article.
The US regulators threw non-mRNA vaccines under the bus
One of the most interesting things I read recently was by the MidWestern Doc talking about “medical gaslighting”.
Because of this, I suspected that once vaccine safety concerns emerged, a non-mRNA COVID-19 vaccine would be thrown under the bus to make the mRNA technology look “safe.” This is what then happened with the J&J vaccine when six cases of an extremely unusual blood clot being linked to that vaccine caused the FDA and CDC to pause its administration for 11 days.
By doing so, it created the perception the FDA was monitoring for vaccine side effects with a fine-tooth comb and was willing to pull the vaccine if it caused a rare side effect in a very small number of people.
Nothing could be further from the truth as the mRNA vaccines have caused far more blood clots than the J&J vaccine. Similarly, investigation after investigation shows the FDA is ignoring the endless deluge of red flags from the COVID-19 vaccines.
Full article:
Of course, once I read this, I wondered if something similar happened in other places.
Australia threw AstraZeneca vaccine under the bus
And I noticed that Australia did the same to the AZ vaccine.
They admit to 14 deaths, of which 13 of them were very conveniently due to the AstraZeneca vaccine.
Since the beginning of the vaccine rollout to 11 December 2022, about 64.4 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines have been given in Australia. The TGA has identified 14 reports where the cause of death was linked to vaccination from 952 reports received and reviewed. As previously reported, 13 of these deaths occurred after the first dose of Vaxzevria (AstraZeneca) - 8 were associated with thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS) cases, 2 were linked to Guillain-Barre syndrome (GBS), 2 related to very rare conditions involving the nervous system, and one was a case of immune thrombocytopenia (ITP). One of the deaths occurred after a booster dose of the Spikevax vaccine and was related to myocarditis. Details have been published in a previous report.
Not only is this perfectly fine, in fact it is what you want in your health regulator, as long as they were being completely honest.
Except they weren’t.
Another interesting non-mRNA confounder: Covaxin
Not many people in the West might know about this, but an Indian company created an old school vaccine called Covaxin.
But the FDA slow-walked the approval process for many months, essentially giving the mRNA vaccines enough time to monopolize the entire Western market.
Some additional notes about Covaxin:
1 There are comparitively very few reports of severe AEs after Covaxin (note: this could also be due to a combination of reasons - much fewer doses were administered as it never got very popular, plus India does not have an official vaccine injury reporting system like VAERS)
2 Dr Drew has publicly stated many times on his YouTube show that if he had to choose one vaccine, it would be Covaxin (I think because it is based on old-school technology)
3 You can simply ask why the vaccine promoters did not demand a non-mRNA alternative when pushing for mandates? Here is a hint:
AstraZeneca vaccine injury reports never entered VAERS
I actually wrote an entire article about this based on a reader question. It looks like VAERS was only used for vaccine injury reports for the mRNA vaccines which were manufactured in the US.
In turn, this means that there is no way to independently analyze whatever the regulator provides as the result of their investigation.
This independent analysis seems to matter a lot, since the regulatory agencies are now publishing papers about vaccine safety which we can verify are simply not true.
For example, the CDC did not even investigate the v-safe free text complaints for severe adverse events.
I am not sure how any independent analysis can be done for AstraZeneca.
Note: an independent analysis obviously requires the ability to see the associated text writeup. I don’t want to see a sanitized Excel file with mostly made up numbers.
Relative safety of the vaccines
I now expect that the Pharma companies, which are heavily invested in the success of mRNA technology, to start talking about “relative safety” of the vaccines.
How heavily invested, you ask?
And here is the competing interests section of that paper. It is basically a who’s who of vaccine manufacturers.
Competing interests: S.P., M.P., F.B.S., and R.R. are full-time employees of the GSK group of companies. D.T. consults for GSK, Merck, and Pfizer. S.B. consults for GSK, CEPI, the FDA Best Project, and the European VAC4EU project. D.E.B. reports consultancy fees or research funding from Merck, Pfizer, GSK, Sanofi, and Moderna.
Whether or not you like it, I am sure the “relative safety compared to non mRNA vaccines” propaganda is coming soon :-)
Here is why: they already know that there is no “control group” of non mRNA vaccine injury databases.
They will probably imply that even if the Pfizer vaccine may have caused vaccine injuries, it was still better than AstraZeneca vaccines.
But that claim is probably false.
Prof Christine Stabell Benn did some analysis which showed AZ was no more dangerous than the mRNA vaccines (note: she does not say they are safe. I personally doubt any COVID19 vaccine was actually safe, but I could be wrong about that).
So if they do make the claim, you can use the video as a rebuttal. I really doubt if they would go so far as calling Christine Benn an “anti-vaxxer”, but you never know anymore.
The decision makers are too invested in the success of the mRNA vaccine
Here are two hilarious examples of EU’s vaccine purchase deals.
Europe purchased 10 vaccine doses per citizen!
The mRNA
vaccinesexperiment that governments are disposing of are Ex-Factory Sales. It doesn’t reflect actual accurate market demand because Big Pharma colludes with Governments to buy more drugs than the market truly needs - most of them get disposed of. For example, Europe bought ten doses of mRNA vaccines per citizen! (ha-ha!)
And the EU contracts were also astonishing. I don’t think I have seen a better example of politicians using the COVID19 crisis to recklessly spend tax payer money.
And there are two parts to vaccine success: safety and efficacy (after all, that’s why they kept saying “safe and effective”)
As far as efficacy goes, given that the vaccines were not even tested to see if they stop transmission, the decision makers now look like complete idiots of course.
At a European Union Parliamentary COVID-19 committee hearing on Oct 10, 2022, MEP Rob Roos asked Pfizer's President of International Developed Markets, Janine Small, "Was the Pfizer COVID vaccine tested on stopping the transmission of the virus before it entered the market? If not, please say it clearly. If yes, are you willing to share this data with the committee?"
Ms Small responded, "Regarding the question around did we know about stopping immunization before it entered the market? No, uh, these, um, you know – we had to move at the speed of science™ to understand what is taking place in the market."
But they would no doubt want to salvage at least the “safety” aspect for the future.
This means they would much rather the focus of the safety discussion shifted to the non mRNA vaccine technologies.
Summary
To summarize:
a) AstraZeneca vaccines are not used for the boosters, only mRNA vaccines are
b) the mRNA vaccine has already been added into the childhood immunization schedule, and I think trying to get that repealed (does anyone know if it is possible?) is probably a much better use of our time
c) Given AstraZeneca vaccine injuries are not reported to an open source vaccine injury database like VAERS, I expect the regulators (in this case I am mainly referring to the UK) to publish a new report with more fudged numbers explaining why they were not responsible.
I welcome any and all investigations into all the AZ vaccines, but I hope it is not at the expense of avoiding investigations into the mRNA vaccine.
In any case, I am going to keep writing about VAERS because I am sure that’s the last thing Pharma companies want people to do.
Is our last hope that pharma companies throw shade on each other's product?
Values for the 'SEX' column in VAERS should be Y, N, U, or Frequently.
A new 'Gender' column can be M, F, or 'How Dare You'