July 30, 2021

News Cymru

Two sides to every headline

Top 8 Concerns About COVID19 Vaccines

Illustration of COVID19 virus

I did an article yesterday highlighting a fantastic interview with one of/the creator of mRNA vaccines. You can see it here. The problem is the interview is over three hours long so I thought I would do a summary of the interview here highlighting the top 8 concerns these professionals (Steve Kirsch MSc Computer Science from MIT, Robert Malone M.D., M.S., inventor of mRNA vaccines, Bret Weinstein PhD Biology) have about the way the COVID19 vaccine program is being handled in the USA.

Top 8 Concerns About COVID19 Vaccines

To be clear, these gentleman are not saying that vaccines should not be taken. Their position is people should be made aware of the facts of the potential consequences and of the things we do not know about the COVID19 vaccines.

Again, they are not saying the vaccines are bad.

I will list each of their points individually, briefly describe

  • what it is they are talking about,
  • the issues as they see it,
  • the sources of their concerns,
  • the push back against these positions and
  • my opinion on the nature and quality of this push back.

Top 8 Concerns

1. VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Reporting System)

What is VAERS? VAERS, the Vaccine Safety Datalink, and the Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment (CISA) Network are tools by which the CDC and FDA monitor vaccine safety[1] to fulfill their duty as regulatory agencies charged with protecting the public.

What they say: There are probably at least 5000 deaths being reported where causes of death is possibly a COVID19 vaccine. Normally, this level of potential deaths would trigger alarm among the medical community. The fact that it isn’t causing alarm, is alarming.

Sources of the concern: CDC, Virginia Stoner

The Push Back

The push back is massive and ranges from flat-out misrepresentation of the concerns to glittering generalities. Some examples:

Reuters

Reuters have done a supposed “fact check” here. Except the article’s headline reads

“Fact Check-No evidence the number of vaccine deaths will rival the number of COVID deaths

Yet none of the sources it cites have said anything like this.

Nebraska Medicine

Nebraska Medicine article is, in my opinion, misleading and bizarre.

It starts with the question “Is it true that VAERS says 3,000 people have died from the COVID-19 vaccines?” to which the response of the author is “No”.

Except that is exactly what has been reported on VAERS according to Virginia Stoner.

It continues

“VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) is intentionally set up to capture adverse events that are not thought to be caused by vaccines

Like I said bizarre and patently incorrect.

The article also contains a link which it implies shows how the CDC has investigated every report made on the VAERS website. Except the link simply directs to a page giving guidance on VAERS reports.

And with regards to the analysis of the submitted data. Robert says he wanted to get his facts straight before the interview and actually called people he knows at the FDA to seek clarification on the numbers being reported on the VAERS system and what analysis actually had been done. The responses he got contained words like “chaotic”, “disorganised”, “understaffed”, “overwhelmed”

These types of so called fact checks by apparently respected organisations do absolutely nothing to help the vaccine cause and if anything throw petrol on the anti vaccination argument.


2. Ivermectin

What is Ivermectin? Ivermectin was discovered in 1975 and came into medical use in 1981. It is on the World Health Organization’s List of Essential Medicines.

What they say:.A potential “slam dunk” preventive measure against COVID19. It could wipe out the virus and it is a drug which has no side effects, which is cheap, which is readily available and is being ignored, it is even being portrayed as dangerous. This unsubstantiated attack on Ivermectin is potentially leading to the unnecessary deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. It is highly unusual and disturbing that a known problem free drug is being smeared this way.

Sources of their concern: https://trialsitenews.com/do-the-nih-and-who-covid-treatment-recommendations-need-to-be-fixed/

Push Back

Typing “ivermectin fact check” into Google brings back another plethora of results. For example USA Today, Politifact, AP.

The push back is the same from all of these sources. They say “There is no evidence to suggest Ivermectin is effective against COVID19”.

This is simply false. There are a plethora of studies on the benefits of Ivermectin.

I would say the fact checkers would be better served addressing the faults with the studies individually, however the fact checkers cannot even acknowledge these studies exist.

Fact checks which give false information are not helping the vaccine cause. At all. Not to mention, they are severely hindering critically ill people from getting this medication.


3. Vaccinating during a pandemic

The issue: Vaccinating during a pandemic rather than before it.

What they say: There is a possibility that vaccinating in (rather than in advance of) a pandemic can create vaccine escaped mutants which could potentially create a bigger problem/pandemic. Specifically the escaped mutants “escapes natural immunity in the body, either brought about from being vaccinated or a previous infection”. The speakers are not saying vaccines are bad, but the use of vaccines should be targeted at those who really need it, everyone should not be treated equally and we need to acknowledge that vaccinations during a pandemic could create a problem bigger than the original virus.

Example source: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.01.19.21249840v2?utm_content=buffer316d1&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer and
https://www.schroders.com/id/za/intermediary/insights/markets/how-much-of-a-threat-is-the-indian-variant/?t=true

Push Back

There seems to be agreement that “escaped mutants” are in issue, where the disagreement comes is how big an issue it is. Some say it is no problem, others, like those in the interview say we simply do not know, it could be nothing but it could also be a big problem.

Theconversation.com https://theconversation.com/can-i-choose-what-vaccine-i-get-what-if-i-have-allergies-or-side-effects-key-covid-vaccine-rollout-questions-answered-155649

From the BBC https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-55542393/page/2


4. Risk benefit analysis

The issue: There seems to be a push to get all age groups vaccinated regardless of how many deaths/hospitalisations an age group experiences.

What is risk benefit ratio/analysis? The Declaration of Helsinki, adopted by the World Medical Association, states that biomedical research cannot be done legitimately unless the importance of the objective is in proportion to the risk to the subject. 

What they say: With any vaccine program, a risk benefit analysis is carried out according to different age groups, people with medical conditions etc. This does not appear to happening with COVID19, it is being portrayed that everyone can equally benefit from the vaccine. This is extremely unusual.

Example source: CDC, deaths prevented vs risk of TTS

Push Back

Difficult to say there is any push back against this position. The issue seems to be that the risk benefit decision is not be publicised enough in the media for people to make informed choices.

Perhaps an example of the risk benefit analysis being played down is from europa.eu where it says (re Astra Zeneca vaccine)

“The benefits of Vaxzevria outweigh its risks in adults of all age groups; however, very rare cases of blood clots with low blood platelets1 have occurred following vaccination.”

This short article gives some numbers on the number of people experiencing a problem, which granted is very low, however the article fails to highlight that people under the age of 50 are also extremely unlikely to die or require hospital treatment. I think this is a good example of only half the facts being presented.


5. Spike proteins

The issue: The vaccine is appearing to spread throughout the body rather than staying at the injection site

What they say: Spike proteins should be found around the injection site only, except the COVID19 vaccines are spreading throughout the body in people who have been vaccinated. Either the push back/”fact checks” on this subject deny it is happening or that it isn’t an issue. To say it isn’t happening is simply wrong. To say it isn’t an issue is also wrong. At this point we simply do not know if it is a problem or not, although Robert Malone believes it is. CDC said the spike protein was not biologically active but Malone claims we now know it is.

Push Back

This is a complicated subject which I don’t pretend to understand.

Reuters have done an article here. Part of which says

Research shows that spike proteins (here) remain stuck to the cell surface around the injection site and do not travel to other parts of the body via the bloodstream, they added. The 1% of the vaccine that does reach the bloodstream is destroyed by liver enzymes.

Unless the data shown in the interview is being completely misinterpreted this Reuters statement is completely false. However Pfizer say the data is incorrect.

Reuters have done another fact check article here


6. Vaccines are completely safe

The issue: The public is being told that the vaccines are extremely safe

What they say: This is at best, unknown. COVID19 vaccines are emergency, experimental drugs which means that they have not gone through the normal testing procedures that vaccines would normally go through. For someone to say categorically these vaccines are completely safe is utterly wrong. At this stage it is impossible to know because the testing for safety is ongoing and cannot be accelerated. Normally trials for toxicity last 2 years and have around 3000 people enrolled. We are currently vaccinating millions of people with an experimental drug. It may prove that these vaccines are safe but it may also come to light that they are not, it is simply too soon to say.


7. Money

Ivermectin is a generic drug. For a vaccine to be granted “emergency use” there must not be a readily available and safe drug that can treat the same virus.

In short, if Ivermectin was acknowledged as an effective treatment against COVID19 the drug companies manufacturing COVID19 vaccines stand to lose billions of dollars in revenue and/or the government will be on the hook for billions of dollars in compensation to these drug companies because the vaccines will no longer be able to be used.

What they say: There is a massive financial motive for COVID19 treatments using generic drugs not to be found. The guests are not saying there is a conspiracy but it is very easy to imagine how there could be.

And when you consider that people who have COVID19 symptoms and who have tested positive and feel like they need medical attention, when they go to the doctor or hospital they are given zero medication, and only when they are seriously ill do they receive treatment. We have a situation again, that is probably leading to thousands of people dying for no reason.


8. Censorship

The issue: People who have potentially had adverse side effects are being ignored and/or silenced

What they say: There appears to be co-ordinated efforts by unseen and seen hands to suppress any message which says vaccines are harmful. This is extremely unusual and also potential extremely dangerous.

An example was given of Facebook groups being deleted where people were sharing their experiences of receiving COVID19 vaccines. This is a potentially very useful “canary in the coal mine”, especially when we are talking about the administering of experimental drugs to millions of people.

To actively destroy potential sources of anecdotal evidence is extremely worrying to say the least.


Conclusion

Personally I thought the interview was highly informative not to mention crammed full of data from recent studies.

I cannot emphasis enough that the guest were not saying that COVID19 vaccines should not be taken, the point of the talk is to inform people about the potential risks, so individuals can make informed decisions as to whether the vaccine is the right choice for them.

Frankly, how such a talk can be met with such attacks and push back by some media outlets, in my opinion, is wrong.

Get the latest updates in your inbox