• Survival of the fittest is overrated. Join this week's AMA to find out why!

Question Effective COVID-19 Vaccines?! But will Anti-Vaxxers prevent elimination of the pandemic?!

Jul 27, 2020
250
34
230
We have all heard about them. People who refuse to get vaccines, or allow their children to get vaccinated. They cite pseudo-scientific publications and baseless presumptions for rejecting vaccines. A correlation to autism is often quoted, as are a number of other maladies. Extensive research however has failed to provide any evidence that vaccines and their preservatives are dangerous to most people. While some vaccines can cause problems in compromised patients, their effectiveness is without question in eliminating or controlling many diseases world-wide.

Oddly, the largest groups of people in the world who are Anti-Vaxxers come from countries with the highest education rates and best health care systems (1). These include the U.S. and European countries. The number of people who may refuse to take an effective COVID-19 vaccine could result in a continuous reservoir of infectivity, torpedoing a vaccine's ability to eliminate the virus from the human population.

On the flip-side to this, some of the poorest nations, with significantly reduced access to educations and medical systems, are those with the highest acceptance of vaccines. For instance, Bangladesh is the most pro-vaccine country in the world, with almost 98% approving their use (2). There is a good reason for this. Due to the numerous viruses and bacteria that have infected poor nations like Bangladesh, they have no doubt whatsoever that vaccines save lives - they have seen it happen many times against a wide range of pathogens. Right behind them are Rwandans, who trust vaccines 97%!! They too understand in very stark terms what vaccines are capable of - saving millions of lives. Sadly, the global average is a 79% acceptance rate. It has been noted that when people have seen a family member die of a preventable disease, acceptance of vaccines increases dramatically, which comes as no surprise.

How can America, and Europe, with presumably the most educated people on the planet, and with the most advanced medical capabilities. have so many people with an ignorant concept of vaccines? Much of it has to do with social media and the spread of false information about vaccines. These people form echo-chambers, spreading false information faster than the virus can spread in a large campaign crowd without social distancing and no masks. The people from Bangladesh and Rwanda would never act so foolishly. They clearly have greater knowledge of the safety and efficacy of vaccines, and the dangers of untreated infectious diseases.

It would appear that many people in western nations are not as smart as they think they are! Perhaps we can arrange for some real experts from Bangladesh and Rwanda to visit Americans and Europeans and explain to the Anti-Vaxxers that they have it all wrong, and that vaccines are one of the most important medical interventions to control and stop a pathogenic scourge like COVID-19.

Is it possible that the Anti-Vaxxers are simply too ignorant to change their minds?! Have they brainwashed themselves so badly they cannot appreciate why it is so obvious that vaccines can prevent so much human suffering?!

Time will likely tell......



1. https://www.discovermagazine.com/health/why-are-the-educated-more-likely-to-be-against-vaccines


2. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/this-is-the-most-anti-vaxxer-country-in-the-world-2019-06-19
 
Last edited:
Sep 23, 2020
72
3
55
Yep the masses always hear about the wonders of vaccines even the deaf ones what the mass of people don't hear are the vaccinations gone wrong
 
Sep 23, 2020
72
3
55
Let me put it this way if this particle or virus or whatever it is gets into the nucleus of human cells there ain't gonna be a cure it sounds like a long lost particle of earths past is looking for a new host
 
Mar 24, 2020
25
9
55
Let me put it this way if this particle or virus or whatever it is gets into the nucleus of human cells there ain't gonna be a cure it sounds like a long lost particle of earths past is looking for a new host
What does this even mean. "long lost particle of earth's past"?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chem721
Jul 27, 2020
250
34
230
What does this even mean. "long lost particle of earth's past"?
One might hazard to guess it refers to the ancient nature of the "particle" , which is in fact a virus.

Viruses are little machines of RNA or DNA, coated with protein (some have lipid membranes) that perform only one function - to replicate and evolve. It has no other function, and no other capabilities. It is much more than a particle, and much less than a cell.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jbundy48
Sep 23, 2020
72
3
55
I am thinking that maybe with the bats flying around at night the y are eating insects that have concentrated the invisible light or ultraviolet light and that has morphed into the particle or virus
 
Jul 27, 2020
250
34
230
I am thinking that maybe with the bats flying around at night the y are eating insects that have concentrated the invisible light or ultraviolet light and that has morphed into the particle or virus
Insects do not concentrate light to be transformed into viruses. At least none that have been reported by science, or ever will be.

That should answer this issue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jbundy48
Jul 2, 2020
109
7
105
I was vaccinated against yellow fever a couple of years ago and looked into the subject at the time and again recently.

Vaccines are generally positive but its important for there to be real openness about the risks and whats going on as vaccines are rolled out

There are risks as with all vaccines, that are not much discussed or publicized. A top cancer professor and another person died shortly after having yellow fever vaccinations. Its likely this only got into the news because of the the Professor had links to Prince William.


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-6935925/Two-British-people-DIE-receiving-yellow-fever-vaccines.html

Its not much publicly discussed but the CDC, Dr Fauci and others have quietly highlighted real problems with creating any coronavirus vaccine because of antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) which is only seen after a vaccinated patient becomes infected with a coronavirus.

Scientific American has stated that "antibodies typical of ADE are present in the blood of some COVID-19 patients"

On Covid-19 it has been said by Dr Fauci

"Scientists will develop a COVID-19 vaccine, but it could end up only being 50 to 60 percent effective, Dr. Anthony Fauci said Friday."


Separately antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) issues exist with vaccines and were
particularly seen in previous coronavirus vaccines for SARS etc

In some animal trials there were no obvious clinical signs of ADE but post trial work on the animals showed that they had suffered severe health issues

The ADE reaction between the vaccine and the virus has not been obvious in various trials and can be a “serious adverse vaccine event”.

The CDC defines serious adverse vaccine event, as when the "event resulted in permanent disability, hospitalization, life-threatening illness, or death."

Links to Dr Fauci, Scientific American, peer reviewed clinical trials and others explaining some ADE issues are set out below

ADE and Covid-19 American Scientific Article

"Aside from questions of safety that attend any vaccine, there are good reasons to be especially cautious for COVID-19. Some vaccines worsen the consequences of infection rather than protect, a phenomenon called antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE). ADE has been observed in previous attempts to develop coronavirus vaccines.

To add to the concern, antibodies typical of ADE are present in the blood of some COVID-19 patients. Such concerns are real.

As recently as 2016, Dengavxia, intended to protect children from the dengue virus, increased hospitalizations for children who received the vaccine."
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-risks-of-rushing-a-covid-19-vaccine/

While Dengavxia clearly caused a form of ADE it took a review of 6 years of patient data to determine that there was a problem - and this was done only because of adverse reactions concerns were raised but were initially dismissed by the vaccine maker and still it is not clear who knew what when

"World Health Organization (WHO) revised its recommendations on Dengvaxia, stating that people who have not been infected with the virus should avoid the vaccine"

"There is absolutely no way the Filipino government can claim they didn't know about the potential for ADE-dengue in some vaccinated children," Lanard said. "They only have a claim against Sanofi if they can prove that Sanofi dishonestly reassured them that this worry had no basis."


"Drug maker Sanofi says that its dengue vaccine, the world’s first, should only be given to people who have previously been sickened by the virus, according to new long-term data.

In a statement, Sanofi said it had recently examined six years of patient data. Scientists concluded that while the vaccine protects people against further infection if they’ve already been infected with dengue, that’s not the case for people who haven’t previously been sickened by the disease."

“For those not previously infected by dengue virus…the analysis found that in the longer term, more cases of severe disease could occur following vaccination,” Sanofi said. “These findings highlight the complex nature of dengue infection.” [or of an ADE reaction to any infection]


ADE in Clinical Trial of Coronavirus Vaccine

In 2004 a study into a coronavirus vaccine trial looked at liver sections of ferrets and showed that all the vaccinated ferrets had severe hepatitis after being exposed to a coronavirus, but displayed no clinical signs of illness. The unvaccinated trial ferrets only had mild hepatitis in their livers – they were injected with a saline solution / another placebo and exposed to the same coronavirus at the same time as the vaccinated ferrets.
https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2004/12/sars-vaccine-linked-liver-damage-ferret-study

Dr Fauci says about ADE and coronavirus vaccines
"One of the things you have to be careful of when you're dealing with a coronavirus is the possibility of enhancement" Fauci said in an interview with the journal JAMA on April 8. Some vaccines cause a dangerous phenomenon known as antibody dependent enhancement (ADE), which paradoxically leaves the body more vulnerable to severe illness after inoculation.
https://www.livescience.com/coronavirus-covid-19-vaccine-timeline.html

Other researchers have suggested that the severe reactions already seen in Covid-19 could be a form of ADE because of a prior exposure to other coronaviruses, while this is just speculation it seems like it should be researched as part of gaining a better understanding of Covid-19.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1286457920300344

ADE Long Term Vaccine Monitoring issues

Long-term monitoring of adverse vaccine reactions exists, and the CDC has 2 main reporting systems for vaccines – Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) and Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) and will now add V-SAFE for Covid-19

Monitoring of a coronavirus vaccine is not simply a question of looking for any initial ADE reaction to a new vaccine - on going monitoring in the general population is needed generally in case trials do not show longer term consequences. The previous experience of ferrets with a coronavirus vaccine implies some human results may not be known until much later. Separately some researchers have indicated other ADE triggers and different Covid-19 vaccines may use different vaccine adjuvants which could also trigger adverse reactions

The article below outlines the use of a natural adjuvant for Covid-19 Vaccines


"For all the talk about the cutting-edge vaccines that may just get us out of the COVID-19 mess, little has been written about adjuvants. Perhaps that shouldn’t be surprising: The late Yale professor Charles Janeway famously called adjuvants the “immunologist’s dirty little secret.”

These unheralded helpers can turn a half-baked vaccine into an effective one, or stretch a scarce vaccine supply during a pandemic. Not every vaccine requires an adjuvant, but many do: Of the more than 200 vaccines listed in the Milken Institute’s COVID-19 vaccine tracker, approximately 40 percent are protein-based vaccines, which rarely work without an adjuvant. Yet adjuvants have never attracted much funding from industry and government. “Adjuvants have been the weak link in vaccines for the last hundred years,” says Nikolai Petrovsky, a vaccine researcher at Flinders University in Adelaide, Australia.

Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) and Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD)

As we go forward its important that independent researchers can verify what the FDA is telling us about vaccine safety and Vaccine Adverse Events

There does not seem to be much simple reporting available to the public from VAERS about any vaccines. VSD data is regarded as much better but is only open to the CDC and its approved researchers.

There are indications from the CDC and others working with the CDC that VAERS data has quality issues.

A CDC study from 2015 (Tom T. Shimabukuro, MD, MPH, MBA, Immunization Safety Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) states

"Quality and completeness of VAERS reports are variable and many reports lack valid medical diagnoses. The amount of VAERS reporting (30,000 U.S. reports annually) makes it impractical to conduct detailed follow-up on all reports to obtain missing and incomplete information and correct inconsistencies and errors. Because VAERS data do not include an unvaccinated comparison group, it is not possible to calculate and compare rates of adverse events in vaccinated versus unvaccinated individuals and determine if vaccination is associated with an increased risk of an adverse event"


CDC itself states that "In 2019, VAERS received over 48,000 reports. About 85-90% of the reports describe mild side effects such as fever, arm soreness, and crying or mild irritability. The remaining reports are classified as serious, which means that the adverse event resulted in permanent disability, hospitalization, life-threatening illness, or death."

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/ensuringsafety/monitoring/vaers/index.html

The FDA does not provide VSD information to the public, or provide the data via VAERS (or elsewhere?) related to the vaccinated or vaccinated populations to enable a determination of whether a vaccination is associated with an increased risk of an adverse event.


Generally vaccines have had positive human health consequences particularly against controlling diseases transmitted from insects etc and things like measles, mumps and rubella, or BCG vaccine etc.

That does not mean they shouldnt be improved on and things like toxins and aluminum adjuvants replaced with natural adjuvant alternatives which are already being used but more expensive.

However the FDA has not been open as to what progress is being made on vaccine safety despite having had a legal duty to report so annually to Congress since 1986.

It is hard not to conclude the the FDA has failed to carry out its duties "to make and assure improvements in the licensing, manufacturing, adverse reaction reporting, research, safety and efficacy testing of vaccines in order to reduce the risk of adverse vaccine reactions"

"Since 1986, HHS has had the primary and virtually sole responsibility to make and assure improvements in the licensing, manufacturing, adverse reaction reporting, research, safety and efficacy testing of vaccines in order to reduce the risk of adverse vaccine reactions. In order to assure HHS meets its vaccine safety obligations, Congress required as part of the 1986 Act that the Secretary of HHS submit a biennial reports to Congress detailing the improvements in vaccine safety made by HHS in the preceding two years."

" ICAN was therefore forced to file a lawsuit to force HHS to either provide copies of its biennial vaccine safety reports to Congress or admit it never filed these reports. The result of the lawsuit is that HHS had to finally and shockingly admit that it never, not even once, submitted a single biennial report to Congress detailing the improvements in vaccine safety. "

It would be helpful to have access to the data on all vaccines for things like the infection and death rates plus the data on vaccine adverse effect rates among vaccinated and unvaccinated populations. A good starting point would be HPV data, the Covid-19 vaccine data when it arrives and then a program to release all vaccine data updates that were required by law since 1986 so that what progress has been made can be clearly seen

There has been limited independent research which has identified vaccine problems

For example a 2017 study funded by the Danish Govt and others concluded that the death rate among children vaccinated with DTP vaccine was up to 5 times higher than all children not vaccinated (and 10 times higher in girls) Other studies have come to similar conclusions

The Introduction of Diphtheria-Tetanus-Pertussis and Oral Polio Vaccine Among Young Infants

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5360569/

"DTP was associated with 5-fold higher mortality than being unvaccinated. No prospective study has shown beneficial survival effects of DTP. "

"It should be of concern that the effect of routine vaccinations on all-cause mortality was not tested in randomized trials."

It would make sense for the whole subject of vaccination to have much greater transparency and at least a total separation of the FDA vaccine regulator from FDA vaccine research and funders

Most serious groups and people who raise question vaccines do not outright object to vaccines, many just want more open data and the removal of things like mercury and aluminum or other adjuvants - basically toxic free vaccines and the use of available natural adjuvant alternatives.

Robert Kennedy Junior who is a prominent leader for vaccine risk awareness, more research and debate, has had all his children vaccinated and has stated he is not against vaccines, but he does want openness. However he has been blocked on social media and the press from responding to critics, google censors searches for his web sites however no one from the pharma side will have an open public debate with him about vaccines.

https://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/robert-kennedy-jr-speaks-vaccine-requirements-article-1.2160247

Independent views on vaccines are hard to find - the best I could find was Dr. Bernardine Healy MD, former NIH director and former CEO of the American Red Cross she is not an anti vaxxer but has said publicly she believes more research needs to be done into vaccine links to illness - she admits that she only changed her mind after looking at the evidence. In the interview below Dr Healy states that the FDA/government have a formal policy to block research into adverse vaccine effects, which has been set out as policy in writing in reports, and goes back to at least the early 2000s, and Dr Healy says she believes is unscientific.

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6KFtdSYES6o


An open debate is good for all of us - please can we make this about wanting to find out the truth and not about being right or wrong
 
Last edited:
Jul 27, 2020
250
34
230
An open debate is good for all of us - please can we make this about wanting to find out the truth and not about being right or wrong
Thank you for an excellent overview of the hazards of vaccines. They are very real and cannot be underestimated.

Anyone who has worked with them is aware of much of what you have posted, and you are correct that some of these problems have not been widely disseminated. Many in the medical community adhere to the principle that people do not need to hear about "potential" problems. In can make matters worse. Any "real" problems will usually be brought out in clinical trials, which is why the rapid development of this vaccine has been of serious concern to the experts. They know all of this too, and a lot more to be sure. As you must know, these potential problems are why most vaccines take years to gain approval. Your treatment on potential problems provides ample evidence for why this is true.

While the adverse reactions to vaccines is potentially very problematic, there is always a risk/reward to such medical applications. Smallpox killed ca. 500 million people in its last 100 years before a vaccine eradicated it. Also, it is estimated that 30% fatalities occurred during outbreaks in Europe over the centuries, and other places. When it was brought to the New World by explorers, the estimated mortality rate of indigenous people was estimated as high as 90% because they had never been exposed to it, or any related viruses.

One can get ADE from various vaccines (and likely natural infections), and as you pointed out, the original SARS vaccine gave such responses in animal trials. That was using an inactivated form of the virus. I have also read of a possible link with ADE and previous exposure to related coronaviruses, since they do have antigenic sites which are similar. The same observations have be made for influenza. ADE is seen in some flu vaccine patients, and may be caused by the previous year's vaccine-induced antibodies to the next year's mutation(s) at antigenic sites. Reduced binding affinity is likely a primary cause of ADE, and gets worse with age.

The effects of ADE (and other potential issues with vaccines) are very real, and a serious problem. It is one of the reasons why they are being very careful before releasing any vaccine for this virus into wide use (at least in the U.S. and Europe).

It will be instructive to find out what happens to the Russian and Chinese people who are getting vaccines similar to those being developed by the Western groups. Nobody wants a nasty result from a bad vaccine, but if we are likely to see any soon, it may come from those two sources, which were clearly rushed into use.

This is one reason most are being very careful. And the reason I started this thread. The more we know, the lower the risk.

While there are many risks as you have pointed out, there is a great need to advance our understanding of vaccines and how to make them work with the lowest incidence of adverse reactions. We will likely need all the experience we can get since there will be more pandemics in the future. Virologists have been warning about them for decades. And this one could be very mild compared to some which could be lurking.

Thanks again for your excellent contribution, Adam.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jbundy48
Jul 27, 2020
250
34
230
Separately antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) issues exist with vaccines and were
particularly seen in previous coronavirus vaccines for SARS etc
A note on the most recent vaccines being developed.

Most of these new vaccines are unique compared to the classic inactivated virus in that they present to the immune system ONLY the most important antigenic determinants of the virus - its Achilles heel - the spike protein. This protein is essential for the viral genome to enter the cell. Block it off with antibodies, and you cannot get infected.

The newest higher-tech vaccines uses only this protein to attempt immunity. Inactivated virus has other antigens, and need not be used for a neutralizing antibody response. These other antigens could enhance ADE potential since some antibodies will be directed against non-spike regions of the inactivated virus, and possibly result in enhancement.

These new vaccines are vector-mediated (mostly RNA carrier), and void of all other virus antigens. The complete viral spike protein is displayed on human cell surfaces, which could in itself enhance a more powerful immune response than free spikes in the blood, or from inactive virus.

In any event, antibodies directed strictly against the spike protein should still be effective at preventing or minimizing COVID-19 symptoms simply by blocking its ability to bind to the ACE-2 receptor, and likely another receptor recently found in the nose. It certainly should limit the risk of ADE since any antibodies from spike-only vaccines will bind to some extent to the spike. The more antibodies one produces against the spike, the less likely it can infect. A great deal depends on the affinity (tight binding) of the antibodies formed against the spike, and their numbers.

It is very likely that time will tell how they work out. Hopefully soon, and with good news.
 
Last edited:
Jul 24, 2020
30
9
55
My sense is that ADE is being slightly overstated here with regard to sars-cov-2 vaccines. Certainly, there should be some caution given the novel nature of the virus and the historical association of the phenomenon with other coronaviruses, but as far as Im aware, there is no evidence of it occurring with the main vaccine candidates, and so it should perhaps be considered that vaccine researchers have learned from the experiences with sars-cov vaccine work previously, and are better equipped to overcome this hurdle with newer vaccine technologies also now available.

Heres a pretty good article discussing ADE relative to sars-cov-2:

A perspective on potential antibody-dependent enhancement of SARS-CoV-2

As to the original opening question, its hard to think that the anti-vax movement wont have some effect, but im confident that it wont have a significant impact on a vaccine-mediated return to normality.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chem721
Jul 27, 2020
250
34
230
It appears that the self-proclaimed Anti-Vaxxers are not the only ones we have to worry about. Many who think the pandemic is a hoax, or maybe just a sniffle, are also indicating a lack of interest in being vaccinated. One imagines "spite" has some play in all this. Perhaps they will help out by getting natural infections since most have behaviors to support this concept.

We may be lucky if those willing to accept what appears to be a safe and effective vaccine will be enough to end the pandemic. A 60% immunized rate is the lowest estimate, with others up to 80% or more for "herd immunity".

At this point, we can only hope for the best.

Thanks for the link to the Nature article. Yet another long read on my list.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PseudaFed
Jul 2, 2020
109
7
105
There can be little doubt that Covid-19 is real, and vaccines do much good

We all want a vaccine that works and has limited side effects - just lets have transparency and an open debate.

People have different views and often do change when engaged in a way that is clear and open. People are generally not stupid but may take time to change

Admitting risks and how they will be managed is part of the changing process.

We are in a bad place - trust in any politician, the media and others is at a very low level for obvious reasons.

We know life has become an echo chamber where people will only seek out that which reflects their existing view and google etc filtering searches to feed back your own interests and blocking information that they determine is not appropriate is making this worse

Why do I say this ? Because it is all part of the vaccine issue. Nothing happens in issolation

The ADE and vaccine research concerns are very real

Even before a vaccine has been developed Scientific American has already reported that

"antibodies typical of (antibody-dependent enhancement) ADE are present in the blood of some COVID-19 patients. Such concerns are real."

Further Dr Healy a former NIH director and CEO of the Red Cross has said that the US Government via the Institute of Medicine has stated in writing that vaccine researchers should

"not persue susceptibility groups" [in vaccines]

"Do not look for those patients, those childern, who may be vulnerable"

Because it may put people off vaccines

See her statement on this between 2mins 50 secs to 3mims 45 seconds into this short interview below.

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6KFtdSYES6o


Dr Healy as a member of the IOM says it does excellent work but feels that on this matter

it is not a good scientific approach and will stop us finding solutions,

but this is the policy that the FDA follows - and was seen in the whistleblower case of FDA researcher Dr W W Thompson (the FDA has caused harm both to patients and to future trust)

The IOM is part of National Academy of Sciences was created by the federal government to be an adviser on scientific and technological matters


Further stopping negative vaccine findings is a general attitude among the vaccine establishment, as can be seen from the ADE issues with the vaccine Dengevaxia

"For Marc Lipsitch, DPhil, a professor of epidemiology at Harvard University, who is to blame is of less concern than the possible repercussions of the Dengvaxia fallout."

"Of course the fear is that this can add fuel to the anti-vaccine movement," Lipsitch said.

"And unlike previous anti-vaccine arguments, there's evidence that Dengevaxia could increase harm to some recipients."

It has to be seriously concerning that a vaccine was given to 800,000 children despite evidence going back to 2010 of the bad ADE risks with Dengevaxia - denials from Sanofi the pharma company and a general refusal to look into the evidence indicate bad research or a cover up.

However Sanofis' own trial data indicated that patients were over twice as likely to have a severe ADE as they were to be seriously infected if unvaccinated. See CIDRAP link below for full info

"All officials who spoke with me about the Dengvaxia campaign worried about the potential for future severe dengue cases in vaccinated persons who had never had a previous case of dengue,"

said Lanard, a public health risk communication expert, in an email.

"They gave me many articles going back to at least 2010, about this unproven but frightening risk with respect to dengue vaccine development."

This can be seen in other quotes from the same article from the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy (CIDRAP; "SID-wrap")

Founded in 2001, CIDRAP is part of the Office of the Vice President for Research at the University of Minnesota.



The simple solution to the vaccine and drug issue story is to have an independent regulator of vaccines and drugs which has no connection to approving or researching vaccine/drug use and has full access to the VAERS and VSD data.

At the moment those organizations who regulate pharma also approve vaccines and allocate funding and research.

This is clearly a huge conflict as are NIH directors going on to head up vaccine divisions at big pharma or those making decisions about vaccines being linked to pharma research grants and jobs etc


The number of members of the panel who recommends Covid-19 treatments linked to Gilead is also very troubling - given these are the people who have approved Gileads remdesivir drug which has had limited success


Note - this conflict information is very limited and only goes back 11 months and does not include current Gilead associations where no money is currently received (ie others have written in medical journals in support of remdesivir in early 2020 or been involved with the drug in other ways). Conflicts with other drug makers also exist.

When you add to this pharmas legal indemnity from vaccine prosecution and that pharma are the biggest political lobby doners at $300 million a year - almost double the next lobby group the - plus the huge media advertizing budgets pharma has which probably effects the media reporting questions only grow.


Lets have a vaccine but lets do it in a way everyone can believe in.

In the end the truth will come out.

Lets not think bad things dont happen - we all now know there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and that the establishment and media knew. The impact of what happened in Iraq is tragic for all of us, for the soldiers who went there and especially for the people of Iraq - but no one has owned up or been held accountable

I was one of those who believed


Let us believe all we are told about vaccines because we are sure the research was properly and openly done on the vaccinated and unvaccinated population, and there will be real reporting of serious adverse vaccine effects on the vaccinated vs unvaccinated population once the vaccines are deployed
 
Last edited:
Jul 27, 2020
250
34
230
People have different views and often do change when engaged in a way that is clear and open. People are generally not stupid but may take time to change
While much of what you have posted is accurate, I must take a contrary view to the above commentary. It is my considerable experience after watching opinions form and solidify on a variety of topics, it's "direction" within a given individual is best predicted by the level of intelligence. Most people who are ignorant cannot, or simply will not, listen to reason because of various psychological issues. Just look at the juvenile behavior of grown people not helping to stop the viral spread. They are increasing its spread, and there are millions of them. And there seems little end in sight.

Ignorance is a powerful thing to overcome. Especially when combined with other ingrained belief systems. There appears to be a shift in the willingness of ignorant people to be enlightened by science and reality. They have, as you say, "different views". Sadly. some of these views, new ones for certain, can make changing them very difficult. If they are seeing it as suspect because that is part of their belief system, you will never convince them differently. It appears that such behavior is on the rise, and not easily overcome.
 
Jul 24, 2020
30
9
55
It appears that the self-proclaimed Anti-Vaxxers are not the only ones we have to worry about. Many who think the pandemic is a hoax, or maybe just a sniffle, are also indicating a lack of interest in being vaccinated. One imagines "spite" has some play in all this. Perhaps they will help out by getting natural infections since most have behaviors to support this concept.

We may be lucky if those willing to accept what appears to be a safe and effective vaccine will be enough to end the pandemic. A 60% immunized rate is the lowest estimate, with others up to 80% or more for "herd immunity".

At this point, we can only hope for the best.

Thanks for the link to the Nature article. Yet another long read on my list.
Given the current rapidly rising infection rate in large parts of the world, and the likelihood that an effective vaccine wont be widely adminstered for months into the new year, im hopeful that by the time a vaccine actually can be widely offered, we will have enough of a mix of immunity through both vaccine and natural infection, that it significantly reduces the percentage of population still susceptible to infection, or at least susceptible to serious illness owing to an immune-mediated partial protection, thus drawing an end to the pandemic state, and allowing a return to the 'great norm' of the foggy years that preceded 2020. I also wouldnt underestimate how much more attractive a vaccine option will be to some of the dissenters as a way out of the dire economic situation that they are about to find themselves in, if not already.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chem721
Jul 27, 2020
250
34
230
, im hopeful that by the time a vaccine actually can be widely offered, we will have enough of a mix of immunity through both vaccine and natural infection, that it significantly reduces the percentage of population still susceptible to infection, or at least susceptible to serious illness owing to an immune-mediated partial protection, thus drawing an end to the pandemic state

And then it depends on the duration of protection of the natural vs. the vaccine induced immunity, and how much the virus mutates. They are not equivalent. There is no indication yet that reinfections by the current virus represent a serious issue, or that the virus is mutating very fast, though the data is limited. Last I checked it was mutating at a rate substantially less then the flu virus.

That is why stopping the pandemic to prevent further mutation is such an essential aspect for mandates. But it still might continue to replicate at low levels in many if not most infected people, and re-emerge at some time in the future. That is why the other coronaviruses, rhinoviruses, etc. are still around. We cannot obtain lasting immunity due to their rate of mutation. They are survivors, which may forever plague us.

The questions then are : Will we get an ADE response from the last infections/inoculations from a mutant strain in the future? And do we develop another vaccine to knock it out. It could come back less lethal as it came in, or worse. Not sure if that can be predicted, but the more contagious a virus is, the less lethal it seems to become. This has been observed for a number of viruses. Perhaps time will tame this nasty little invader.
 
Jul 24, 2020
30
9
55
And then it depends on the duration of protection of the natural vs. the vaccine induced immunity, and how much the virus mutates. They are not equivalent. There is no indication yet that reinfections by the current virus represent a serious issue, or that the virus is mutating very fast, though the data is limited. Last I checked it was mutating at a rate substantially less then the flu virus.

That is why stopping the pandemic to prevent further mutation is such an essential aspect for mandates. But it still might continue to replicate at low levels in many if not most infected people, and re-emerge at some time in the future. That is why the other coronaviruses, rhinoviruses, etc. are still around. We cannot obtain lasting immunity due to their rate of mutation. They are survivors, which may forever plague us.

The questions then are : Will we get an ADE response from the last infections/inoculations from a mutant strain in the future? And do we develop another vaccine to knock it out. It could come back less lethal as it came in, or worse. Not sure if that can be predicted, but the more contagious a virus is, the less lethal it seems to become. This has been observed for a number of viruses. Perhaps time will tame this nasty little invader.
Interesting thoughts as always.

I do tend to think that sars-cov-2 will remain endemic given its propensity for stealth and the scale of a worldwide simultaneous vaccination effort. Perhaps there will be localised outbreaks of a mutated variants, but with a widespread global immunity, you hope that these would remain contained, and not lead to pandemic scenarios; my guess is that they would. Part of the reason why sars-cov-2 has caused such a problem is that most of the world is immunlogically naive to the sars-type coronaviruses, and so looking ahead, even if a sars-cov-3 were to emerge, that was sufficiently close in lineage to its predecessors, there could be some cross-reactivity and perhaps cross-immunity. The same hypothesis would be even more likely with future variants of sars-cov-2, seeing as there are multiple parts of the virus that can be detected by a previously exposed immune system, some of which are more conserved across variants and less prone to mutation.
 
Last edited:
Jul 27, 2020
250
34
230
There is also a significant risk for ADE from a third SARS variant, from prior exposure or vaccine to SARS-2, if the antibody levels and their affinity are not sufficient to neutralize the new strain.

China is vaccinating many people using inactivated virus. If ADE is going to be a factor with any vaccine, this one should show it more than any other. It certainly did in ferrets, but the Chinese may have figured a way around this problem. They have had a lot of time to research such things.

Remember, the intact virus will result in a wide array of antibodies, many more than just anti-spike abs, with a greater chance of some of them leading to ADE. Time will tell for this Chinese stuff, where safety testing was side stepped big time. They have to be hoping they don't have a problem with it.
 
Jul 2, 2020
109
7
105
I have been looking into how many adverse vaccine events (AVEs) are reported each year

The CDC reports 48,000 adverse vaccine events for 2019 of which 10-15% are serious meaning "permanent disability, hospitalization, life-threatening illness, or death."


I have also read that fewer than 1% of adverse vaccine events are reported to the CDC on their VAERS system and that the CDC provides no information on what is the "real" adverse vaccine events number

Does anyone have any info on this ?

I found a pro vaccine web site that refers to a Harvard Study from around 2009 that says fewer than 1% of adverse vaccine events are reported to or by the CDC

This site dismisses the study but fails to provide any evidence of why the study should be dismissed - it just says VAERS works as a reporting system and the numbers reported do not matter


I later found a video of a legal deposition where the Godfather of vaccines Prof Stanley Plotkin reviews the Harvard study
[Prof Plotkin is now advising on a coronavirus vaccine, invented the rubella vaccine, is very pro vaccine and consults for major pharma cos]

The Harvard study involved 715,000 people and 1.4 million vaccine doses given to about 376,000 people. "Of these doses 35,570 possible reactions (2.6 percent of [the 1.4 million] vaccinations) were identified.””

Based on the Harvard study data the report concludes that fewer than 1% of adverse vaccine effects are reported via VAERS.

It seems from the Harvard Study that the 35,000+ adverse vaccine reactions in the 715,000 study population was about the same as was reported for the whole of the 300+milion population of the USA in around 2009.

Prof Plotkin reviews the Harvard Study and confirms that it says fewer than 1% of AVEs are reported and that it appears that once the study findings were set out in draft form the CDC stopped co-operating with the research. Its all stated in the video.

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=D3x0rQT_eSw


Also view the link at http://web.archive.org

Has anyone read the Harvard study ?

Can anyone comment on the study or the video and the implications of the 1% figure being true ?
 
Last edited:
Jul 27, 2020
250
34
230
The Harvard study involved 715,000 people and 1.4 million vaccine doses given to about 376,000 people. "Of these doses 35,570 possible reactions (2.6 percent of [the 1.4 million] vaccinations) were identified.””

Based on the Harvard study data the report concludes that fewer than 1% of adverse vaccine effects are reported via VAERS.
These are rather strange numbers. The study's "active" group involved 376,000 getting 1.4 million vaccine doses? (The rest of the total are placebos, one imagines.) That would mean each person in the "vaccine" group of the "study" got an average of ca. 3.7 vaccinations of something over the course of the study. Why would they do such a thing? Are these multiple injections which are required to attain immunity or various vaccines involved?

And certainly "possible reactions" is very nebulous, anything from a sore arm to worst case.

Do you have a direct link to this Harvard study?

And I do not doubt that there are many adverse reactions to vaccines. It is the nature of the treatment. Messing around with the immune system can be rather tricky, as many have found out.
 
Jul 2, 2020
109
7
105
Your questions are very good, however I think you didnt have all the info about the purpose of the Harvard study which was to see if there was existing effective reporting of adverse vaccine events in approved FDA vaccines - ie could VAERS be improved.

So no placebo group was required as it was a real life study of what was already being done in routine and emergency vaccine health care to see if VAERS reporting was effective.

There were 715,000 normal medical patients from Atrius Health, a medical group with about 700 Doctors in the Boston area with patients from infants to the elderly

About 50% of the patients had their standard or routine vaccines - some vaccines involved multiple shots over time etc.

45 different types of vaccine were given.

Those who did not have vaccines were not due vaccines or did not get them because they forgot etc etc.

This was real life situation and showed what was going on by building a new ESP-VAERS CDC approved system from scratch, with proper adverse vaccine event reporting done by Artius Health. Based on the findings proper reporting was not and is not going on in the rest of the USA.

My concern is to have real data about Adverse Reactions for ADE, transparency about all adverse vaccine events and how long it took/takes to identify a vaccine risk.

This data is not available in a timely or simple way and the Harvard study and other examples below shows the risks are very real and/or badly under reported even for extended time frames

Also please remember the CDC is very clear 85-90% of the 48,000 VAERS reports in 2019 are minor but 10-15% are serious meaning

"permanent disability, hospitalization, life-threatening illness, or death."

See VAERS link and other info in my previous posts showing the same CDC 10-15% risks over time and in 2009

Its the 10-15% serious cases that concern me - it seems very clear that the

Harvard Study highlighted something the CDC still has not reviewed and it looks like it should have as the Harvard study data was presented and discussed by an FDA official and a Harvard researcher at an AIMA Conference in 2009

The Harvard Study Final Report (see PDF link at the end) states on page 6 under the heading

"Results"

The CDC vaccine safety system VAERS reports fewer than 1% adverse vaccine events [of all types both minor and serious] and that these Harvard findings were presented at an AIMA conference in 2009

Most of the info and links I have found are set out below

After the system was developed, coded, rolled out, real short term patient data was used for reporting adverse vaccine events and calculations.

The Artius Health Drs entered patient data into the new system and filled in the adverse vaccine event forms as and when an adverse vaccine event happened. Over time the data was studied

What happened was that 35,000 adverse events were properly recorded and a total of 1.4 million vaccines doses were given

There is even a sample PDF of the form used by the Atrius Health Drs to input the adverse vaccine event data into the system with the VSD/VAERS vaccine codes already inserted so that cross checking could be done to validate the existing VSD and VAERS data against the very detailed and well maintained trial data



The Harvard study was HHS/FDA funded for US$ 1Million until to 2009 and appears to have been so successful that Harvard continued unfunded for 2010

After the CDC failed to act on the vaccine findings Harvard developed the
system to cover and search patient records for a very wide range of medical conditions and treatments and this remains in use today

“Unfortunately, there was never an opportunity to perform system performance assessments because the necessary CDC contacts were no longer available and the CDC consultants responsible for receiving data were no longer responsive to our multiple requests to proceed with testing and evaluation.”

All the projects vaccine aims were achieved

(except the CDC allowing a validation of CDC data by cross checking with the high quality trial data. The CDC admits the VAERS data is of poor quality - see my previous posts for CDC studies )

The Harvard study achieved aims included a fully working ESP-VAERS system and a vaccine adverse event reporting system using real patients and real data - which identified 35,000+ adverse vaccine events of all types

Under CDC parameters 10-15% of these vaccine events would result in "permanent disability, hospitalization, life-threatening illness, or death." See VAERS link in my previous post

Some info on the Harvard Study reports on US gov web sites is set out below - also see pdf link for final report and other links later below

"The grant team has a functioning adverse event detection system capable of being expanded and modified to deal with a wide range of conditions. Testing and initial validation are complete. Additional validation was planned as part of dissemination to other sites."

"The team had planned to evaluate the system by comparing their adverse event findings to those in the Vaccine Safety Datalink project a collaborative effort between CDCs Immunization Safety Office and eight large managed care organizations.

Through a randomized trial, the team had also planned to test the hypothesis that the combination of secure, computer-assisted, clinician-approved, adverse event detection, and automated electronic reporting will substantially increase the number, completeness, validity, and timeliness of physician-approved case reports to VAERS compared to the existing spontaneous reporting system.

However, due to restructuring at CDC and consequent delays in terms of decisionmaking, it was ultimately not possible to move forward with discussions regarding the evaluation of ESP:VAERS performance in a randomized trial, or to compare ESP:VAERS performance to existing VAERS and Vaccine Safety Datalink data, as was described in the third aim.

However, the infrastructure is available and Dr. Lazarus is hopeful that the project may generate additional interest to complete this study."

After the CDC stopped co-operating with the study, Harvard researchers, developed the system and it sold across the USA to government and private groups - including to the original Artius Health group involved in the Harvard study trial.

Current system sales continue to date but it does not seem to be electionically linked into VAERS though some states appear to use it for vaccine monitoring in some way. See users in link below


The Harvard study details and quotes above are set out in the links below - US Gov website (HHS/FDA related funding etc)

There are several tabs near the top of the page on the links that take you to different reports and on different pages of info - titled

Project Description
Annual Summaries
Final report PDF
Etc etc




Its also clear that there was a population of patients who were vaccinated and unvaccinated that could have been researched in some way to easily provide some initial findings on if there were vaccine derived health events.

As set out at the start my concern is to have real data about Vaccine Adverse Event reactions such as Antibody-dependent enhancement / ADE, transparency about all adverse vaccine events and

how long it takes/took to identify an adverse event risks.

This last point is never really discussed currently or identified anywhere - its all very vague and not very scientific.

There appears to be no system that is publically available or any public reporting of the true figures of ADE or other adverse vaccine events for each vaccine or what if any delays there have been with VAERS identifying a vaccine problem.

More and better data should identify the problems sooner
 
Last edited:
Jul 27, 2020
250
34
230
Clearly a great effort has gone into analyzing and dealing with the adverse reactions from vaccines. That is also true of the adverse reactions to diseases without having those vaccines to prevent them. and to all pharmaceuticals in general. To be sure, adverse reactions are a common problem in the pharmaceutical industry, and have crap-canned untold billions of dollars in research because something came up sour in many drug trials. It is the primary reason big pharma has cut way back on R & D for new drugs, which is very unfortunate.

Obviously it has been known for quite some time that such reactions are inherent in vaccines, and one must always establish a risk-reward aspect to approving them. You obviously have been studying this for quite some time. Sadly I do not have the time to go over all that you have posted, but I am aware of the potential hazards of fighting diseases with, and without, vaccines. Most experts will agree that a vaccine, especially for a virus, is an essential tool in the box for fighting such infectious agents. You cannot kill a virus because it is not living. Totally different approaches must be used vs. bacterial diseases. So vaccines are commonly the only current approach to eradicating many viruses, short of natural immunity. Therein lies the risk/reward strategy.
 
Jul 2, 2020
109
7
105
Clearly a great effort has gone into analyzing and dealing with the adverse reactions from vaccines. That is also true of the adverse reactions to diseases without having those vaccines to prevent them. and to all pharmaceuticals in general. To be sure, adverse reactions are a common problem in the pharmaceutical industry, and have crap-canned untold billions of dollars in research because something came up sour in many drug trials. It is the primary reason big pharma has cut way back on R & D for new drugs, which is very unfortunate.

Obviously it has been known for quite some time that such reactions are inherent in vaccines, and one must always establish a risk-reward aspect to approving them. You obviously have been studying this for quite some time. Sadly I do not have the time to go over all that you have posted, but I am aware of the potential hazards of fighting diseases with, and without, vaccines. Most experts will agree that a vaccine, especially for a virus, is an essential tool in the box for fighting such infectious agents. You cannot kill a virus because it is not living. Totally different approaches must be used vs. bacterial diseases. So vaccines are commonly the only current approach to eradicating many viruses, short of natural immunity. Therein lies the risk/reward strategy.
I agree theres a lot of info involved and its really important that extensive drug trial work is already done before any FDA vaccine approval. The links to the info below are set out in previous posts.

Post FDA vaccine approval monitoring is a serious weak link.

The 2009/2010 Harvard study shows

1. fewer than 1% of all minor and serious vaccines events are reported by/to the FDA ongoing vaccine monitoring system (VAERS) for FDA approved vaccines

2. that this data was publically presented and discussed at a 2009 AMIA medical conference

See conference literature PDF linked below - @ page 70 - meeting S50

An FDA official and a Harvard study researcher are named on the panel S50

N Marks - FDA
Professor Klompas - Harvard study researcher


Other CDC studies have shown VAERS data is very problematic and cannot be really relied on - the CDC research confirms the data is incomplete and missing etc

CDC classifies 85-90% of VAERS vaccine reports as a minor event - 10-15% are deemed life changing through to death

Further it makes little sense that the CDC would not allow the cross checking of CDC and Harvard trial results despite that being an agreed Harvard study aim/purpose.

That the CDC failed to respond to multiple requests to start the testing/checking processes of CDC data is recorded in the Harvard study report.

So if VAERS collects only 1% of all types of vaccine incidents and much/most data is problematic or about minor events, this means we cannot really know if the ongoing vaccine risks are being properly monitored or later identify when any vaccine issues should have really been picked up post FDA approval by VAERS / FDA / pharma

That vaccine trials and mass vaccine deployments have failed to pick up serious ADE and other vaccine issues is already known. In the case of the Dengue vaccine it took many years to identify the risk, despite later confirmation that the serious issue existed in 15% of those vaccinated - so big improvements are needed particularly in post FDA approval monitoring.

This has important implications for all vaccines including the Covid-19 vaccine


For those who have not read the previous posts

The 2009 Harvard study report data is very significant, with $1million of federal government funding, based on 715,000 real life medical patients normal vaccine requirements, serviced by 700 Drs and 1.4 million vaccine doses of 45 different vaccines given within this 715,000 patient group. The study had 35,000 adverse vaccine events.

The CDC reported around 30,000 similar adverse vaccine events a year for the whole USA during that time (85-90% were only minor events)

The Harvard study continued very successfully into 2010 unfunded, the software was developed to use over a range of medical issues and is used across the USA today by government agencies and private medical groups
(but not for its intended use to improve the CDC vaccine reporting despite it being a great success)
 
Jul 27, 2020
250
34
230
For all that has been posted regarding adverse reactions to vaccines, particularly ADE, it should be appreciated that it is almost certain ADE has existed ever since the evolution of advanced immunity in higher organisms. ADE was almost certainly NOT introduced to humans by vaccines. Immunity, both cellular and chemical, are extremely complex biological activities, and as in any complex biological system, problems can develop which could jeopardize the effectiveness of any ensuing immunological response(s).

Simply stated : Evolution has sorted this all out and given us the best it has to offer. Or we wouldn't be here.

The only reason we wiped out smallpox and polio is because they did not mutate significantly. Once you have an effective vaccine for these viruses, they are history. Unfortunately, many viruses mutate, which some insist is the most important reason for stopping this pandemic as soon as possible. The more it mutates, the greater the risk of ADE, induced either by natural infection, or any vaccines already given. This is true for all pathogenic viruses which have a sufficient rate of mutation which eventually allow them to evade immune surveillance and elimination.

It was recently reported from Europe that millions more mink will be destroyed as they are spreading the virus back to humans, and offering a course of mutation which could increase the likelihood of a more virulent strain arising. Such mutations could also destroy the effectiveness of some, most or all vaccines under development. Indeed, they could not only destroy their effectiveness, but make ADE a more problematic issue for those who have been infected, or vaccinated, using the "original" strain.

Active medical interventions always fall back on the risk/reward. If you do nothing to eliminate the virus (or others to come), it is possible that mutations will result in a more lethal strain. We already know this from the SARS-1 and MERS relatives There can be no mistake about this. Medical science and application must take into account all the variables to minimize adverse reactions while maximizing disease mitigation. Fighting such diseases are like fighting wars. There will always be "collateral damage".

The health advantages to the greatest number of people should always be the deciding factor for the distribution of vaccines and pharmaceuticals for treating disease.
 
Last edited:

ASK THE COMMUNITY