The COVID-19 vaccine (SARS-Cov-2) has many dangers. This will be the apparent and rational conclusion of anyone wishing to objectively examine clinical data and other applicable data on this topic. There are many easily discernible signs of factual danger.
During the SARS-1 outbreak of 2002-2003, it took about 20 months for a vaccine to be human-tested in clinical trials, even though protection considerations remained unresolved. This was in a position too fast compared to the same time required for preclinical trials or animal studies to be successfully completed before any moral experimentation in humans or clinical trials can begin. However, for Covid-19 candidate vaccines, clinical trials began only five months after the start of SARS-Cov-2, without going through the mandatory preclinical studies previously required and ignoring the serious protection disorders of the previous attempt to precipitate a SARS-1 vaccine (which was ultimately ruled out).
A primary protection challenge in the progression of a vaccine is how to overcome the threat that the vaccine can “increase” the pathogenicity of the virus, or make it more competitive, perhaps due to drug-dependent improvement (EMA), as was the case with previous studies on animal vaccine testing. If this took place in a primary human trial, the final results can also be simply disastrous. (1, 2, 3, 4) This serious adverse effect would possibly not even be detected through a clinical trial, especially in highly biased and conflict-of-interest clinical trials involving vaccine companies. Even when a serious adverse occasion is detected, it is regularly swept under the carpet.
For example, the effects of the initial clinical trials of the Modern COVID-19 vaccine showed that 3 of the 15 human experimental subjects in the high-dose organization had severe and clinically significant symptoms. Modern, however, concluded that the vaccine was “generally safe and well-tolerated,” which the company-dominated media diligently reported, concealing the genuine danger of the vaccine. (5,6,7,8) In a bratous act of unethical behavior, Modern even used a voluntary vaccine, Ian Haydon, to appear in the media selling Modern’s experimental COVID-19 vaccine. Moderna encouraged Haydon to appear on television to lie to the public and its shareholders. Less than 12 hours after vaccination, Haydon suffered muscle aches, vomiting, 103.2 degree fever and lost consciousness. (9) The vaccine, promoted by Dr. Anthony Fauci, Director of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and funded through Bill Gates, used a generation of experimental mRN that would be expected to allow immediate deployment, renouncing the same preclinical treatment and animal studies.
The fact that a completely new generation of RNA vaccines that have never been used in humans before is a sign of danger that deserves not to be ignored. Many U.S. applicants (Modern, Pfizer/BioNTech and Arcturus Therapeutics) are employing this generation that has never been approved before. Exogenous mNR is inherently immunostimulant, and this characteristic of mr. is possibly favorable or harmful. It can provide adjuvant activity and inhibit antigen expression and negatively immune response. The paradoxical effects of innate immune detection in other mNR vaccine formats are not fully understood. Potential protection challenges come with local and formula inflammation, biodistribution and patience of expressed immunogen, stimulation of self-rereactive antibodies and possible poisonous effects of non-native nucleotides and management formula components. An mRN-based vaccine can also induce harsh responses of type I interferon, which have been linked not only to inflammation but also prospectively to autoimmunity. Another potential protection challenge would possibly arise from extracellular RNA, which has been shown to increase the permeability of highly compacted endothelial cells and possibly herald blood clotting and pathological thrombus formation. (ten)
Like mNR vaccines, COVID-19 adenoviral vector vaccines are still experimental and have already been used in mass vaccination of infectious diseases. Given the history of poor protection in many vaccines, the threat of unpredictable and potentially disastrous effects is incredibly worrying.
For example, among other dangers, viral vector vaccines can also simply go through herbal recombination and produce hybrid viruses that would possibly have unwanted homes that affect transmission or virulence. The many variables that affect the likelihood of recombination and the imaginable effects of recombination are virtually unimaginable to quantify, as existing equipment and knowledge must be given. However, the risks are real, as evidenced by the emergence of mutant virus types, increased pathogenicity, and unforeseen serious adverse occasions (including death) as a result of random mass vaccination campaigns and previous failed attempts to expand chimeric vaccines using genetic engineering technology. .
Genetically modified vaccines have significant unpredictability and a number of inherent potential destructive hazards, adding unintended and unwanted side effects to target and non-target individuals. Potential adverse immune effects come with an unforeseen immunopathological reaction, an autoimmune reaction, long-term tolerance, persistent infection and latent infections. There is also the possibility of moving or recombining genetic tissue from genetically modified viruses or transgenic virus vector vaccines to specific germline cells. Possibly it would also go through chromosomal integration or insertion mutagenesis, which would lead to random insertions of vaccine structures into the host’s cell genomes, leading to alterations in gene expression or activation of cellular oncogenes, thus expanding the option of inducing tumors. Even minor genetic adjustments or differences between viruses can lead to drastic adjustments in transmission capabilities, guest’s personal tastes, and virulence. The new hybrid virus progeny resulting from such occasions would possibly have completely unpredictable characteristics. Reversal of virulence, for example, was documented when a live recombinant vaccine opposed to the vaccine virus and rabies glycoprotein prepared for raccoons and wild foxes inflamed a 28-year-old pregnant woman. (13) Reversal of virulence has also been documented when recombination between ad vaccines opposite infectious laryngotracheitis (ILTV) in poultry has resulted in virulent recombinant viruses that have caused serious illnesses and have dominant cash strains in primary poultry production spaces in Australia. (14)
In fact, the threats of recombination were previously raised in an assembly convened through the World Health Organization in 2003, in which regulators representing the European Union, the United States, China and Canada raised the express recombination factor: “Recombination of a live viral vector The vaccine with a latent virus circulating or reactivated can theoretically generate a more pathogenic strain … The threat of recombination deserves to be studied if it is imaginable in a non-clinical style system, but it also deserves to be considered as in clinical examination plans. This factor was one of the “advice to WHO and one of the priorities for long-term work” as one of the “critically vital issues to be explored”. (15) However, who, governments and the vaccine industry have apparently never taken this advice seriously. This is not surprising, given WHO’s history of immediate approval and approval of many of these live viral vector vaccines without mandatory and thorough protective studies. a little scary during the crazy race for a COVID-19 vaccine.
There is also fear that some other people may already be immune to the adenovirus that carries the coronavirus gene in the body, as adenoviruses circulate in the human population, making the vaccine ineffective. (16) Data from the initial clinical trial of the COVID-19 adenoviral vector vaccine manufactured through CanSino Biologics of China, which was published in The Lancet, showed that at least one adverse effect reported at least one adverse effect at least at least one adverse effect at the top of the 3 doses used in the study. Side effects included fever: injection site pain, headache, fatigue, among others. Ten volunteers (9% of the total organization examined) had Grade 3 appearance effects, explained as “serious and clinically significant symptoms,” six (17%) in the organization that received the maximum dose and two (6%) each on the low. – and medium-dose organizations. The study also found that one dose of the vaccine, tested at 3 other levels, gave the impression of inducing an intelligent immune reaction in some subjects. But some of the volunteers, others who already had immunity to the vaccine’s spine, had a attenuated immune reaction. (17)
The Dengvaxia vaccine fiasco in the Philippines also illustrates the danger of rushing a vaccine and allowing the interests of market-driven corporations to meet other people’s fitness needs. As a result, many other vaccinated people suffered or died after a failed mass vaccination program. (18) According to the Chief Pathologist of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, 153 of those vaccinated opposed to Dengvaxia had died on 18 February 2020 (19).
The case of the HPV (human papillomavirus) vaccine is another example of the danger of companies accelerating vaccine protection clinical trials. Two of the most important vaccine brands enriched their placebos with a neurotoxic aluminum adjuvant and reduced periods. Subsequently, many adverse cases were reported, in addition to life-threatening injuries, permanent disabilities, hospitalizations and deaths, following vaccination with bivalent, quadrivalent or nine valid HPV vaccines. Scientists at the company have systematically controlled, minimized or concealed these injuries using statistical tricks and invalid comparisons designed to diminish their relative importance. Some regulators have been complicit in covering the highest incidence of adverse occasions in post-marketing surveillance studies. (20, 21)
Another fear is that vaccines produced from mobile cultures are infected with nucleic acids, genomic fragments, retroviruses and other foreign tissues that carry dubious but potentially serious risks. This contamination would possibly be provided at the source in line with, for example. human blood, human or animal tissue, mobile benches or incorporated into the production procedure through the use of animal serums. Many COVID-19 candidate vaccines occur in so-called “immortal” mobile lines or types of cancer cell phones (e.g., Mobile Vero derived from the African Green Monkey) that can also simply spread carcinogenic dramas on the human receptor. Manufacturers and the government guarantee that they don’t cause tumors that are compatible with it. However, clinical studies tell us that after those mobiles have grown continuously several times, they can become a cancerous state. Immortal mobile lines have a hundred times more chances of DNA recombination than general mobiles. This can also lead to viral-viral or viral-mobileular interactions that can generate new viruses and have pathological consequences, adding autoimmunity and cancer. (22) Even the U.S. FDA You’ve identified this danger. In an article published on his website, he said: “In some cases, the mobile lines used can be tumorgenic, that is, they shape tumors when injected into rodents. Some of these tumor mobile lines would possibly involve carcinogenic viruses that don’t actively reproduce. These viruses are difficult to find with popular methods. These latent or “silent” viruses pose a potential threat, as they can also become active under the vaccine’s production conditions”(23).
Another concern, not only in terms of protection but also for ethical reasons, is the use of aborted fetal mobiles in the manufacture of vaccines. Vaccines produced from human fetal mobiles involve mobile waste and polluting fetal DNA (as well as its epigenetic modification) that cannot be completely eliminated after purification. This can only cause insertion mutagenesis (potentially carcinogenic) and autoimmunity in vaccinated people. At least six of the candidate COVID-19 vaccines (Cansino, AstraZeneca / Oxford, Janssen, ImmunityBio / NantKwest, University of Pittsburgh and Altimmune) use one of two human fetal moving lines: HEK-293, a line of kidney mobiles of an aborted fetus around 1972; and PER. C6, an exclusive muscle line belonging to Janssen, evolved from the retinal mobiles of an 18-week fetus aborted in 1985 (24).
There are many credible biological mechanisms for possible adverse occasions when all vaccines are ready for COVID-19. Vaccination history is complete with clinical evidence of adverse occasions through increased pathogenicity, mutation, recombination, induced immune formula disorder and post-vaccination non-specific effects despite regulatory approval and past clinical trials and other company-sponsored studies that would have been conducted safe. The danger inherent in injecting fragments of microbial proteins, contaminants, DNA and other foreign tissues into the human body is well documented in the clinical literature. Virtually all vaccines involve such harmful foreign fragments and tissues and are inevitably harmful. In addition, exposure of the vaccinated topic to other environmental hazards (pesticides, air pollutants, 5G radiation, ionizing radiation, etc.) as a result of synergistic adverse effects not captured through company-sponsored “safety” studies is also another credible mechanism that can lead to acute effects or long-term injuries, adding death.
Safety tests in the business-dominated clinical environment are manifestly inadequate and wrong. Preclinical studies and clinical trials are conducted or sponsored through the same corporations that sell vaccines and do not adequately treat credible adverse occasions that cannot be detected through corporate-sponsored studies. There are no independent studies that can simply validate vaccine manufacturers’ claims. Therefore, there is no explanation why to believe that the potential benefits of an upcoming COVID-19 vaccine would outweigh the potential adverse effects, despite assurances from the vaccine industry, foreign institutions, governments and primary medical science groups.
References: