|
The Queensland government recently released a blog post on the Queensland Health website titled “How to navigate that casual vaccine chat at your next gathering”. The post is designed to help you “talk all things vaccine with a little more ease and confidence” when in a social setting.
The article explains that we have been using vaccines for the “better part of a century, and they are to thank for the world being (mostly) rid of diseases like polio”. However, it would appear that the World Health Organisation disagrees. On their website, the WHO states that “diseases had already begun to disappear before vaccines were introduced, because of better hygiene and sanitation.” A study by Suzanne Humphries and Roman Bystrianyk shows that the number of deaths due to pertussis (whooping cough) declined by approximately 92% in the US and over 98% in the UK before the introduction of the pertussis vaccine. Another study in the International Journal of Epidemiology shows a 67% decline in the prevalence of tuberculosis prior to the introduction of the vaccine. At the same time, the mortality rate decreased from approximately 150 per 100,000 population to 50 per 100,000 population. This is the case for many infectious diseases, and there are a multitude of studies to support these findings. The article continues by stating that the vaccine has been “proven to reduce the serious effects of COVID-19 in people who become infected with the virus”. According to the Physicians for Informed Consent, the clinical trial for the Pfizer vaccine “did not have enough statistical power to measure the vaccine’s ability to prevent hospitalisations from COVID-19”. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) even states that a “larger number of individuals at high risk of COVID-19 and higher attack rates would be needed to confirm efficacy of the vaccine against mortality”. According to Queensland Health, the “COVID-19 vaccines have been through the same processes as all other vaccines, the path just looked a little different”. Which other vaccine was granted provisional approval by the TGA whilst still in the clinical trial phase that is not due for completion until early 2023? Which other vaccine was produced within 6-12 months and pushed on the population with no long-term safety data? Which other vaccine uses mRNA technology? Which other vaccine protects against coronavirus? The answer to all of these questions is none. There has never been a vaccine in history that has been through the same rushed processes as the COVID-19 vaccine. This statement is misleading the public, and only continues to build distrust in the entire process. This is where things really get interesting. The Queensland government, on their official website, state the following: “The bulk of the ingredients in the two key COVID-19 vaccines – Pfizer and AstraZeneca – can be found in your kitchen pantry. These include water, sugar and salt”. The active ingredient in the Pfizer vaccine is BNT162b2 [mRNA]. The vaccine also contains the following ingredients inactive:
Out of the ten ingredients listed, “water, sugar and salt (sodium chloride)” make up three of them. The first three ingredients on the list, along with cholesterol, form the lipid nanoparticle coating that helps transport the mRNA into the cell. No synergistic toxicity testing has been done to determine how these ingredients will interact with one another inside the body. Like in a chemistry lab, you can have three inert substances that are completely stable on their own, but when they are combine together, they explode. The second ingredient on the list is polyethylene glycol (PEG). PEG is derived from petroleum, and it has many applications from industrial manufacturing to medicine. It is found in paintballs, lubricants, soap bubbles, ceramics, rocket fuel, solvents, insulators, skin creams, toothpastes, anti-foaming agents, laxatives, hydrogels, and much more. Approximately 72% of the population have anti-PEG antibodies, which may result in a hypersensitivity reaction to PEG. This would appear to be one of the main causes of anaphylaxis following the vaccine. It would be safe to assume that very few people would know if they have anti-PEG antibodies, and consequently, whether they are at risk of anaphylaxis from the vaccine. The AstraZeneca vaccine contains the active ingredient is ChAdOx1 – S * 5x1010 viral particles (vp), as well as the following inactive ingredients:
The body uses histidine to make histamine as a response to allergic reactions or tissue damage. Histamine causes the immune system to launch an inflammatory response, which can lead to anaphylaxis. Could this be why we are seeing anaphylactic reactions following the AstraZeneca vaccine as well? Polysorbate 80 is used as an emulsifier, however numerous studies have indicated the potential negative effects on the human body. These include infertility, anaphylaxis during pregnancy, colitis and Crohn’s disease. It has also been “causally linked with an increased risk of blood clots, stroke, heart attack, heart failure, and of tumour growth or recurrence in patients with certain types of cancer”. This sounds very similar to the list of potential side effects that are being reported in many countries around the world. The bulk of the ingredients found in the vaccine most certainly would not be found in your kitchen pantry, unless you have a pantry full of chemicals and toxic compounds. The lies and deception by our government continue, despite repeated calls from doctors and scientists around the world to cease the mass vaccination campaign. At the time of writing, the current adverse event rate in Australia after receiving the vaccine is 0.67% according to the TGA. There is 0.11% chance of testing positive to SARS-CoV-2, and 0.0035% chance of dying from COVID-19. An individual is six times more likely to develop a reaction to the vaccine than test positive for SARS-CoV-2. Isn’t it time that our government began telling us the truth and stopped misleading the public? More and more Australians are saying no. They can see the warning signs. They can see through the lies. And they are more than capable of making their own decisions when it comes to their body and their health. Where there is risk, there must be choice. Always.
0 Comments
 The ABC released an article on the 28th of February 2021 titled “Your COVID-19 vaccine safety questions, answered by experts”. The article was designed to answer the “questions you asked most” by leading experts in infectious diseases and immunisation. The experts include Professor Kristine Macartney, the director of the National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance (NCIRS), Dr Christopher Blyth, the co-director of the Wesfarmers Centre of Vaccines and Infectious Diseases, and Dr Archa Fox, a molecular biologist specialising in RNA. That’s quite an ‘expert panel’. Let’s take a look at some of the expert’s answers to the “questions you asked most”.
Do the vaccines affect fertility? Fertility, pregnancy and breastfeeding are obviously very sensitive and emotional topics, as they not only affect the mother, but the foetus or new born baby as well. Dr Fox states that there is “no evidence to suggest that the vaccine affects fertility” and that there is “no scientific reason to suspect that the vaccines might affect fertility”. Dr Blyth is even more certain when it comes to infertility, stating that “it’s absolutely safe for people planning pregnancy”. According to Dr Joseph Mercola, the “mRNA vaccine triggers your body to produce antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, and spike proteins in turn contain syncytin-homologous proteins that are essential for the formation of the placenta. If a woman’s immune system starts reacting against syncytin-1, then there is the possibility she could become infertile.” Dr Mercola notes that “this is an issue that none of the vaccine studies is looking at specifically”. These critical studies are vital when it comes to the potential of infertility, and it is crucial that we rule out this possibility prior to vaccinating women of child bearing age or younger. Do the vaccines affect breastfeeding? According to Dr Blyth, the “COVID vaccines are safe for anyone breastfeeding. The recommendation is that you can receive COVID-19 vaccines at any time while breastfeeding.” The Consumer Medicines Information (CMI) summary states that “if you are pregnant or breast-feeding, think you may be pregnant or are planning to have a baby, ask your doctor or pharmacist for advice before you receive this vaccine”. The Australian Public Assessment Report states that “vaccine data in pregnant women and lactating mothers” has not yet been addressed. The Australian Product Information report states that “it is unknown whether BNT162b2 [mRNA] is excreted in human milk”. The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) clearly state in three separate documents that it is unknown if and how the vaccine may affect the mother and/or baby during breastfeeding. Dr Blyth, how can you categorically state that the vaccine is “safe” during breastfeeding when there is no data to support this? This is misleading, and potentially dangerous. Will you be held personally responsible should future data reveal that, in fact, it is unsafe to receive the vaccine whilst breastfeeding? It may prove to be safe, however, at this point in time, that is a question that simply cannot be answered, and we stringently encourage you to retract this incorrect statement. The public’s COVID-19 vaccine safety questions have clearly not been answered by the ‘experts’. We are not being told the truth. The truth is that these vaccines have not been proven to be safe, because there is no long-term safety data. In fact, there is very little data on anything. There are many more questions than answers at this stage. Why are we continually being lied to? The people of Australia deserve better. We deserve to be told the full story, so that we can make an informed decision. Resistance to the vaccine is growing daily because people can see through the lies and deception. We do not consent to being part of a mass population trial. Where there is risk, there must be choice. Always.  How do we know there won’t be longer-term effects if we’re testing short term?
Professor Macartney explains that it is “extraordinarily rare for any vaccines to show a side effect that develops later after vaccination, such as the following week”. The study mentioned previously in Microbiology & Infectious Diseases shows that “vaccines have been found to cause a host of chronic, later developing adverse events” and that “some adverse events like type 1 diabetes may not occur until 3-4 years after a vaccine is administered”. Another study mentioned above in Frontiers in Immunology claims that the “development of most autoimmune diseases may take 3 to 18 years”. It has continuously been claimed that vaccines don’t cause long-term illness. These studies would suggest otherwise, and this is why long-term safety data is so critical. Dr Joseph Mercola wrote an article describing a number of other pathologies that we have a lack of data on, such as pathogenic priming and antibody dependent enhancement, prion disease and microvascular injury. These pathologies have the potential to cause serious long-term effects, and they must be ruled out prior to vaccinating the general population. Dr Fox weighs into the argument by stating that there are “studies in animals over long periods of time that show they’re fine”. Once again, this is simply not true. A study published in the Journal of Translational Autoimmunity warns that the “failure of SARS and MERS vaccines in animal trials involved pathogenesis consistent with an immunological priming that could involve autoimmunity in lung tissues due to previous exposure to the SARS and MERS spike protein”. In fact, in a number of studies, the animals initially tolerated the vaccine well. However, when they were exposed to the virus, they became severely ill and/or died. Animal studies have shown devastating results to previous coronavirus vaccines, and this is perhaps, one of the reasons why they weren’t conducted prior to human trials. Dr Fox also makes the bold claim that “most of us don’t think too much about getting the whooping cough vaccine or diphtheria vaccine”. Therein lies the problem. We should be thinking about these vaccines. According to the Australian Immunisation Handbook for the pertussis (whooping cough) vaccine, extensive limb swelling, febrile convulsions and hypotonic-hyporesponsive episodes are some of the reported adverse events associated with the vaccine. The Food & Drug Administration (FDA) in the U.S. paints a far worse picture. According to the package insert for Infanrix, one of the pertussis vaccines used in Australia, “the following adverse reactions have been identified during post-approval use”:
How many parents are unaware of this information before deciding to vaccinate their children? How many doctors and nurses refuse to explain the risks associated with vaccination? Dr Fox, it is vitally important that we do think about “getting” vaccines, and that we are aware of the risks prior to vaccinating ourselves and our children. Genetic vaccines are new so have we had enough experience to know they’re safe? Professor Macartney claims that “genetic vaccines are not as new as we think”. Although the AstraZeneca vaccine, which is currently suspended at the time of writing in 23 countries due to blood clotting fears, uses a “recombinant, replication-deficient chimpanzee adenovirus vector”, and is a more traditional vaccine, the Pfizer vaccine is anything but. The Pfizer vaccine uses new mRNA technology, which has never been used in human beings before. We have no data on mRNA vaccines like we do with other vaccines, such as the long-term efficacy and safety. As mentioned previously, animal studies have failed due to illness and death of the animals after exposure to the ‘live’ virus. Research also shows that autoimmune diseases many take many years to develop. Professor Macartney also claims that there are “tens of thousands of people in clinical trials who have received the different types of COVID-19 vaccines and many people vaccinated worldwide with no safety signals occurring”. At the time of writing, according to recent data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) in the U.S., there have been 25,212 adverse events, 4,930 visits to emergency room doctors, 2,743 hospitalisations, 479 permanent disabilities, and 1,265 deaths following vaccination. It is also important to note that historically, less than 1% of all adverse events are reported to VAERS. Professor Macartney, we are seeing some very concerning reactions to the vaccine around the world. This highlights the importance of clinical trials, as long-term safety needs to be assessed prior to rolling out the vaccine to the general public. These adverse events did not occur during the clinical trials; they occurred during the roll out of the vaccine. Do the vaccines include mercury and other heavy metals? Dr Chris Blyth states that the “vaccines that will be used are free from preservatives and any toxic substances”. The AstraZeneca vaccine contains polysorbate 80, which is a “nonionic surfactant and emulsifier often used in foods and cosmetics”. A study in Springer Open Choice states that polysorbate 80 “appears to be a pharmacologically active compound and has been implicated in a number of systemic adverse events and ISAEs (infusion site adverse events)”. Another study shows that there may be a link between polysorbate 80, and infertility in mice, and that further investigation is warranted. The Pfizer vaccine contains a substance known as polyethylene glycol (PEG), which is used to help transport the mRNA into the cell. Studies have shown that 70% of people develop antibodies against PEG, which has the potential to trigger allergic reactions in those who receive the vaccine. The Consumer Medicine Information (CMI) summary for the Pfizer vaccine states that the vaccine should not be given “if you are allergic to BNT162b2 (mRNA) or any of the ingredients listed at the end of this leaflet”. How many people know what polyethylene glycol is, and how many people know if they are allergic to it? There have already been warnings against receiving the vaccine if you have a known history of anaphylaxis or allergies. Dr Blyth, stating that the vaccines are free from “any toxic substances” is incorrect and we would strongly encourage you to retract this statement.  The ABC released an article on the 28th of February 2021 titled “Your COVID-19 vaccine safety questions, answered by experts”. The article was designed to answer the “questions you asked most” by leading experts in infectious diseases and immunisation. The experts include Professor Kristine Macartney, the director of the National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance (NCIRS), Dr Christopher Blyth, the co-director of the Wesfarmers Centre of Vaccines and Infectious Diseases, and Dr Archa Fox, a molecular biologist specialising in RNA. That’s quite an ‘expert panel’. Let’s take a look at some of the expert’s answers to the “questions you asked most”.
Why can’t we just immunise the vulnerable and leave others to fight COVID with their immune systems? “Everyone knows or cares for someone who is older, or might have had treatment for cancer, or for some other reason will be vulnerable. It’s so important that we think of those people, because if we’re not vaccinated, we’re keeping them at risk”, according to Professor Macartney. Many people will incorrectly assume that if they are vaccinated, they are protected, and that they are protecting others. This is a dangerous and incorrect assumption. “Vaccine efficacy against asymptomatic infection and viral transmission” has not yet been addressed. According to the Australian Public Assessment Report, the following is missing information: “Use in immunocompromised patients; use in frail patients with co-morbidities (for example, COPD, diabetes, chronic neurological disease, cardiovascular disease); use in patients with autoimmune or inflammatory disorders; (and) interaction with other vaccines”. These people are the most vulnerable, yet there is no data on these demographics. The people who could potentially benefit from the vaccine shouldn’t take it due to a complete lack of data, and the people who don’t require the vaccine are being advised to take it. However, as we know, logic is a rare commodity at the moment. Dr Archa Fox has a different take on this issue. She says that “even if every young person ate well and did exercise and had a strong immune system, if they get infected with the virus, they could still suffer from COVID-19 – some people develop long COVID, and there is mortality in all age ranges, even if you have a strong immune system”. As we know, mortality increases with age for COVID-19. This is primarily due to the fact that as we get older, our immune function decreases, and generally, the incidence of comorbidities increases. Some diseases affect younger people, whilst others affect older people. COVID-19 clearly affects older people. There is also mortality in all age ranges for many different diseases. What has been lost throughout the past 12 months is the advice on how to maintain a healthy immune system, which as Dr Fox mentions, includes eating well and exercising. Fast food restaurants and bottle shops remained open during lockdown, yet people were limited in the amount of exercise they could do. How is this beneficial to our health during a pandemic? Dr Fox continues by explaining that “you’re playing Russian roulette if you’re going to just rely on boosting your immune system to stop getting sick”. Given that we are exposed to millions of viruses every day, wouldn’t it seem like the logical way to stop you from getting sick? Or should we rely on a vaccine for every single disease? A study in Microbiology & Infectious Diseases claims that “autoimmunity and the opposing condition, metabolic syndrome, are well known adverse events caused by vaccines”. The author explains that “vaccines have been found to cause a host of chronic, later developing adverse events. Some adverse events like type 1 diabetes may not occur until 3-4 years after a vaccine is administered.” Instead of relying on eating well and exercising to boost our immune system, Dr Fox is suggesting that we rely on vaccines, which as we can see, may have far more detrimental consequences than the disease itself. Another study in Frontiers in Immunology explained that determining “whether cross-reactivity between COVID-19 and human tissue can lead to autoimmune disease development either from the infection or directly from vaccination” is an enormous task because “development of most autoimmune diseases may take 3 to 18 years”. The study continues by stating that “cross-reactive relationships between viral infection and vaccinations have also been found with hepatitis B and myelin proteins leading to multiple sclerosis, human papillomavirus and nuclear proteins leading to systemic lupus erythematous (SLE), coxsackievirus and islet cell proteins leading to type 1 diabetes, etc”. According to the authors, “the possibility of future autoimmune disease is daunting and very real”. Given the complete lack of data on the vaccines, are we instead playing “Russian roulette” by taking the vaccine, rather than boosting our immune system? Dr Fox also claims that the “studies coming out now suggest transmission of the virus will be greatly reduced by the vaccinated”. Perhaps Dr Fox is referring to two new studies that made headlines recently, that are yet to undergo peer review. One study found that the Pfizer vaccine reduced infections by 89.4%. However, the study did not directly measure transmission. Eric Topol, a professor of molecular medicine at the Scripps Research Institute, stated that the “testing rates were such a hodgepodge, I don’t know how you can make any conclusions about how much the vaccine cut transmission in Israel, let alone assigning a number as concrete as 89.4 percent”. The Australian Public Assessment Report clearly states that “viral transmission” has not yet been addressed. Have approvals and testing been rushed through? Dr Fox mentions that “what would previously take five years took one”. This may be true, however, the average time taken to develop a vaccine is 10-12 years. What happened to the other 6-8 years? She continues by stating that “our vaccines have had the full approval process, not emergency authorisation like in some countries”. This is factually incorrect, and we would strongly advise Dr Fox to retract this statement. According to the TGA, both the Pfizer and AstraZeneca vaccines have been granted provisional approval. This is different to full approval. Provisional approval is valid for two years, and is subject to strict conditions, such as the requirement that the pharmaceutical companies continue to provide the TGA with information on long term efficacy and safety from ongoing clinical trials and post-market assessment. The US Food & Drug Administration (FDA) Fact Sheet for the Pfizer vaccine also states that the “Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine” is an “unapproved product”. |
AuthorOur articles and rebuttal pieces are written by our writers on our volunteer team Archives
April 2023
Categories |
RSS Feed
