 A 28-year-old physician who was part of the AstraZeneca Phase 3 clinical trial in Brazil died on the 15th of October 2020.Initial reports did not specify whether the participant received the COVID-19 vaccine or the placebo vaccine, however it was later reported that the participant received the placebo vaccine. The placebo vaccine being used in the clinical trial is an approved, on-the-market meningitis vaccine.
The victim was a physician working with COVID-19 patients at three hospitals, and allegedly died from complications arising from an infection with the SARS-Cov-2 virus. Questions are now being asked as to whether a physician was a suitable candidate for the vaccine trial given his exposure to patients with the virus, which would have put him at risk for a much higher viral load than usual. According to The Vaccine Reaction, it is not known if “the participant had underlying health conditions that placed him at high risk for COVID-19 complications. There is also no information about the timeline between his potential exposure relative to receiving the meningitis “placebo” vaccine injection or between injection and death. No details are yet known about the cause of death, aside from the attribution to “complications of COVID-19” and it is not known whether he mounted any type of antibody or other immune system response to the coronavirus infection.” The Vaccine Reaction stated that “there is little information about the type of meningococcal vaccine “placebo” the physician was given in the trial and a potential interaction between his apparent SARS-Cov-2 viral infection and the administration of a meningitis vaccine that could have caused a serious adverse response”. Given that AstraZeneca is one of the leading candidates in the world for the development of a COVID-19 vaccine, wouldn’t it seem critically important that we have the answers to these questions? In particular, will a potential COVID-19 vaccine interact with the many other vaccines that children and adults are required to take? AstraZeneca’s Phase 3 clinical trial was suspended in September due to a severe adverse reaction in one of its participants. The participant developed transverse myelitis, which is inflammation of the spinal cord, and results in pain, muscle weakness, paralysis, sensory problems, and bowel and bladder dysfunction. Only one-third of people have a full or near-full recovery, with the seriously affected suffering permanent impairments that impact their ability to perform ordinary tasks of daily living. The trial continues to remain on hold in the US pending an investigation by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). It is important to note that the AstraZeneca AZD1222 vaccine uses a genetically engineered adenovirus that causes common cold symptoms in chimpanzees and contains the genetic material of the SARS-Cov-2 virus surface spike protein. “No adenovirus-based vaccine has been successfully developed for uses in humans, and questions have been raised about the approach.” The tragic death of this 28-year-old physician raises serious concerns. Did the participant die after receiving the meningitis vaccine, a vaccine that is part of the National Immunisation Program Schedule in Australia and administered to children at 12 months of age? Aren’t we led to believe that this vaccine is safe and effective? If this vaccine can have such devastating consequences in a 28-year-old, what are the consequences in children with developing immune systems? Which raises another question, why is the trial using a meningitis vaccine in the placebo group rather than an inert saline solution? And why is the trial continuing in Brazil and the UK, whilst it is still on hold in the US? The Morrison government has already stated that they plan to make the vaccine as “mandatory as possible” should a vaccine become available. AstraZeneca is developing a vaccine that has never been successfully trialled in humans, it is being rushed to market, and no long-term safety or efficacy studies have been completed. Would you feel safe taking this vaccine? Would you feel safe with your children taking this vaccine? Where there is risk, there must be choice.
0 Comments
Please can you explain to the Western Australian community why the AMA is claiming that there has been a 'global pandemic' of a new coronavirus when there is no science to support this statement?
Please listen to these doctors all over the world state there is ‘no true medical pandemic ’. The many flaws in the WHO 'pandemic' claim have been exposed and I am wondering why the AMA is still promoting this agenda in WA that continues to remove human rights from West Australians without any scientific basis. In fact, WA is the only state that has made it a criminal offence to refuse a medical directive. Why? The flaws in the claim of a 'global pandemic' include: 1) The WHO's original claim in March 2020 was based solely on a mathematical model that used flawed assumptions about virus transmission. This is not science. This model wildly exaggerated the deaths/cases and was dumped by the US Surgeon-General, Jerome Adams, on 13 April because it was "not based on real data". 2) Locking down countries and closing borders is not the traditional evidence-based method of controlling any infectious agent due to the way in which they cause disease. The WHO admitted this fact on 12 October 2020. 3) The only way to get 'real data' in order to declare a 'global pandemic', is to experience the virus in the country and use the traditional methods of isolating and quarantining the sick people first to see how this virus is transmitting in different countries and host populations. This was never done to prove that the virus would have been a 'pandemic' in Australia. No real data has been collected in Australia and now it is clearly showing it is not a true medical pandemic. 4) Closing borders as a 'precautionary measure' before a virus is in the country is not a scientific method and has never been used to control any infectious agent. 5) The ‘cases’ of this disease published in the media were people without symptoms that were used by the mainstream media to frighten the public about a ‘pandemic’. The ‘cases’ were based on a positive RT-PCR test that cannot diagnose infections (the whole natural virus) in people. The test is a useless test for diagnosis, and even if it could accurately detect a whole viral genome, (which it can’t), it has a very high false-positive rate (>40%) for detecting segments of the genome. This means that healthy people are being quarantined based on a PCR test that does not identify the presence of the virus. It should also be noted that even if a virus is present in a healthy person, it may never cause disease. It may remain sub-clinical due to the multifactorial nature of disease expression from infectious agents. This is described in my recently published paper on the misuse of the precautionary principle by governments in the promotion of vaccines. Portugal has recently stated in a court ruling that ‘The PCR test is unreliable and quarantines unlawful’. The new COVID19 vaccine is experimental and unproven for safety or efficacy. It includes synthetic (recombinant) Coronavirus 2019 (SARSCov-2) and other new technology. Here are the global doctors saying there is no true pandemic and they are being censored by the media: The Question on Everyone’s Mind: Experts Discuss COVID19 Vaccine. As you know vaccine manufacturers are not worried about the safety of vaccines because they are indemnified for any harm caused by vaccines. This includes the safety of COVID19 vaccines, including the AstraZeneca vaccine. I would like the Australian Medical Association and the Western Australian Health Minister, Roger Cook, to address this information and explain in your response why: i) You are claiming there is a 'pandemic' of a coronavirus and ii) Why you are pushing for an unproven experimental COVID19 vaccine onto the population for a disease that 99.9% of people recover from and 99.6% of people over the age of 65 recover from? Experimenting on the population is a breach of the Nuremberg Code and will result in a charge of genocide and crimes against humanity for perpetrators under the International Criminal Code Statute that Australia has ratified. This action against governments has already started in the international criminal courts. Please include in your response to these points why you do not think that coercive vaccination policies - with any vaccine - classifies as genocide and a crime against the population, under Article 6 and 7 of the International Criminal Code Statute, when all vaccines carry the risk of serious disease and death for many people? I have copied Travis Carter and Dwain Hill into this email and I look forward to hearing your response on radio 897 FM soon. This is an open letter that I will publish on my website. Kind regards, Dr. Judy Wilyman Recently published paper by Dr. Judy Wilyman - ‘Misapplication of the Precautionary Principle has Misplaced the Burden of Proof of Vaccine Safety  “On December 1, 2020, the ex-Pfizer head of respiratory research Dr. Michael Yeadon and the lung specialist and former head of the public health department Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg filed an application with the EMA, the European Medicine Agency responsible for the EU-wide drug approval, for the immediate suspension of all SARS CoV 2 vaccine studies, in particular the BioNtech/Pfizer study on BNT162b (EudraCT number 2020-002641-42).”
“Dr. Wodarg and Dr. Yeadon demand that the studies – for the protection of the life and health of the volunteers – should not be continued until a study design is available that is suitable to address the significant safety concerns expressed by an increasing number of renowned scientists against the vaccine and the study design.” The doctors state that the testing of the vaccine on humans is unethical because the risk of disease or possible vaccine benefit cannot be determined with certainty, due to many different PCR tests of highly varying quality. They continue by demanding that the risks already known from previous studies must be excluded through means such as animal studies. There are a number of major concerns according to Dr. Wodarg and Dr Yeadon. One of those concerns is the formation of “non-neutralizing antibodies”, which can result in antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE). This means that these antibodies can cause an exaggerated immune response if a person is confronted with the “wild” virus. Experiments were conducted on cats, whereby they initially tolerated the vaccine. However, after they were exposed to the wild virus, they eventually died. Previous vaccine efforts against severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) have revealed similar findings. A study conducted on ferrets showed a robust antibody response to the vaccine, but when the ferrets were challenged with the wild virus, they all became severely ill and died. This is a serious concern and one that should be thoroughly investigated before a vaccine is rolled out. Another concern regarding the vaccine is the potential to cause infertility in females. The mechanism behind the vaccine is that is produces antibodies against the spike proteins of SARS-CoV-2. However, spike proteins also contain “syncytin-homologous proteins”. These proteins are essential for the formation of the placenta. If the vaccine triggers an immune reaction against syncytin-1, it could result in “infertility of indefinite duration” in vaccinated women. Furthermore, syncytin-1 is not only present in females, it is also present in male sperm as well. The risks of sterility apply to not only vaccinated females, but to vaccinated males as well. Due to the short nature of the current trials, it is impossible to determine whether the vaccine will cause sterility in men and women. The Pfizer vaccine contains a substance known as polyethylene glycol (PEG). 70% of people develop antibodies against PEG. This means that 70% of people can develop an allergic, and potentially fatal, reaction to the vaccine. Yes, you read that right. 70% of people could develop a potentially fatal reaction to the vaccine. If alarm bells weren’t already ringing by now, they should be. The authors argue that the short duration of the study does not allow a realistic estimation of the late effects of the vaccine. The average duration of vaccine development is 10-12 years. The Pfizer vaccine has been developed in 6-12 months. In 2009, the swine flu pandemic swept across the world. A vaccine was rushed to market without the usual safety studies being completed. The vaccine caused narcolepsy in 1,000 adults and children across Europe, resulting in chronic fatigue, difficulty sleeping at night, night terrors, hallucinations and a range of mental health problems. In 2014, the UK government was sued for £60 million by patients who suffered brain damage as a result of taking the swine flu vaccine. Lawyer Peter Todd stated that the “victims of this vaccine have an incurable and lifelong condition and will require extensive medication”. The Pfizer vaccine has NOT been tested on “children, pregnant women, people taking medications and individuals with comorbidities”. According to the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as of 2 December 2020, there have been 249,570 deaths in the US involving COVID-19. 89 of these deaths were in children under the age of 15. That equates to 0.036% of the total deaths in the US involving COVID-19. Children are the least affected demographic of contracting SARS-CoV-2 and dying from COVID-19. The UK Government’s regulatory approval of Pfizer/BioNtech vaccine for COVID-19 states that the “safety and efficacy of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 in children under 16 years of age have not yet been established”. Why do children need the vaccine when they are the least likely to contract the virus, let alone die from it? There is very limited data on the number of pregnant women that have either contracted SARS-CoV-2 or died from COVID-19. In fact, ABC News just reported that a woman in Singapore who was infected with COVID-19 when she was pregnant has given birth to a healthy baby boy with antibodies. According to the World Health Organisation (WHO), it is still unclear if a “pregnant woman with COVID-19 can pass the virus to her foetus or baby during pregnancy or delivery”. If we don’t have clear information, there is no way to know if a vaccine will affect the foetus or baby. It’s worth noting that studies have never been conducted on the effects of any vaccines on pregnant women and their unborn babies. Furthermore, a study published by the National Centre for Biotechnology Information showed “spontaneous abortion was associated with influenza vaccination in the preceding 28 days”. The study went on to say that “evidence of safety in early pregnancy is limited”. Thankfully the UK Government’s regulatory approval of Pfizer/BioNtech vaccine for COVID-19 states that the “COVID-19 mRNA vaccine BNT162b2 is not recommended during pregnancy” and that “pregnancy should be excluded before vaccination”. The website also states that the vaccine should “not be used during breast feeding” because it is “unknown” if the vaccine is excreted in human milk. It is critical that these safety studies are conducted prior to rolling out a vaccine, especially when it comes to the health of a pregnant woman and her unborn baby. People taking medications and individuals with comorbidities are amongst the most vulnerable when it comes to dying with COVID-19. These are the people that the government is trying to protect with lockdowns and vaccines. According to the CDC, the average number of comorbidities for each death with COVID-19 is 2.6. This demographic of people already has a compromised immune system. It is therefore imperative that proper safety studies are conducted on this group of people prior to giving them a vaccine. Shockingly, no safety studies on this vulnerable group have been conducted. There are many other grave concerns when it comes to the Pfizer vaccine trials:
The BioNtech/Pfizer vaccine has been approved for emergency use in the UK and is being rolled out this week. 800,000 doses are due to arrive, with a total of 40 million doses ordered. This is despite the fact that Pfizer have not even finished analysing their data, let alone it being peer-reviewed by independent scientific bodies. Dr Wodarg and Dr Yeadon are experts in their chosen fields. We, as well as governments all across the world, need to listen to them. The Pfizer vaccine is using new, experimental and highly controversial mRNA technology, which has not only bypassed critical animal studies, it has never been approved for use in human trials, even though it has been attempted for the last three decades. It is impossible to ensure this vaccine is safe, especially given that so many questions remain unanswered? How can the public possibly feel comfortable receiving a vaccine without proper safety studies being conducted? Would you feel confident if your children were to receive this vaccine with an inherent lack of data on the potential adverse reactions? Would you feel reassured with your elderly parents or grandparents receiving the vaccine when their immune systems are already compromised, and with a vaccine that could potentially trigger an even stronger immune reaction if they do happen to contract the virus? Where there is risk, there must be choice. We have the right to medical freedom, to body autonomy and to make our own health care decisions. Governments do not have the right to take this away from us. We must stand united and fight for our medical freedom.  According to the World Health Organisation (WHO) website, “Diseases had already begun to disappear before vaccines were introduced, because of better hygiene and sanitation.” The WHO states that “improved socioeconomic conditions have undoubtedly had a direct impact on disease. Better nutrition, not to mention the development of antibiotics and other treatments, have increased survival rates among the sick; less crowded living conditions have reduced disease transmission; and lower birth rates have decreased the number of susceptible household contacts.”
The CDC’s Pink Book on pertussis states that “whole-cell pertussis vaccines were first licensed in the United States in 1914 and became available combined with diphtheria and tetanus toxoids (as DTP) in 1948”. A report by epidemiologist C. C. Dauer titled “Reported Whooping Cough Morbidity and Mortality in the United States” states that whooping cough at the time caused “more deaths in children under 2 years of age than any other acute infection with the exception of pneumonia and the diarrheas”. “During the 5-year period from 1900 the mortality was 10.2 per 100,00 population and during the next two decades there was a decline of about 20 percent, the rate for the period from 1920 to 1924, inclusive, being 8.1. Beginning about 1925 mortality from whooping cough began to decline rapidly so that the rate for the 5-year period from 1935 to 1939 was only 1.8, a decline of about 80 percent in 15 years.” A study by Suzanne Humphries and Roman Bystrianyk states “in both the USA and UK, introduction of a vaccine against whooping cough (pertussis) had a minimal effect… on the mortality rate from the disease. And although the incidence rate, as distinct from mortality, initially appeared to decline, the paradox is that the incidence…has increased again as the vaccine era has progressed.” In the US, the decline in deaths from the peak was approximately 92% before the introduction of the pertussis vaccine. In the UK, it was over 98%. A paper by Edward Mortimer and Paul Jones titled An Evaluation of Pertussis Vaccine states that the data “indicate the lack of absolute proof that the decline in mortality from pertussis in the United States is a consequence of the use of the vaccine”. This lack of absolute proof was “coupled with concerns about untoward reactions to the vaccine”, including “a strange shock like syndrome… excessive somnolence… convulsion… and gross encephalopathy”. A 2017 research paper in EBioMedicine states that “all currently available evidence suggests that DTP vaccine may kill more children from other causes than it saves from diphtheria, tetanus or pertussis”. The DTP vaccine has been “associated with a 5-fold higher mortality than being unvaccinated”. It’s time to take a look at Tuberculosis (TB). TB is caused by mycobacterium tuberculosis, which most often affects the lungs. It spreads through respiratory droplets when someone coughs, sneezes or spits. Symptoms include cough, chest pain, weakness, fever, night sweats and weight loss, and these symptoms can remain mild for many months. About one-third of the world’s population has a TB infection, yet they are asymptomatic and cannot transmit the disease. This is despite the worldwide availability of a vaccine. According to the World Health Organisation (WHO), it is estimated that 10 million people fell ill with TB in 2019. Of these 10 million people, 1.4 million people died from TB. TB is one of the top 10 causes of death worldwide, and it is the leading cause of death from a single infectious agent (above HIV/AIDS). TB is a treatable and curable disease using anti-microbial drugs. Again, this is despite the worldwide availability of a vaccine. The WHO state that “whilst neonatal BCG vaccination (the vaccination for TB) is partially efficacious at protecting infants and young children against severe forms of TB, it is poorly protective against pulmonary disease in adolescents and adults, and therefore ineffective at reducing Mtb transmission.” You read that right – the World Health Organisation state that the BCG vaccination is ineffective at reducing mycobacterium tuberculosis transmission. A study in the International Journal of Epidemiology concluded that “the dramatic decline in tuberculosis (TB) in developed countries during the past century, even prior to the introduction of effective anti-TB drugs, has been attributed to many factors, including improvements in social conditions and nutrition, reduced crowding and segregation of infectious cases either to workhouses or sanatoria”. The study shows that the prevalence rate of TB in 1900 was 600 per 100,000 population. In 1950, when the TB vaccine was first introduced into England and Wales, the prevalence rate had dropped to approximately 200 in 100,000 population. That is a 67% decline prior to the introduction of the TB vaccine. At the same time, the mortality rate decreased from approximately 150 per 100,000 population to 50 per 100,000 population. It is clearly evident that TB declined dramatically prior to the introduction of a vaccine. According to former Senior Chief Biomedical Scientist for Public Health in the UK Graham Hutchinson, the SARS-Cov-2 virus is less virulent, but more contagious than it was initially. That means that more people are contracting the virus, but less people are dying from the virus. The case numbers and death statistics all over the world supports this claim. As we can see with whooping cough and tuberculosis, the number of cases significantly reduced prior to the introduction of a vaccine. The number of deaths due to COVID-19 is already declining prior to the introduction of a vaccine, and will continue to do so according to current trends. Why do we need an experimental, rushed to market vaccine with no long-term safety record for a disease with an overall survival rate of 99.4%? Why will the vaccine be as “mandatory as possible” when the overall death rate is continuing to decline without a vaccine? It is our fundamental human right to have the final say of what goes into our bodies and the bodies of our children. Whether we decide to vaccinate or not, it must always remain our CHOICE.  In case you had any doubts about the Government’s plans to ensure high uptake of the Covid 19 vaccination, this article published on August 19 outlines how those refusing the Covid 19 vaccine will be banned from travelling overseas, dining in restaurants and using public transport, and government financial support could be curtailed or refused. Today, this new article is beginning to drive home the narrative, there is quite a pattern forming. The intent is clearly to coerce 95% of the population into taking the vaccine.
These measures will strike all classes within society, but the measures that remove one’s ability to provide for life itself will affect the most vulnerable people - those who depend on government benefits to live. For many not on government support, the ability to earn a living will be severely impacted. Are you a student, just getting by with a part-time job as a waiter? Or someone for whom travel is an integral part of your job? Your right to exercise choice of medical freedom means you may lose your job, and in effect, your source of income. Furthermore, the Government has previously flagged that all frontline workers, i.e., people who come in contact with the public as part of their job, will be the first to be vaccinated. This will affect the entire Service industry, the Health industry, and the Education sector. For the few who are not impacted financially, quality of life will be drastically reduced. Do you like to take annual trips overseas and dine-out in restaurants? You can kiss those pleasures goodbye. For some families split across countries, it will be an impossible decision. You have to weigh up the risks of the vaccine with the decision of ever seeing overseas loved ones again. Do you rely on or prefer to use buses and trains? No longer an option. Think of all of the families that have no car, or only one car, that rely on public transport to move around: mums with children, inner city dwellers, pensioners, and adult students. Our quality of life has already been significantly impacted, with the new tracking measures and regulations that mean simply walking into any restaurant, public building, church, both now and in the future involves disclosing personal details. It is inevitable, that to consolidate all of the regulations and simplify the whole surveillance process, a “health passport” of some sort will be introduced. This was also flagged in the Daily Mirror article. There is no doubt that these measures will create a culture of “insiders” and “outsiders” where those who receive the vaccine will have both obvious and subtle advantages over those who don’t. Those who choose not to have the vaccine won’t be allowed to join the work team for Christmas lunch in the restaurant. Your kids can’t take the bus to school. These measures will work together to create an overall loss of freedom to conduct your life the way you choose. According to Scott Morrison, such measures are warranted for a “...pandemic that has destroyed the global economy and taken the lives of hundreds of thousands all around the world.” This statement is currently under fierce dispute, with many statisticians, epidemiologists and economists around the world saying otherwise. To address the claim of hundreds of thousands of deaths, it is now well known that these have been grossly over-reported. In March 2020, the Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) “…decided to ignore universal data collection and reporting guidelines for fatalities in favour of adopting new guidelines unique to COVID-19. The guidelines the CDC decided against using have been used successfully since 2003.” The simple fact of the matter is that the disease is significantly less infectious than previously thought: for example, UK public health bodies deemed that it is no longer considered to be a High Consequence Infectious Disease (HCID) in June 2020. Not that you could tell this from the reports in main-stream media. Furthermore, a study of infection fatality rate (IFR) released in June 2020 has indicated that, while variable across the world, the chance of surviving Covid 19 for a healthy person less than 70 years of age with no comorbidities is 99.95% for women and 99.88% for men. This survival rate is even higher with decreasing age. Similar results have been reported in this WHO study, showing that in Australia “…overall mortality is in the range of a mild influenza season.” As for destroying the global economy, it is the decisions of the governments around the world that have caused this. Focussing on Victoria: we had a sound pandemic plan in March 2020, in which two key principles were that the response be “flexible and proportionate” and that it be “focused on protecting vulnerable Victorians”. Lockdowns were absolutely not part of this pandemic plan, which had been designed based on the most up-to-date science and the experience from previous pandemics. By end of March, the Victorian Government stopped following the plan and moved to a lockdown. By doing this, they switched the focus and resources from protecting the 1% vulnerable Victorians to locking down and controlling the 99% of Victorians who would have never been adversely affected by the virus. Governments all over the world followed suit, resulting in the near destruction of the global economy. The virus did not create this situation, the actions of the governments did. Does Scott Morrison think we will accept his sweeping statement, now that so much real data to the contrary is available? The reason the Government is planning to coerce us into taking this vaccine, is because many of us are justifiably worried about it and have said are opposed to taking it. We have previously written about the risks in this article. Essentially, we are talking about gene altering technology which ethicists and life scientists have been warning about for decades, messing with our immune system of all things. Auto immune diseases are on the rise in western countries and are not properly understood. How do we know that this rushed to market vaccine will not detrimentally impact the way our bodies will fight other diseases and viruses? Also, what happens when another vaccine is injected on top of this – are we expected to have another mRNA vaccine in the future for something else? If so, how many viruses are we supposed to carry in our cells “just in case”, and where are the studies showing that this is safe and effective in both the long and short term? Scott Morrison waves off concerns with statements like the vaccine “will be fully tested” and at the same time has exempted all of the Australian vaccine manufacturers from liability for injuries relating to these rushed to market products, and in the case of AstraZeneca, from providing the usual requirement of safety data for 6 years after the initial doses are administered in 2021. There is talk about “valid” medical exemptions but the list is extremely limited. There are thousands of stories here on VCA and on other networks, about how lives have been destroyed through vaccine injury. The Australian government under Scott Morrison is attacking one of our most precious freedoms; that of control over our own bodies. He knows it is unlawful to mandate vaccinations but seeks to achieve a pseudo mandate with these proposed new measures. These are not trivial measures; they are draconian in their reach and their impact. All to supposedly “protect” us, when not one vaccine can ever deliver the results against Covid 19 that a healthy immune system can. One cannot help wondering what the purpose of the vaccine really is. Where there is risk, there must ALWAYS be choice - free from coercion with complete informed consent. |
AuthorOur articles and rebuttal pieces are written by our writers on our volunteer team Archives
April 2023
Categories |
RSS Feed
