9 mai 2021
A group of 57 leading scientists, doctors, and policy experts has released a report calling in to question the safety and efficacy of the current Covid-19 vaccines and are now calling for an immediate end to all vaccine programs.
This article was previously published on En-volve.com (feel free to share this report)
There are two certainties regarding the global distribution of Covid-19 vaccines. The first is that governments and the vast majority of the mainstream media are pushing with all their might to get these experimental drugs into as many people as possible. The second is that those who are willing to face the scorn that comes with asking serious questions about vaccines are critical players in our ongoing effort to spread the truth.
You can read an advanced copy of this manuscript in preprint below. It has been prepared by nearly five dozen highly respected doctors, scientists, and public policy experts from across the globe to be urgently sent to world leaders as well as all who are associated with the production and distribution of the various Covid-19 vaccines in circulation today.
There are still far too many unanswered questions regarding the Covid-19 vaccines’ safety, efficacy, and necessity. This study is a bombshell that should be heard by everyone, regardless of their views on vaccines. There aren’t nearly enough citizens who are asking questions. Most people simply follow the orders of world governments, as if they have earned our complete trust. They haven’t done so. This manuscript is a step forward in terms of accountability and the free flow of information on this crucial subject. Please take the time to read it and share it widely.
SARS-CoV-2 mass vaccination: Urgent questions on vaccine safety that demand answers from international health agencies, regulatory authorities, governments and vaccine developers
Roxana Bruno1, Peter McCullough2, Teresa Forcades i Vila3, Alexandra Henrion-Caude4, Teresa García-Gasca5, Galina P. Zaitzeva6, Sally Priester7, María J. Martínez Albarracín8, Alejandro Sousa-Escandon9, Fernando López Mirones10, Bartomeu Payeras Cifre11, Almudena Zaragoza Velilla10, Leopoldo M. Borini1, Mario Mas1, Ramiro Salazar1, Edgardo Schinder1, Eduardo A Yahbes1, Marcela Witt1, Mariana Salmeron1, Patricia Fernández1, Miriam M. Marchesini1, Alberto J. Kajihara1, Marisol V. de la Riva1, Patricia J. Chimeno1, Paola A. Grellet1, Matelda Lisdero1, Pamela Mas1, Abelardo J. Gatica Baudo12, Elisabeth Retamoza12, Oscar Botta13, Chinda C. Brandolino13, Javier Sciuto14, Mario Cabrera Avivar14, Mauricio Castillo15, Patricio Villarroel15, Emilia P. Poblete Rojas15, Bárbara Aguayo15, Dan I. Macías Flores15, Jose V. Rossell16, Julio C. Sarmiento17, Victor Andrade-Sotomayor17, Wilfredo R. Stokes Baltazar18, Virna Cedeño Escobar19, Ulises Arrúa20, Atilio Farina del Río21, Tatiana Campos Esquivel22, Patricia Callisperis23, María Eugenia Barrientos24, Karina Acevedo-Whitehouse5,*
1Epidemiólogos Argentinos Metadisciplinarios. República Argentina.
2Baylor University Medical Center. Dallas, Texas, USA.
3Monestir de Sant Benet de Montserrat, Montserrat, Spain
4INSERM U781 Hôpital Necker-Enfants Malades, Université Paris Descartes-Sorbonne Cité, Institut Imagine, Paris, France.
5School of Natural Sciences. Autonomous University of Querétaro, Querétaro, Mexico.
6Retired Professor of Medical Immunology. Universidad de Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico.
7Médicos por la Verdad Puerto Rico. Ashford Medical Center. San Juan, Puerto Rico.
8Retired Professor of Clinical Diagnostic Processes. University of Murcia, Murcia, Spain
9Urologist Hospital Comarcal de Monforte, University of Santiago de Compostela, Spain.
10Biólogos por la Verdad, Spain.
11Retired Biologist. University of Barcelona. Specialized in Microbiology. Barcelona, Spain.
12Center for Integrative Medicine MICAEL (Medicina Integrativa Centro Antroposófico Educando en Libertad). Mendoza, República Argentina.
13Médicos por la Verdad Argentina. República Argentina. ´
14Médicos por la Verdad Uruguay. República Oriental del Uruguay.
15Médicos por la Libertad Chile. República de Chile.
16Physician, orthopedic specialist. República de Chile.
17Médicos por la Verdad Perú. República del Perú.
18Médicos por la Verdad Guatemala. República de Guatemala.
19Concepto Azul S.A. Ecuador.
20Médicos por la Verdad Brasil. Brasil.
21Médicos por la Verdad Paraguay.
22Médicos por la Costa Rica.
23Médicos por la Verdad Bolivia.
24Médicos por la Verdad El Salvador.
* Correspondence: Karina Acevedo-Whitehouse, karina.acevedo.whitehouse@uaq.mx
Abstract
Since the start of the COVID-19 outbreak, the race for testing new platforms designed to confer immunity against SARS-CoV-2, has been rampant and unprecedented, leading to emergency authorization of various vaccines. Despite progress on early multidrug therapy for COVID-19 patients, the current mandate is to immunize the world population as quickly as possible. The lack of thorough testing in animals prior to clinical trials, and authorization based on safety data generated during trials that lasted less than 3.5 months, raise questions regarding the safety of these vaccines. The recently identified role of SARS-CoV-2 glycoprotein Spike for inducing endothelial damage characteristic of COVID-19, even in absence of infection, is extremely relevant given that most of the authorized vaccines induce the production of Spike glycoprotein in the recipients. Given the high rate of occurrence of adverse effects, and the wide range of types of adverse effects that have been reported to date, as well as the potential for vaccine-driven disease enhancement, Th2-immunopathology, autoimmunity, and immune evasion, there is a need for a better understanding of the benefits and risks of mass vaccination, particularly in the groups that were excluded in the clinical trials. Despite calls for caution, the risks of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination have been minimized or ignored by health organizations and government authorities. We appeal to the need for a pluralistic dialogue in the context of health policies, emphasizing critical questions that require urgent answers if we wish to avoid a global erosion of public confidence in science and public health.
Introduction
Since COVID-19 was declared a pandemic in March 2020, over 150 million cases and 3 million deaths have been reported worldwide. Despite progress on early ambulatory, multidrug-therapy for high-risk patients, resulting in 85% reductions in COVID-19 hospitalization and death [1], the current paradigm for control is mass-vaccination. While we recognize the effort involved in development, production and emergency authorization of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, we are concerned that risks have been minimized or ignored by health organizations and government authorities, despite calls for caution [2-8].
Vaccines for other coronaviruses have never been approved for humans, and data generated in the development of coronavirus vaccines designed to elicit neutralizing antibodies show that they may worsen COVID-19 disease via antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) and Th2 immunopathology, regardless of the vaccine platform and delivery method [9-11]. Vaccine-driven disease enhancement in animals vaccinated against SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV is known to occur following viral challenge, and has been attributed to immune complexes and Fc-mediated viral capture by macrophages, which augment T-cell activation and inflammation [11-13].
In March 2020, vaccine immunologists and coronavirus experts assessed SARS-CoV-2 vaccine risks based on SARS-CoV-vaccine trials in animal models. The expert group concluded that ADE and immunopathology were a real concern, but stated that their risk was insufficient to delay clinical trials, although continued monitoring would be necessary [14]. While there is no clear evidence of the occurrence of ADE and vaccine-related immunopathology in volunteers immunized with SARS-CoV-2 vaccines [15], safety trials to date have not specifically addressed these serious adverse effects (SAE). Given that the follow-up of volunteers did not exceed 2-3.5 months after the second dose [16-19], it is unlikely such SAE would have been observed. Despite92 errors in reporting, it cannot be ignored that even accounting for the number of vaccines administered, according to the US Vaccine Adverse Effect Reporting System (VAERS), the number of deaths per million vaccine doses administered has increased more than 10-fold. We believe there is an urgent need for open scientific dialogue on vaccine safety in the context of large-scale immunization. In this paper, we describe some of the risks of mass vaccination in the context of phase 3 trial exclusion criteria and discuss the SAE reported in national and regional adverse effect registration systems. We highlight unanswered questions and draw attention to the need for a more cautious approach to mass vaccination.
SARS-CoV-2 phase 3 trial exclusion criteria
With few exceptions, SARS-CoV-2 vaccine trials excluded the elderly [16-19], making it impossible to identify the occurrence of post-vaccination eosinophilia and enhanced inflammation in elderly people. Studies of SARS-CoV vaccines showed that immunized elderly mice were at particularly high risk of life-threatening Th2 immunopathology [9,20]. Despite this evidence and the extremely limited data on safety and efficacy of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in the elderly, mass-vaccination campaigns have focused on this age group from the start. Most trials also excluded pregnant and lactating volunteers, as well as those with chronic and serious conditions such as tuberculosis, hepatitis C, autoimmunity, coagulopathies, cancer, and immune suppression [16-29], although these recipients are now being offered the vaccine under the premise of safety.
Another criterion for exclusion from nearly all trials was prior exposure to SARS-CoV-2. This is unfortunate as it denied the opportunity of obtaining extremely relevant information concerning post-vaccination ADE in people that already have anti-SARS-Cov-2 antibodies. To the best of our knowledge, ADE is not being monitored systematically for any age or medical condition group currently being administered the vaccine. Moreover, despite a substantial proportion of the population already having antibodies [21], tests to determine SARS-CoV-2-antibody status prior to administration of the vaccine are not conducted routinely.
Will serious adverse effects from the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines go unnoticed?
COVID-19 encompasses a wide clinical spectrum, ranging from very mild to severe pulmonary pathology and fatal multi-organ disease with inflammatory, cardiovascular, and blood coagulation dysregulation [22-24]. In this sense, cases of vaccine-related ADE or immunopathology would be clinically-indistinguishable from severe COVID-19 [25]. Furthermore, even in the absence of SARS-CoV-2 virus, Spike glycoprotein alone causes endothelial damage and hypertension in vitro and in vivo in Syrian hamsters by down-regulating angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and impairing mitochondrial function [26]. Although these findings need to be confirmed in humans, the implications of this finding are staggering, as all vaccines authorized for emergency use are based on the delivery or induction of Spike glycoprotein synthesis. In the case of mRNA vaccines and adenovirus-vectorized vaccines, not a single study has examined the duration of Spike production in humans following vaccination. Under the cautionary principle, it is parsimonious to consider vaccine-induced Spike synthesis could cause clinical signs of severe COVID-19, and erroneously be counted as new cases of SARS-CoV-2 infections. If so, the true adverse effects of the current global vaccination strategy may never be recognized unless studies specifically examine this question. There is already non-causal evidence of temporary or sustained increases138 in COVID-19 deaths following vaccination in some countries (Fig. 1) and in light of Spike’s pathogenicity, these deaths must be studied in depth to determine whether they are related to vaccination.
Unanticipated adverse reactions to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines
Another critical issue to consider given the global scale of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination is autoimmunity. SARS-CoV-2 has numerous immunogenic proteins, and all but one of its immunogenic epitopes have similarities to human proteins [27]. These may act as a source of antigens, leading to autoimmunity [28]. While it is true that the same effects could be observed during natural infection with SARS-CoV-2, vaccination is intended for most of the world population, while it is estimated that only 10% of the world population has been infected by SARS-CoV-2, according to Dr. Michael Ryan, head of emergencies at the World Health Organization. We have been unable to find evidence that any of the currently authorized vaccines screened and excluded homologous immunogenic epitopes to avoid potential autoimmunity due to pathogenic priming.
Some adverse reactions, including blood-clotting disorders, have already been reported in healthy and young vaccinated people. These cases led to the suspension or cancellation of the use of adenoviral vectorized ChAdOx1-nCov-19 and Janssen vaccinesin some countries. It has now been proposed that vaccination with ChAdOx1-nCov-19 can result in immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT) mediated by platelet-activating antibodies against Platelet factor-4, which clinically mimics autoimmune heparin-induced thrombocytopenia [29]. Unfortunately, the risk was overlooked when authorizing these vaccines, although adenovirus-induced thrombocytopenia has been known for more than a decade, and has been a consistent event with adenoviral vectors [30]. The risk of VITT would presumably be higher in those already at risk of blood clots, including women who use oral contraceptives [31], making it imperative for clinicians to advise their patients accordingly.
At the population level, there could also be vaccine-related impacts. SARS-CoV-2 is a fast-evolving RNA virus that has so far produced more than 40,000 variants [32,33] some of which affect the antigenic domain of Spike glycoprotein [34,35]. Given the high mutation rates, vaccine-induced synthesis of high levels of anti-SARS-CoV-2-Spike antibodies could theoretically lead to suboptimal responses against subsequent infections by other variants in vaccinated individuals [36], a phenomenon known as “original antigenic sin” [37] or antigenic priming [38]. It is unknown to what extent mutations that affect SARS-CoV-2 antigenicity will become fixed during viral evolution [39], but vaccines could plausibly act as selective forces driving variants with higher infectivity or transmissibility. Considering the high similarity between known SARS-CoV-2 variants, this scenario is unlikely [32,34] but if future variants were to differ more in key epitopes, the global vaccination strategy might have helped shape an even more dangerous virus. This risk has recently been brought to the attention of the WHO as an open letter [40].
Discussion
The risks outlined here are a major obstacle to continuing global SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. Evidence on the safety of all SARS-CoV-2 vaccines is needed before exposing more people to the184 risk of these experiments, since releasing a candidate vaccine without time to fully understand the resulting impact on health could lead to an exacerbation of the current global crisis [41]. Risk-stratification of vaccine recipients is essential. According to the UK government, people below 60 years of age have an extremely low risk of dying from COVID-191 187 . However, according to Eudravigillance, most of the serious adverse effects following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination occur in people aged 18-64. Of particular concern is the planned vaccination schedule for children aged 6 years and older in the United States and the UK. Dr. Anthony Fauci recently anticipated that teenagers across the country will be vaccinated in the autumn and younger children in early 2022, and the UK is awaiting trial results to commence vaccination of 11 million children under 18. There is a lack of scientific justification for subjecting healthy children to experimental vaccines, given that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that they have a 99.997% survival rate if infected with SARS-CoV-2. Not only is COVID-19 irrelevant as a threat to this age group, but there is no reliable evidence to support vaccine efficacy or effectiveness in this population or to rule out harmful side effects of these experimental vaccines. In this sense, when physicians advise patients on the elective administration of COVID-19 vaccination, there is a great need to better understand the benefits and risk of administration, particularly in understudied groups.
In conclusion, in the context of the rushed emergency-use-authorization of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, and the current gaps in our understanding of their safety, the following questions must be raised:
- Is it known whether cross-reactive antibodies from previous coronavirus infections or vaccine206 induced antibodies may influence the risk of unintended pathogenesis following vaccination with COVID-19?
- Has the specific risk of ADE, immunopathology, autoimmunity, and serious adverse reactions been clearly disclosed to vaccine recipients to meet the medical ethics standard of patient understanding for informed consent? If not, what are the reasons, and how could it be implemented?
- What is the rationale for administering the vaccine to every individual when the risk of dying from COVID-19 is not equal across age groups and clinical conditions and when the phase 3 trials excluded the elderly, children and frequent specific conditions?
- What are the legal rights of patients if they are harmed by a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine? Who will cover the costs of medical treatment? If claims were to be settled with public money, has the public been made aware that the vaccine manufacturers have been granted immunity, and their responsibility to compensate those harmed by the vaccine has been transferred to the tax-payers?
In the context of these concerns, we propose halting mass-vaccination and opening an urgent pluralistic, critical, and scientifically-based dialogue on SARS-CoV-2 vaccination among scientists, medical doctors, international health agencies, regulatory authorities, governments, and vaccine developers. This is the only way to bridge the current gap between scientific evidence and public health policy regarding the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. We are convinced that humanity deserves a deeper understanding of the risks than what is currently touted as the official position. An open scientific dialogue is urgent and indispensable to avoid erosion of public confidence in science and public health and to ensure that the WHO and national health authorities protect the interests of humanity during the current pandemic. Returning public health policy to evidence-based medicine, relying on a careful evaluation of the relevant scientific research, is urgent. It is imperative to follow the science.
Conflict of Interest Statement
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
References
Read more ….
https://newsvoice.se/2021/05/57-scientists-study-covid-vaccinations/
If you like our work, please consider to donate:
First several school closed in the name of polluted atmosphere which was real ,people were suggested to were doublemask when less oxygen is outside ,there was less then 21%of oxygen ,that make some people serious to wear mask even in home .result lack of oxygen..
LikeLike
Thanks for they research, and whilling for more good and real información.
LikeLike
Uma excelente matéria sobre as pesquisas das vacinas, espero por mais no mesmo nível. Obrigado
LikeLike
We are being forced at mercy to take the vaccine or we will be fired II go against the vaccine the vaccine what is there that we can do
LikeLike
Lawsuits. And please be aware that we need to “teach the court” while prosecuting our lawsuits. There is so much mis- and disinformation on the subject.
For instance, how many are aware of the distinctions between SARSCoV2 vs COVID-19? That is critical as it has been affecting our public policies. In addition, what about natural immunity, in which peer-reviewed articles are now supporting “Immunology 101″…better resistance. And the variants are, excuse me, almost invariably weaker– transmission is easier with a weaker virus (too much to explain that seemingly contradictory statment here). The mortality (death) rates are already showing this to be true. Here’s one example of misleading and fearmongering: You can look up this headline last month, goes something like “Nine vaccinated NY Yankees test positive for Covid”. First error, Covid is diagnosed, not tested; they were tested for the virus (think of HIV is to AIDS and SARS2 is to COVID). They did NOT have COVID because none were sick, so the vaccine was doing what it was supposed to do (leaving the vax problems discussed herein aside). I could go on, but you get the picture.
[I do make mistakes, but at the risk of sounding pretentious, I have 2 Covid treatment patents pending and a recently FDA approved cancer treatment vaccine going into patients at a NCI-Designated Cancer Center (for adenocarcinomas; about 45% of all cancers)].
LikeLike
@ Sandra McKenney, Didn’t mean for it to be “Anonymous” in post below (or above?), but I can’t seem to repair this. But its McihaelB
LikeLike
The one statement, that proves this situation to harm and kill with a manufactored virus is true, is the fact that those responsible have covered their own backsides so to speak and protected the manufactorers of these vaccines and drugs, taking away their CLEAR RESPONSIBILITY, and to add INSULT TO INJURY they have passed the costs of it all to the electorate who are like me n you, the ones who are catching it and losing friends and loved ones from it, that alone shows only corruption at very high levels of society, it makes people guilty of either pre meditated murder or just plain eugenics.
In my opinion, these individuals should be subjected to international Law, the full weight of it in human rights courts to answer for their clear violations, and also should stand trial for high treason in their respective countries
LikeLike
“Top Scientists.” Riiiiight.
LikeLike
Well hello Chad. You said riiiight. So they aren’t top scientists? What do you know that we don’t
LikeLike
Not one freaking thing! He’s a mouthpiece for the ultra-left vax crowd.
LikeLike
Would like to have read this and understood it better with explanations to medical terms for those of us who do not have a medical degree. I am college degreed but am trying to decide if I will get the vaccine or not as many of my friends and family and neighbors have contracted it, and I have personally known 10 who have died from it. I am a researcher, but I found this only written for the medically knowledgeable.
LikeLike
I actually looked up the credentials on some of them.. They are what they say they are….at least these were. If people want to take it, I’m fine with that. But, If I do not want to take an experimental vaccine, I should be able to do that too. What makes un-vaccinated people a risk to the vaccinated anyway? Vaccinated people can transmit the new Delta Variant just like the un-vaccinated…no difference. And, they can get the Delta Variant and they can die from the Delta Variant. So now, I don’t see the benefits of taking it outweighing the dangers of taking it. I feel like this is a personal choice.
LikeLike
Many areas of science, including epidemiology and other health sciences, involve both inherent randomness (aleatory variations) as well as uncertainties owing to limited data and knowledge (leading also to epistemic variations … a fancy term for differing views among the relevant informed technical communities [ITCs] of experts). How to rationally accommodate both sources of variation into properly exhaustive scientific studies that accurately convey the uncertainties of the ITC and can be applied in a robust policy framework tied explicitly to risk and safety metrics is well known from other regulated scientific fields (e.g., design of nuclear facilities for natural hazards considering the considerable randomness in hazardous events and uncertainties among the earth scientists and engineers).
Unfortunately, the process of pursuing multiple expert inputs needed to reasonably anticipate all possible COVID vaccine failure modes (side effects, inefficacies, etc.) has apparently been (and is yet being) thrown out the window in the case of governmental/political/social entities exercising their power (and views in favor of what I’ll call “power/forced-consensus science”) in imposing COVID-19 mandates, their risk-mitigation measures and their related (and consequentially flawed) policies.
What we have seen occur in relationship to many COVID policies looks to definitely not be the rational pursuit of science and the proper application of science in policy making.
The proper analysis, using many experts to develop the epistemic uncertainties, can certainly be done … and the article above suggests it should/must be done to truly manage public risk and safety properly and rationally. The key questions are: when will it be done?; and how severe will the societal cost become? …from application of (faux/forced) science and policy and power versus true science, which has to involve the freedom of exchange of informed views among the relevant ITCs in order to accurately assess uncertainties and account for these in truly rational and beneficial policy.
LikeLike
IS THERE ANY DOCTOR IN SYDNEY WHO CAN GIVE AN EXEMPTION FOR NOT GETTING VACCINATED?
LikeLike
What it all boils down to is choice. You can believe whatever science you like, but when you take away a persons choice as to what they put in their body….you have medical tyranny. What’s next? Medical sterilization? For the greater good nobody can have children for the next three decades? That’s called communism in case you’re not sure. Can it happen? Damn right it can….and already has!
LikeLike
This is a very interesting and I believe factual report. But, what if this worldwide rush to vaccinate everyone is sinister and being done for population control which has been eluded to my many?
LikeLike
Excellent!
LikeLike
Needing a Dr in southwest Nebraska or Northeastern Colorado. Soon as possible! Thanks
LikeLike