The increasing hesitancy of older people to get vaccinated against the SARS-2 virus with the Oxford Astra Zeneca vaccine must be seen as an entirely rational response to the reported dangers from TTS blood clots – which no-one can deny are a reaction to this vaccine. Public confidence in it, already failing following the death of a healthy 52 year old woman, has just taken another hit with a change in recommendation on the age group eligible for the alternative treatment – Pfizer-Biontech’s mRNA “vaccine”. Previously limited to those under 50, for whom the danger of TTS is considered greater in comparison with the risk of serious illness or death from COVID disease, AZ is now advised against for those under 60, except for the second shot.
But people’s perception of risk is very subjective; assurances that the follow-up shot of AZ for those under 60 carries a risk only 10% of the first shot are likely to fail, particularly as most people can see the current danger from the SARS-2 virus in Australia is next to zero, so subjecting oneself to any unnecessary danger is illogical. Many of them are however under the false impression that Pfizer’s mRNA treatment is preferable, both in efficacy and safety for the simple reason that no-one has ever suggested otherwise. They wrongly assume that were there any serious side effects from the novel and experimental mRNA treatment, the “authorities” would have told them. Perhaps also no-one asks, for fear that this alternative route to “freedom and safety” might be blocked, or at least not without risk.
Naturally enough too, there is a general belief that so many millions of people around the world have been vaccinated with both Pfizer’s and Moderna’s mRNA vaccines that we would surely have heard about it by now if many had suffered side-effects or even died. It remains one of the most baffling and problematic features of the whole “Scamdemic”, that so many scientists and commentators and leaders have simply swallowed the whole story of the genetically engineered SARS-CoV-2 virus, its dangers and treatment exactly as it has been fed to them by Dr Anthony Fauci and the WHO. And part of this story is in believing that anyone with a contrary viewpoint is mistaken and deluded, and worse – an enemy of society.
These people – “COVID-sceptics” we might call them – are nevertheless in their millions, and now with hundreds of serious scientists to back them up. Three such scientists recently discussed together all aspects of the Pandemic, the nature of the virus, and the mechanism of action and dangers of the novel vaccines, as well as the effective alternative treatments using cheap anti-virals. The whole discussion is hugely enlightening, if three hours long – but with a timeline index below to select different topics covered. Or was – YouTube has now removed it for infringing community standards. I hope it may appear on another platform. But one of the participants, Steve Kirsch, has put together much of the data they discussed on this page.
While Kirsch’s document is comprehensive and detailed, his essential points are summarised in my points in the poster, though specifically focused on the Pfizer mRNA treatment. Although the Oxford Astra Zeneca vaccine is also a novel type, and with its own surprising and unpredicted dangers, the long term consequences of mRNA treatments are the most serious concern – and one which is being swept under the carpet. This is happening despite the clear knowledge of such potential dangers by many involved in promoting the vaccination, as the lack of long term studies and testing on animals is highly irregular and only justified as “emergency authorisation”. As it was related last year in a small cartoon featuring a conversation between two rats – 1st Rat: “Are you going to get the vaccine?” 2nd Rat: “No, I’m waiting for the results of the human trials”.
So to summarise my points above:
UNSAFE. The statistics from VAERS – the US reporting system for vaccine side effects – has estimated around 5000 deaths following vaccination, reported by doctors who considered there was a causal link. While some of these deaths, like those attributed to COVID19, may be purely coincidental, the incidence of unusual conditions related to immune reactions – such as TTS from the AZ vaccine – must be admitted as “highly likely” to be the consequence of vaccination, particularly where these effects occur in previously healthy and younger people. Specifically the serious disease and deaths from myocardial and pericardial inflammation observed in younger men is recognised as a consequence of Pfizer vaccination in recent studies. Also significant if not deadly is the apparent stimulation of dormant viral infections like Herpes Zoster, or the possibility of resurgence of cancers in remission. Of even greater concern are the potential long term dangers of the “gene therapy” from its effects on reproductive organs and in pregnant women – for which there is considerable anecdotal evidence. Those sceptical of these figures should consider whether the claims mRNA vaccines are absolutely safe are any more valid. In addition, comparative risk must always be evaluated, particularly in Australia and for this virus, whose age-related death profile is so strikingly skewed towards the old and sick. The chance of dying from COVID 19 disease for a healthy 25 year old is minuscule, and for a child is non-existent. Any danger from vaccination in these groups should preclude their treatment.
UNTESTED. The randomised control trial of the Pfizer-Biontech mRNA vaccine involved 22,000 participants in each of the treatments – placebo vs two-shot vaccination – and was conducted in six countries on a range of ages of healthy subjects, excluding pregnant women and children, and adults over 75. Despite millions of people now being given the vaccine, the results of this trial remained the only reliable source of scientific evidence, where long-term safety data might be distinguished. The ongoing study is however threatened as participants want to know if they have had the vaccine or not, and such knowledge would likely influence their behaviour. As it was, at the end of Stage 3 when results were first released only 110 participants had tested positive to SARS-2 infection, but 105 of these were in the un-vaccinated group. The estimate of the drug’s efficacy was then based on the assumption that it had prevented 105 infections – with only 5 participants in the vaccinated group testing positive for the viral infection.
INEFFECTIVE. Given the statistical variability in the trial, it is not surprising that the actual efficacy of the Pfizer mRNA treatment in preventing SARS-2 infection appears less than its claimed 95%, remembering also that the trial subjects were from a limited population. It is also necessary to compare the vaccines’ efficacy against that obtained by contracting the disease from one’s own immune system, understanding that very few cases of serious disease have occurred in younger age groups or in those with healthy immune systems and no other health problems. Natural immunity must be accepted as generally preferable to that from vaccination, being more broadly based and effective against “new variants” of the same virus – as well as free of dangerous side-effects. The idea of a “holistic” health approach to this virus disease seems to have been forgotten or ignored by most Western health agencies. The apparent suppression of advocacy for “natural” treatments – notably Vitamin D and C – which have been widely used in some countries, has combined with an orchestrated fear campaign over the dangers of contracting the infection. It should be remembered that never before has there been a serious disease which was often so mild that it was only possible to know you had it by submitting to an expensive and highly technical test. The RT-PCR test can also be made so sensitive that it registers as positive people who are not infectious or “symptomatic”. Meanwhile, many cases are arising where vaccinated people are still becoming infected, and apparently passing it on – even in Australia with cases only in double figures.
UNNECESSARY. It is tantamount to treason to claim that vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 is currently unnecessary in Australia, and such a viewpoint cannot be expressed on social media platforms or generally in public. Yet the argument is substantial, and would be hard to counter. Not only are the two vaccines currently available in Australia only partly effective against infection and COVID disease, but the chance of being exposed to infection is absolutely minimal. Despite the constant pronouncements from authorities that this or that variant is “highly infectious”, all the recent minor escapes from quarantine have remained restricted to close contacts in family and workplaces with few exceptions, while hundreds of thousands of tests from public “exposure sites” have yielded almost zero positive cases. In view of this, a logical risk assessment – of the danger of serious illness or death from COVID infection compared with the similar danger from both vaccines on offer would conclude that the dangers from vaccination are too great and cannot be justified. Should unforeseen and serious side effects become apparent in months or years to come, health authorities might realise the truth of this, but too late. As with Thalidomide, such miscalculations can be game-changing, so the warnings should not be dismissed.
THE ALTERNATIVE. There IS an alternative, both to vaccination and to taking ones chance with “natural therapies” against this novel virus, whose characteristics and behavior are still not fully known and which may be changing in various directions. Contrary to so much that has been and continues to be written in all Western media and some non-Western media, there are two highly effective anti-viral drugs which effectively cure COVID infection, even in its later stages, and also are prophylactic against it. Both have been widely used in certain countries, and where their dramatic effect has been apparent on the course of the SARS-2 epidemic and its lethality. But both have also been subject to concerted campaigns by governments and their health authorities and media, to denigrate them and prohibit them. It is these campaigns – against Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin – which have made the drugs notorious, along with the advocacy for their use from Presidents Trump and Bolsonaro, whose common sense so offended us. So just a few words about these two cheap, safe and out-of-patent drugs.
Hydroxychloroquine was one of the first anti-virals to be tested on Coronavirus patients, and found effective particularly when given early – preventing the infection progressing beyond the upper respiratory tract. A small but highly significant trial conducted by French Professor Didier Raoult became the touchstone for the treatment, when French authorities and Pharmaceutical company mates saw it banned. There is a reasonable argument to be made that the development of vaccines would never have been necessary had HCQ been widely used to treat outpatients, keeping them out of hospitals and free of serious disease. The same applies to Ivermectin, whose general effectiveness against the novel Coronavirus is possibly even greater than HCQ, and is also cheap and in widespread use for other health problems in the lower-income countries. Ivermectin has been held responsible for controlling and bringing down the recent wave of infections in India, being very widely prescribed by doctors despite the WHO’s chief scientist advising against it. DYOC. Both these drugs have been combined with Azithromycin and Zinc as a complete treatment and cure for “COVID disease”.
In our current situation in Australia, where we actually face the same problem as we did 15 months ago, as there is no immunity to the virus in the population, and even if we were all vaccinated would evidently still be at risk, these two anti-viral drugs offer the best solution. For most people under 50, no treatment is necessary as symptoms are mild or non-existent, demonstrating a normal immune response to the virus. For older people with a weaker immune system or other health conditions, taking an anti-viral as a prophylactic in the event of a local outbreak could be advised, and taking a short course following symptoms of infection. This should be accompanied by Zinc, as both drugs act by facilitating the entry of Zinc into the cells, where it acts as an inhibitor of viral multiplication. This treatment is actually preferable to the available vaccines, whose mode of action resembles that of the virus itself in provoking a dangerous antibody reaction, and is also more specific and limited to certain strains or variants of the SARS virus. Steve Kirsch and his colleagues also strongly believe that features of the genetically engineered virus may endanger health in different ways, so preventing serious disease is advisable. There is no longer any doubt that the SARS-2 virus was engineered, and developed primarily in a US bioweapons lab. The research was only moved to Wuhan after it was banned in the US, but was still funded and supported by NIAID and Dr Anthony Fauci. Nevertheless, we have more to fear from these men and their powerful and ruthless colleagues in the Health and Pharmaceutical industry than from the SARS-2 virus they unleashed on the world, and now seek to benefit from. The cure for the disease and the pandemic is available, but we must believe it and demand it.
DM June 20th 2021