AstraZeneca Vaccine

This forum is to discuss general things concerning TSOI.
Post Reply
Posts: 2292
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2020 5:22 am

AstraZeneca Vaccine

Post by trader32176 »

We Need to Talk About the AstraZeneca Vaccine

For the moment, reports of a very rare, dangerous blood disorder among recipients cannot be ignored. ... ay/618451/

by Hilda Bastian

March 30, 2021

The AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine is indispensable right now. As one of the first vaccines out of the gate, it’s been at the center of the World Health Organization’s plan to roll out some 2 billion doses to 92 nations by the end of the year. It’s also one of just a handful of vaccines that are already being produced and distributed on such a massive scale that they might change the near-term course of the pandemic.

That’s why the past few weeks have felt so catastrophic.

The run of bad news might have seemed, at first, to be short-lived. Earlier this month, regulators in more than 20 European countries suspended distribution of the AstraZeneca vaccine. The English-language media cited scattered reports of “blood clots” in recipients as the reason. A few days later, though, the European Medicines Agency’s expert committee weighed in to recommend the vaccine’s continued use. With COVID-19 case rates surging across Europe and more than 3,000 deaths a day, the group concluded that its benefits far outweighed any known or potential risks.

Just that short pause sparked despair and condemnation. Commentators and public-health experts called it “stupid, harmful, “quite dangerous,” and a “magnificent example of European failure.” The problem, they said, was that the actual evidence of harm had been very weak—and maybe even nonexistent. Writing in The New York Times on March 22, Heidi Larson, the director of the Vaccine Confidence Project at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, noted that just 25 Europeans had developed blood clots, out of 20 million who received the AstraZeneca vaccine. That rate, she said, was lower than what you’d normally see among unvaccinated people. According to the statistician David Spiegelhalter, the furor over blood clots showed our “basic and often creative urge to find patterns even where none exist.”

None of these critics said that potential risks should be ignored. They argued instead that, given the available data, the known harms from COVID-19 were clearly many orders of magnitude more significant. The cost of losing time from a temporary pause in vaccination was therefore disproportionate and unbearable; worse, it was likely to exacerbate concerns among vaccine-wary Europeans. Indeed, close to 60 percent of French adults now say they have little or no confidence in the AstraZeneca vaccine; similar poll numbers are turning up in Germany, Italy, and Spain. As Larson suggested in her op-ed last week, the AstraZeneca vaccine may now be back in distribution in many places, but the drama has “heightened anxieties and increased hesitancy.” That effect could spread well beyond Europe, and beyond this particular vaccine.

But the challenges here are far deeper than this blizzard of commentary allows. The risk of a dangerous vaccine reaction could be very real, if also very rare—and major European vaccine authorities have not, in fact, been overcautious, political, or innumerate in responding to this possibility. Rather, they’ve been faced with something of a nightmare scenario for vaccine communication. We’re in the midst of a global public-health crisis, and regulators must address the possibility (still unproved) that perhaps one in every 1 million vaccinated people could have a potentially fatal drug reaction—as more than 1 million vaccine doses are being injected each day in Europe alone.

It seems as though anything the regulators say about this problem could serve to reduce trust in vaccination, and thus increase the toll of the pandemic. And yet if there does turn out to be a vaccine reaction, even a vanishingly infrequent one, keeping mum won’t make the problem go away. Indeed, it could serve to worsen the effects of the fearmongering about vaccines that will surely grow from here.

The reason for the pause was never quite as simple as the critics made it sound. The AstraZeneca vaccine was first authorized for use in Europe at the end of January, then rolled out slowly in February. On March 7, Austrian authorities announced an investigation of a death that was potentially vaccine-related. A few days later, the Danish Health Authority announced that it was investigating a death as well, and then the same thing happened in Norway. On March 15, Germany suspended use of the AstraZeneca vaccine pending the investigation of three deaths and four other incidents.

According to the German vaccine authority, the sixth and seventh reports there “put the number of observed cases well above the expected number.” All seven cases involved previously healthy people between ages 20 and 50. At that point, the German regulators advised the government that merely looking into this was not enough. If this weren’t a coincidence—and again, that remains an “if”—then in the course of an investigation, more young people who are not generally at risk of dying from COVID-19 could end up being put at risk by the vaccine. If the regulators were able to identify any clear risk factors for this outcome, the medical community and the general public would need to know as soon as possible.

Two days later, on March 17, Gretchen Vogel and Kai Kupferschmidt of Science magazine reported that, across Europe, there had been to that point at least seven deaths from a similar condition, and six other people treated, among the 17 million people who had received the AstraZeneca vaccine. All were healthy before they developed a highly unusual, seemingly contradictory mix of blood disorders: clots throughout the body along with low numbers of platelets, the blood cells that help clots form. In a follow-up article published on Saturday, Vogel and Kupferschmidt cited a German researcher who has named the syndrome “vaccine-induced prothrombotic immune thrombocytopenia,” or VIPIT. A hematologist from Johns Hopkins University told them he wasn’t yet convinced by the “vaccine-induced” part, but he acknowledged that “these cases raise concern that this vaccine is potentially life-threatening in a small subset of patients.”

By the time of Vogel and Kupferschmidt’s first article, though, the prothrombotic immune thrombocytopenia problem had already been recast in the English-language media as simply one of “blood clots.” Seen in that context, the decisions to suspend the AstraZeneca rollout were puzzling—and perhaps, as some maintained, driven more by emotions than by data. The European Medicines Agency had helped create this impression, starting with a press release on March 10. In its statement, the agency compared the number of vaccinated people who had blood clots with the baseline rate across the population. Commentators quickly zeroed in on that comparison, or a similar one from an AstraZeneca press release, which stated that the number of events “is much lower than would be expected to occur naturally in a general population of this size.”

These generic blood-clot data turned out to have little to do with the very specific, potential risks that several countries were confronting. The EMA said on March 18 that it had found, by then, a possible link to the AstraZeneca vaccine among 25 people who had developed the disturbing blood disorder, including nine who had died from it. All 25 had low platelet counts. Seven also had blood clots throughout their blood vessels—a condition known as disseminated intravascular coagulation, which showed up here at about five times the generally expected rate. The rest had blood clots that prevented blood from draining from their brain—a condition known as cerebral venous sinus thrombosis, which occurred at about nine times the expected rate. Also on March 18, the vaccine authority in the U.K. reported that it was investigating five cases of those cerebral clots in people with low platelets.

The original vaccination pause may be over in many countries, but investigations are continuing, and regulators around the world are taking further action. In France, for example, the National Agency for the Safety of Medicines and Health Products has identified nine cases of these blood disorders (including two deaths) out of 1.4 million injections, and described it as a vaccine reaction. In Australia, where there is, at the moment, essentially zero risk of COVID-19 infection, people who have had two very specific, rare blood disorders are now advised to defer any COVID-19 vaccination. Denmark’s health authority just extended its blanket hold on the AstraZeneca vaccine for three more weeks, and so did Norway’s. Since most cases have involved those under 50, several countries are limiting the vaccine’s use to older people as a way to mitigate the risk.

We still can’t be sure whether this blood disorder is triggered by vaccination, and we don’t know yet whether the risk—if it’s real—applies equally to all recipients, or only to a subset that might be predisposed. In light of these uncertainties, the balance here between vaccination’s costs and benefits is obvious. Given the present context of COVID-19 transmission throughout Europe, and even assuming the very worst about the risk that the AstraZeneca vaccine might pose, the shot will save many more lives per million doses than it could ever possibly end.

It should be just as obvious that health authorities cannot simply look the other way. For these sorts of blood disorders, early diagnosis and appropriate action might be crucial for saving lives. Rajiv Pruthi, a hematologist at the Mayo Clinic, points out that the standard treatment for a cerebral clot—a blood thinner called heparin—could make things worse for patients with this syndrome. At the very least, doctors must be kept informed about potential risks.

It’s certainly reassuring that so few safety issues have emerged from COVID-19 vaccination on a global scale. The AstraZeneca vaccine has not yet been approved for use in the U.S., but 145 million doses of other vaccines have been administered since December, and while lots of people have experienced headaches, fever, tiredness, and so on, according to the latest data from the CDC, reactions have almost always ended there. As is the case for vaccines in general, a small number of recipients—just a handful out of every million—have developed severe allergic reactions, which are easily treated. There’s zero indication, at this point, that the Moderna, Pfizer-BioNTech, or Johnson & Johnson vaccines have caused any deaths at all.

In other words, the fact that a potential safety issue has emerged for the AstraZeneca vaccine is itself a rare exception. As of now, the EMA is continuing to investigate the blood-related syndrome, and another expert-committee meeting on the subject was scheduled for yesterday. In the meantime, the agency has added a warning to the vaccine’s drug leaflet for the European Union. “Seek immediate medical attention if you develop shortness of breath, chest pain, leg swelling, or persistent abdominal pain following vaccination,” it says. “Also, seek immediate medical attention if you experience after a few days severe or persistent headaches or blurred vision after vaccination, or experience skin bruising or pinpoint round spots beyond the site of vaccination.” Similar warnings have been issued in Canada and Australia.

Alerting people to that list of symptoms could save lives. But it might deter some people from vaccination. That’s why even cautious actions like the one taken by the EMA might be seen as dangerously misguided. Any move that shakes confidence in the AstraZeneca vaccine could lead to broader, global harms, warns Paul Offit, the director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. “While it’s easy to scare people, it’s very hard to unscare them," he told USA Today. “It creates the perception that these vaccines are dangerous.”

But how far should this logic go? Does it matter that other COVID-19 vaccines are on the market—even if they’re more expensive or in short supply? Should vaccine authorities adjust their approach to risk, with the goal of propping up the public’s trust? These questions have no simple answers, and we shouldn’t be surprised that highly qualified experts have come to different conclusions.

In fact, we saw something like the same debate unfold late last year, when AstraZeneca and Oxford University first announced their vaccine’s success in clinical trials. The data contained numerous, serious shortfalls: Instead of judging efficacy from a single, large, placebo-controlled trial, the Oxford team merged results from different studies carried out in different ways. The research was so problematic, in fact, that regulators could not agree on whether the vaccine’s demonstrated efficacy against symptomatic COVID-19 was closer to 70 percent, as England’s drug regulator decided, or in the low 60s, per the EMA.

The lack of better data was a deal breaker for some health authorities. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration, for example, decided to await results from a large, rigorous trial; Switzerland’s agency, Swissmedic, did the same. But regulators in Europe, along with those in many countries beyond the Continent, went the other way. The EMA recommended authorization of the AstraZeneca vaccine, announcing that “the conduct of studies was sub-optimal” but also that, “given the emergency situation,” the benefits of using it outweighed any risks.

In this case, the choice to loosen up paid off: The vaccine has reduced disease and death in recent months, and the more rigorous clinical-trial results—which have only just come in—showed an efficacy of 76 percent. But that doesn’t tell us how regulators should handle the possibility of dangerous reactions to the same vaccine that are too rare to show up in a clinical trial, even one with 32,000 participants. And to some extent, the narrative about those reactions is no longer in their hands.

Stories linking people’s deaths to vaccinations have been among the most popular vaccine-related stories on social media in recent months—and that was true long before there were any hints of a real association. Now that health authorities really are investigating a possible, fatal vaccine reaction, these narratives will increase their reach. The first face to be linked prominently to the blood disorders appeared on Facebook on March 22. More seem sure to follow.

It may be that at some point soon a non-vaccine cause will be established, or treatments will render the condition manageable. Until that happens, though, regulators must do their best to maintain calm, perspective, and transparency. Imagine if they’d reacted more conservatively from the start, and waited to say or do anything until the number of people who turned up with this condition had reached into the hundreds. More people would have been vaccinated along the way, but the eventual loss of trust in the monitoring system for vaccines could have been far more severe. Addressing concerns about vaccines is a long game, and the biggest challenges will come much later on, when all the eager people have been immunized and it’s time to persuade the holdouts.

There are clear precedents for communicating effectively about very rare vaccine reactions. An ordinary flu shot, for example, may cause a tiny number of recipients—just one or two per million—to develop an autoimmune disorder called Guillain-Barré syndrome. The CDC describes this link as being “variable and inconsistent,” but the slightly squishy facts are not concealed from the public.

We can recognize the painful ambiguity and uncertainty here, and steer clear of judging the decisions made by health authorities in different countries. While the controversy about European suspensions of the vaccine raged, a poll in Germany found that a narrow majority—54 percent—believed putting the vaccine on hold was the right decision. Norway’s minister of health said that his constituents expected the government to do as it had promised, which was to be transparent about any problems. If the vaccine regulators are out of step with their communities’ values, transparency will enable them to calibrate. They aren’t being stupid. To argue otherwise invents an easy answer to a nearly impossible conundrum—and withers public confidence in authorities at the moment when we need it most.

Hilda Bastian is a scientist, writer, and founding member of the Cochrane Collaboration. She was formerly the editor of the PubMed Health project at the National Library of Medicine.
Posts: 2292
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2020 5:22 am

Re: AstraZeneca Vaccine

Post by trader32176 »

Deadly Blood Clots Caused by COVID-19 Vaccine

March 30, 2021 ... 1119931547

Story at-a-glance

As of March 16, 2021, 19 European countries plus Thailand had suspended the use of AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine, either in full or in part, following reports of deadly blood clots
Doctors at Oslo University Hospital have announced the blood clots suffered by three recipients of the AstraZeneca vaccine were in fact caused by the vaccine
According to professor Pål Andre Holme, chief physician at Oslo University Hospital, “Nothing but the vaccine can explain why these individuals had this immune response”
By March 22, 2021, the Norwegian Medicines Agency had received reports of another two lethal blood clots post-vaccination. The agency said they “cannot rule out that these cases may have a connection with the AstraZeneca vaccine”
German investigators believe the blood clots are due to an immune response that triggers thrombosis (blood clots) by activating platelets. The effects are similar to heparin-induced thrombocytopenia type 2, in which antibodies against a protein complex are formed in connection with heparin, which in turn respond to a receptor on the platelets.

As of March 16, 2021, 19 European countries plus Thailand1 had suspended the use of AstraZeneca’s vaccine, either in full or in part, following reports of deadly blood clots.2,3 March 2, 2021, The Defender reported4 U.K. data showing the AstraZeneca vaccine was responsible for 77% more adverse events and 25% more deaths than the Pfizer vaccine, which in the U.S. has been connected with a majority of death reports in the Vaccine Adverse Reporting System (VAERS).

AstraZeneca’s vaccine has received emergency use authorization in Europe but not in the U.S., where the Pfizer, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson vaccines are available. Contrary to the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines, the AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson vaccines use a viral vector to deliver double-stranded DNA for the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein into your cells.5

Business Insider has created a comparison chart6 of the four vaccines — Moderna, Pfizer, AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson — currently available in the U.S. and Europe.

Norway Links Lethal Blood Clots to AstraZeneca Vaccine

While virtually all post-vaccination deaths so far have been shrugged off as coincidence, even when occurring in healthy individuals in their 20s and 30s, doctors at Oslo University Hospital have now announced the blood clotting disorders experienced by some recipients of the AstraZeneca vaccine
are in fact caused by the vaccine.7

We have the reason. Nothing but the vaccine can explain why these individuals had this immune response. ~ Professor Pål Andre Holme, Oslo University Hospital

A March 18, 2021, article in Science Norway reads, in part:8

“’Our theory that this is a powerful immune response most likely triggered by the vaccine, has been confirmed,’ says professor and chief physician Pål Andre Holme. Three Norwegian health workers under the age of 50 have been hospitalized. One is dead …

‘In collaboration with experts in the field from the University Hospital of North Norway HF, we have found specific antibodies against blood platelets that can cause these reactions, and which we know from other fields of medicine, but then with medical drugs as the cause of the reaction,’ the chief physician explains …

When asked to clarify why he says ‘most likely’ in the quote, Holme confidently responds that the reason for these rare cases of blood clots has been found.

‘We have the reason. Nothing but the vaccine can explain why these individuals had this immune response,’ he states. [Norwegian national newspaper] VG also asks how Holme can know that the immune response is not caused by something other than the vaccine.

‘There is nothing in the patient history of these individuals that can give such a powerful immune response. I am confident that the antibodies that we have found are the cause, and I see no other explanation than it being the vaccine which triggers it,’ he responds.”

The three health workers reported acute pain, bleeding, low platelet counts and were found to have blood clots in “unusual places,” such as their stomachs and brains. Later that same day, March 18, 2021, the European Medicines Agency ruled the AstraZeneca vaccine is “safe and effective, despite some concerns over possible side effects,” CNBC reported,9 and that benefits of the vaccine outweigh the risks.

Meanwhile, March 22, 2021, Norway Today reported the Norwegian Medicines Agency had received two new reports of blood clots with deadly consequences following vaccination with the AstraZeneca vaccine. In a press release, the agency stated that “The Norwegian Medicines Agency cannot rule out that these cases may have a connection with the AstraZeneca vaccine.”10 One of the two victims was a health care worker.

German Experts Weigh In

A March 19, 2021, German Spektrum article11 reviews preliminary findings by German investigators, which add further weight to Holme’s findings in Norway. It reads, in part (translation from German using

“The effects of the suspended vaccinations with the AstraZeneca vaccine are believed to have been due to a particular immune response that activates platelets and thus triggers thrombosis. This preliminary conclusion is being made by a working group made up of Andreas Greinacher from the University Hospital Greifswald.

The effect corresponds in many details to a heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) type 2,12 in which antibodies against a protein complex are formed in connection with heparin, which in turn respond to a receptor on the platelets …

The team demonstrated the similarity of thrombosis with HIT in the blood of four patients with sinus vein thrombosis. Antibodies appear to form against a complex of heparin and the signaling molecule PF4, which in turn interact with the receptor CD32 of the platelets and thus activate them.

This triggers the clotting cascade, which leads to the thrombosis. The antibodies produced in the vaccinated individuals were very similar to those found in HIT, Greinacher said at a news conference. So far, however, it is still unclear where these antibodies come from, whether they form against the vaccine virus or the spike antigen or perhaps against a factor only involved in the immune response.”

According to Greinacher, people with a history of thrombosis probably do not have a higher risk of complications from the vaccine due to the mechanism of harm. He also points out that there is treatment against HIT, which the team believes “should also work in the case of the suspected vaccination side effect.”

Spektrum reports that, based on these findings, the Society for Thrombosis and Hemostasis Research suggests vaccinated individuals who experience thrombosis or neurological symptoms such as dizziness, headache or visual impairment on the fifth day post-vaccination and onward should be tested for HIT type 2.

The HIT type 2 test will detect antibodies against the heparin complex and, if positive, the Society recommends administering intravenous immunoglobulin G to prevent the activation of CD32 and interrupt the mechanism that results in thrombosis.

AstraZeneca Efficacy Data Being Questioned

March 22, 2021, AstraZeneca13 announced its Phase 3 U.S.-based trial showed the vaccine was 79% effective at preventing symptomatic cases of COVID-19 and 100% effective against severe or critical disease and hospitalization, with no increased risk for adverse effects compared to placebo.

According to The Associated Press,14 partial results from trials in the U.K, Brazil and South Africa — where a “manufacturing mistake” had led to some participants receiving only half of their first dose — suggested the vaccine was 70% effective.

The AP goes on to cite a number of individuals saying the U.S. results should allay concerns about the AstraZeneca vaccine.

That narrative broke apart the very next day, March 23, 2021, when the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) issued a statement15,16,17 first thing in the morning, saying the Data and Safety Monitoring board (DSMB) had notified them that AstraZeneca’s data may include “outdated information” that cast doubt on its effectiveness. As reported by The Defender:18

“Notably, in its most recent data, AstraZeneca neglected to include key information, such as the number of trial participants who developed ‘severe COVID.’ AstraZeneca President Ruud Dobber, during an interview on CNBC’s Squawk Box, said the number was ‘5,’ shortly after the data were released.”

“We urge the company to work with the DSMB to review the efficacy data and ensure the most accurate, up-to-date efficacy data be made public as quickly as possible,” the NIAID said in its statement.19

Dr. Anthony Fauci, who heads the NIAID and was one of the people quoted by the AP as saying the U.S. trial ought to put concerns to rest, went on the defensive, saying “This is really what you call an unforced error because the fact is, this is very likely a very good vaccine. If you look at it the data, they really are quite good, but when they put it into the press release, it wasn’t completely accurate.”20

AstraZeneca responded21 saying the data were based on a “pre-specified interim analysis with a data cut-off” of February 17, 2021, and promised to share more data with the independent review board.

In a Tweet,22 Francois Balloux, professor and director of the UCL Genetics Institute, called the NIAID’s statement “highly unusual,” noting it “comes close to accusing Oxford/AZ of having willfully misrepresented” some of its trial results.

Stephen Evans, professor of pharmacoepidemiology at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, called the NIAID’s statement “unprecedented,” as while the DSMB will “sometimes disagree with investigators over vaccine trial results,” they typically do so “in private,” not publicly.23

This isn’t the first time AstraZeneca has been challenged over its data handling, though. As reported by The Defender:24

“‘The way they handled their data early on, AstraZeneca basically shot themselves in the foot,’ Julian Tang, a virologist at the University of Leicester, said even before the latest issue arose.

AstraZeneca has received criticism over its studies since the first data released in the UK, which purported to show the vaccine was 70% effective, yet failed to account for a manufacturing mistake and didn’t include enough participants over 65 to determine efficacy among older patients …”

Full Throttle Forward Despite Risks

Despite concerns about data mishandling and two independent investigations finding a mechanism of harm, the World Health Organization and the European Medicines Agency are saying the AstraZeneca vaccine is good to go and urge countries to keep using it.

March 18, 2021, the EMA issued a press release25 giving the AstraZeneca the green-light, despite admitting it is associated with “very rare cases of blood clots associated with thrombocytopenia, i.e., low levels of blood platelets.” The justification, as usual, is that the benefits outweigh the risks.26,27,28

But do they? What exactly are the benefits? You can still contract the virus. You can still spread the virus. All it promises to do is lessen your symptoms when you get infected. Sure, the idea is that by lessening symptoms, you’ll reduce your risk of hospitalization and death, but lessening symptoms is not what a vaccine is supposed to do. A vaccine is supposed to make you immune to the disease in question, and none of the COVID-19 vaccines does that.

I’ve discussed this in previous articles, including “COVID-19 mRNA Shots Are Legally Not Vaccines,” “COVID-19 ‘Vaccines’ Are Gene Therapy” and “How COVID-19 ‘Vaccines’ May Destroy the Lives of Millions.”

What’s more, COVID-19 is really only a serious risk to the very old and people with two or more comorbidities. For the rest, its lethality is on par with the common flu.29,30,31,32,33 It may be different in terms of symptoms and complications, but the actual lethality is about the same.

Data34 have shown the overall noninstitutionalized infection fatality ratio for all age groups is 0.26%. If you’re under the age of 40, your risk of dying from COVID-19 if you get infected is just 0.01%.

Meanwhile, as reviewed in “COVID-19 Vaccine Tested on Babies Even as Death Toll Mounts,” the lethality rate of COVID-19 vaccines is somewhere between 0.0024% and 0.0028%, and that’s assuming all deaths are being reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), which is doubtful.

The key difference between being harmed or killed by COVID-19 and being harmed or killed by the vaccine is that the illness kills those who are old, sick and frail, while reports show the vaccine is killing young and healthy people. From my perspective, the argument that the vaccine benefits outweigh the risks simply does not hold water.

Side Effects 3X More Common in Those Previously Infected

In related news, according to researchers at King’s College, people who have already had COVID are three times more likely to experience vaccine side effects than those who have not been exposed to the virus, and this appears true for both mRNA and DNA versions of the vaccine.35

They gleaned this information from the college’s ZOE app, which has logged more than 700,000 vaccinations. According to that data, 35.7% of those given the Pfizer vaccine who had previously been infected reported side effects, compared to just 12.2% of those not previously infected.

Looking at the AstraZeneca vaccine specifically, 52.7% of previously infected had side effects, compared to 31.9% of those who had not been previously infected.

While The Telegraph reports this as being a beneficial thing, saying “More severe side effects are often a sign of better immunity, and emerging research suggests just one dose of vaccine gives a similar protective effect to two doses in people who have had a previous infection,” some experts vehemently disagree.

Proper Timing May Eliminate Some Vaccine Risks

In January 2021, Dr. Hooman Noorchashm, a cardiac surgeon and patient advocate, sent a public letter36 to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration commissioner detailing the risks of vaccinating individuals who have previously been infected with SARS-CoV-2, or who have an active SARS-CoV-2 infection.

He urged the FDA to require prescreening for SARS-CoV-2 viral proteins to reduce the risk of injuries and deaths following vaccination, as the vaccine may trigger an adverse immune response in those who have already been infected with the virus.

Fox TV host Tucker Carlson recently interviewed him about these risks as well. In that interview, Noorchashm said:37

“I think it’s a dramatic error on part of public health officials to try to put this vaccine into a one-size-fits-all paradigm … We’re going to take this problem we have with the COVID-19 pandemic, where a half-percent of the population is susceptible to dying, and compound it by causing totally avoidable harm by vaccinating people who are already infected …

The signal is deafening, the people who are having complications or adverse events are the people who have recently or are currently or previously infected [with COVID]. I don’t think we can ignore this.”

In an emailed response to The Defender, Noorchashm fleshed out his concerns, saying:38

“Viral antigens persist in the tissues of the naturally infected for months. When the vaccine is used too early after a natural infection, or worse during an active infection, the vaccine force activates a powerful immune response that attacks the tissues where the natural viral antigens are persisting. This, I suggest, is the cause of the high level of adverse events and, likely deaths, we are seeing in the recently infected following vaccination.”

Noorchashm is now pushing for the implementation of a prevaccine screening campaign (#ScreenB4Vaccine), using PCR or rapid antigen testing to determine whether the individual has an active infection, and an IgG antibody test to determine past infection.

If either test is positive, he recommends delaying vaccination for a minimum of three to six months to allow your IgG levels to wane. At that point, he recommends testing your blood IgG level and use that as a guide to decide the timing of your vaccination. As reported by The Defender:39

“Noorchashm told Carlson that he’s been wrongly accused of stoking vaccine hesitancy, when just the opposite is true — if public health officials want people to trust the vaccines, they need to do everything possible to avoid creating situations where the vaccines can actually cause harm.

‘People aren’t stupid,’ Noorchashm said. ‘If you explain how the vaccine works, and give them the information on how to keep themselves safe,’ that is how you build trust.”

What to Do if You Regret Getting the COVID-19 Vaccine

If you already got the vaccine and now regret it, you may be able to address your symptoms using the same strategies you’d use to treat actual SARS-CoV-2 infection. I review these strategies at the end of “Why COVID Vaccine Testing Is a Farce.”

Additionally, if you’re experiencing side effects, please help raise public awareness by reporting it. The Children’s Health Defense is calling on all who have suffered a side effect from a COVID-19 vaccine to do these three things:40

If you live in the U.S., file a report on VAERS
Report the injury on, which is a nongovernmental adverse event tracker (you can file anonymously if you like)
Report the injury on the CHD website
Posts: 2292
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2020 5:22 am

Re: AstraZeneca Vaccine

Post by trader32176 »

Today’s DIRTY VACCINES and the coinciding spike in blood disorders, allergies and autism ... utism.html

04/02/2021 By S.D. Wells

Vaccines are a far cry from the “miracle of modern science” they are touted to be, and now the CDC finds that half of all physicians REFUSE to take routine vaccines themselves due to efficacy and safety concerns. So while the corrupt American medical regime preaches about the necessity of compliance and herd immunity, they themselves “opt out” of all those filthy, dirty, unsafe vaccinations they push on everyone else.

The theory behind vaccines is real, but the ingredients used to force hyper-immune-system reactions are so insane that the biological terrors that are today’s vaccines are the new Black Plague, and that’s why vaccines are now being used for population control, medical racketeering (that dates back a century with the AMA), and organized crime at the highest, most insidious level of government. The regulatory agencies are in bed with the government pharma goons at the FDA and CDC. That’s exactly why we’ve seen a grotesque spike in diseases and disorders for the vaccinated sheeple in America. It’s no conspiracy theory that vaccines are dirty, especially the flu shot and the Covid-19 vaccine series.

Today we see more children with autism, severe allergies and blood disorders than we’ve ever witnessed in the history of America. The cause is obvious, but if you point it out, you face consequences to your reputation, job and livelihood, and that’s just the beginning. Let’s take an inside look at why we’re seeing autism and vaccine allergy rates skyrocketing. It’s all about the money.

Global vaccine market revenue for 2020 was $60 billion, yet HALF of all doctors quietly refuse vaccines for themselves and their children

The cover-up is deafening. Doctors around the globe are well-aware of the corruption of the lucrative vaccine industry, but they love it. Why? Lack of ethics and huge paychecks. Can you say ‘expensive diagnostic testing’ without coughing into your Covid mask? Big Pharma, in fact, has its biggest vaccine lobby right here in the United States, where no institution is allowed to ever criticize or publish anything negative about them. They even have their own secret court so you can’t sue them, only settle in quiet desperation.

Just take a look back in time. Before vaccines, there were no severe allergies to eggs, dairy or peanuts, because nobody was having these injected into their muscle tissue with virus fragments. Now the human body is one big infected pin cushion that’s been trained to recognize certain foods as a threat to life itself, and the reaction can be deadly, as we’ve seen too often. Think about it. Why else would a child’s immune system completely shut down just because somebody opens a bag of peanuts in the room?

Plus, vaccines are made for adult males, so a single vaccine given to an infant is similar to giving an adult two dozen jabs in one day. The conjured-up, unnatural immune reaction is so exaggerated for babies that their brain and central nervous system become damaged for life. Take for instance the Covid vaccine, which is causing rare blood disorders, including thrombocytopenia (blood clotting).

In many cases, right after getting the Covid ‘inoculation,’ the child’s immune system attacks blood platelets that are responsible for clotting, so children are bleeding uncontrollably from mRNA injections, and the CDC has already recorded 3 dozen cases of this. Imagine how many cases are not reported, or buried, or completely banned and censored from mass media, or paid off the keep quiet by the secretive vaccine court and their own hired-for-private-settlement hack judges.

Of course, Moderna, Pfizer, and BioNTech did not report any of this during their clinical trials because that would interrupt those dirty vaccine profits. Other vaccines trigger blood disorders as well, not just the Covid jabs. Humans can have a deadly stroke from blood clots from vaccines, but again, nobody is allowed to talk about it, publish it, or sue the vaccine manufacturers because of it. No surgery in the world can save you from a blot-clot stroke once it occurs.

Dirty Vaccines contain: Human cells, African green monkey cells, mercury, aluminum salts, embalming fluid, and deadly China pig viruses

As the truth comes out about dirty US vaccines, at least 50 percent of all Americans question them now, including doctors and nurses (who can’t say anything about it but still refuse to get them). The biggest threat to the vaccine industry is vaccine hesitancy due to mistrust, and rightly so. The biggest threat to human health is not infectious diseases, but rather the vaccinations given that are dirty and do not create the “safe and effective” immunity the $60 billion-dollar-a-year industry so faithfully claims.

Just take one good look at the ingredients listed on every vaccine insert, and your common sense alone tells you to run the other direction. Human babies that are aborted are sold on the black market to Biotech firms that use them to develop vaccines. It’s not just that same old tired story about some abortion from the 1970s. It’s happening right now. The tissues from another human, once injected into the body, are toxic. Period. This represents the insidious nature of the vaccine industry itself, but it’s just the tip of the iceberg.

Embalming fluid for the dead, better known as formaldehyde, oxidizes inside the human body and becomes formic acid. Formaldehyde is used in more than half of all US vaccines, embalming babies just enough to cause acidosis, liver, kidney and nerve damage. Talk about needing routine visits to the pediatrician. Remember, every doctor in America is trained to say, “there’s not enough formaldehyde in vaccines to worry about,” yet half of those doctors would never get a vaccine, much less give them to their own children. Why? Formaldehyde ranks near the top of the most hazardous compounds on “ecosystems and human health,” says the Environmental Defense Fund.

Embalming humans through vaccination causes anemia, blindness, body aches, bronchitis, blurred vision and bronchial spasms, not to mention heart palpitations, arrhythmias, convulsions and the destruction of red blood cells. This is why 1/2 the doctors in the United States NEVER get vaccinated, at all.

Watch out for mercury in flu shots listed as thimerosal. No amount of this deadly heavy metal toxin is safe for humans to ingest, ever. Keep your eyes open for aluminum in vaccines, as aluminum helps the mercury cross the blood-brain barrier, leading to autism spectrum disorder (ASD) of all kinds. We don’t have enough time to get into the concerns about infected African green monkey kidney cells and deadly Chinese circo-virus (strains I and II) only found in pigs in China and Russia, now showing up in US childhood vaccines, like the rotavirus vaccination. There is zero justifiable reason for putting this pig disease in a vaccine, besides to make children sick for profit.

Learn all the vaccine secrets so you can protect yourself and your loved ones. Tune your internet dial to for updates on doctors who swear by vaccine safety and efficacy yet NEVER get vaccinated themselves. Now you know why.

Sources for this article include:
Posts: 2292
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2020 5:22 am

Re: AstraZeneca Vaccine

Post by trader32176 »

AstraZeneca changes the name of its coronavirus vaccine after wave of blood clot deaths ... ccine.html

04/01/2021 / By Nolan Barton

Pharmaceutical giant AstraZeneca changed the name of its Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccine following a string of controversies about its efficacy and several deaths. The vaccine developed by the Anglo-Swedish pharmaceutical company in cooperation with Oxford University is now called Vaxzevria. It was previously known simply as the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine.

The portal of the Swedish National Medicines Agency confirmed that the name change was approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) on March 25 following a request from the company. It also noted that the name change is not associated with any other change in the vaccine.

No official reason has been given for the name change.

Controversies hound AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine

AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine has made headlines several times for all the wrong reasons since it received the green light from the EMA in late January. Right after its approval, various countries in Europe decided to not use it for the elderly and chose to wait for more data.

Earlier this month, more than a dozen European countries temporarily suspended the use of AstraZeneca’s vaccine after cases of blood clots and low platelet counts emerged. (Related: Researchers confirm antibodies from the AstraZeneca coronavirus vaccine cause blood clots.)

The company had also been accused of withholding data to make the vaccine seem more effective than it actually was in human trials done in the U.S., Chile and Peru.

In response, the company has done its best to fight the controversies.

The company rectified its efficacy data while actually showing a higher efficacy rate at blocking symptoms in people over 65 years old. The latest data showed 85 percent efficacy, five points higher than the figure reported in March 22.

At the same time, the EMA’s Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC) concluded that the vaccine is not associated with an increased risk of thromboembolic events and that its benefits still outweigh its risks.

But AstraZeneca has still found itself in the middle of another controversy as the European Commission announced tighter new controls on the export of vaccines produced within the European Union.

With the new measures in place, vaccines for export must now be issued with an export certificate by the land of production. The granting of a certificate will be based on two principles: reciprocity and proportionality. This means a member state will not issue a license to export to a country that does not deliver vaccines to the EU, to a country that has a better epidemiological situation than the EU as a whole or to a country that already has a higher vaccination rate.

“The EU is proud to be home to vaccine manufacturers who not only supply EU citizens, but export vaccines around the world. But open roads must go both ways,” said Commission President Ursula von der Leyen.

AstraZeneca fails to meet delivery schedule to EU

The new vaccine export controllers were triggered by the ongoing row over AstraZeneca vaccines intended for the United Kingdom. Part of the production of the vaccine takes place inside the EU. At the same time, the company has failed to meet its delivery schedule to the EU in the first quarter and is likely to fail again in the second quarter.

The Commission has made it clear that it thinks the company is favoring the UK at the expense of other contracts. It has threatened to stop all exports of vaccines produced in the bloc until its own delivery requirements are satisfied.

The new measure applies to all pharmaceutical companies that produce coronavirus vaccines within the bloc. Pfizer produces vaccines in Puurs in Belgium and has delivered 10 million doses to the UK in the past several weeks. Pfizer has fully delivered in its contracts with the EU, but will still need to get an export certificate next time.

Meanwhile, UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson warned that the EU could be the “loser” if it chose to block exports to the UK and other countries.

“I don’t think that blockades of either vaccines or medicines or ingredients for vaccines are sensible and I think that the long-term damage done by blockades can be very big,” he told the Commons liaison committee after the EU announcement.

“I would just gently push anybody considering a blockade or interruption of supply chains that companies may look at such actions and draw conclusions about whether or not it is sensible to make future investments in countries where arbitrary blockades are imposed.”
Posts: 2292
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2020 5:22 am

Re: AstraZeneca Vaccine

Post by trader32176 »

Coronavirus digest: AstraZeneca vaccine trial on children halted

Oxford University said it would await additional data from UK authorities before restarting trials of the vaccine. Meanwhile, Brazil has reported a record number of deaths.

4/7/21 ... a-57115365

The trial on children was halted citing concerns with the vaccine's link to blood clots

A UK trial of the AstraZeneca vaccine on children was halted amid fears of links to a rare blood clot, Oxford University said.

While the researchers insist there are "no safety concerns" in the trial, they said they would wait for additional data from the UK's Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) before resuming their work.

The trial pause follows a statement from the World Health Organization (WHO) on Tuesday that the "risk-benefit" balance for AstraZeneca's COVID-19 vaccine was still "largely" positive.

"There is no link for the moment between the vaccine and thrombotic events with thrombocytopenia," said Rogerio Pinto de Sa Gaspar, the WHO's director for regulation and pre-qualification.

Previously, an official from the European Medicines Agency (EMA) had claimed there was a "clear connection" between the AstraZeneca vaccine and rare blood clots.

However, EMA's official position remains undecided — the agency said it was still reviewing data and had not reached any conclusion.
Post Reply