UPDATE (12/1): The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices has voted 13 to 1 in an emergency meeting to make the recommendation that residents and employees of nursing homes health care workers be the first to receive coronavirus vaccines.
It’s the final countdown! Moderna, Pfizer and AstraZeneca’s Covid vaccine candidates are on their way to emergency use authorization (EUA) consideration. Experimental messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine technology, rushed through trials, with public-facing scientific transparency and disclosures coming via public relations press releases. What’s to fear?
Officials are now targeting the world’s frontline health workers as their ‘post-marketing data’ cohort – the unofficial 4th phase of Covid vaccines trials. But the frontline health workers… they’re not so sure.
During his Thanksgiving video teleconference, Donald Trump said Covid-19 vaccines would be sent “on the next week or week after” to “frontline workers and seniors.” Similar plans have been announced from Texas to California, from Scotland to UK and from Canada to India.
But the news is now noting how frontline health workers have suddenly become ‘vaccine hesitant.’ Early in the coronavirus response, the media held up frontline health workers as heroes who could do no wrong. That all changed in July 2020 during the America’s Frontline Doctor’s Summit when those same heroes began going off-script, speaking of the beneficial effects of early therapeutics like Hydroxychloroquine.
The media-Big Tech hammer and sickle operation immediately went to work. It censored these now-former medical heroes and their message. There would be no opposition to the official Covid narrative – whether the dissent was backed by scientific data or not.
Media has since shifted its optics from praising frontline health workers to signaling that healthcare workers may not cooperate with the coming Covid vaccine push for which they are the initial, primary targets.
There were early warning signs, even before the coronavirus response, that healthcare workers weren’t taking well the aggressive vaccine push backed by limited safety science. In December 2019, the World Health Organization’s Global Vaccine Safety Summit featured, among other speakers, Heidi Larson. Larson announced her findings while studying vaccine hesitancy, which looked at nearly 300,000 people around the world: ”[Vaccine] safety was the biggest issue.”
Then she dropped the bombshell.
“The other thing that’s a trend, and an issue, is not just confidence in providers, but confidence of healthcare providers. We have a very wobbly health professional frontline that is starting to question vaccines and the safety of vaccines. That’s a huge problem.”
Larson continued stating that the frontline workers “don’t have enough confidence about the safety to stand up to the person asking them the questions.”
Fast-forward to the present moment. Call it karma. Or a revelation whose time has come. Will, in Larson’s words, a “very wobbly health professional frontline” take a new and untested vaccine when they previously didn’t have the confidence in previous vaccines (safety) when challenged by patients?
Look at the information health professionals and the general public are given. Primary endpoint goals for early vaccine trials are mild symptoms and a positive PCR test. That’s it.
Tal Zaks, chief medical officer at Moderna, told The BMJ that the company’s trial lacks adequate statistical power to assess more severe endpoints. Zaks said Moderna’s trial wouldn’t demonstrate prevention of transmission, judge hospital admissions or even know if it prevents mortality.
The most up-to-date data by Pfizer and Modern’s Covid vaccine candidates has been from their press releases. Make of that what you will. The available safety data is limited (at best!) with no longterm info. Full disclosure concerning several key aspects, from raw trial data to vaccine formulation composition, is not known.
AstraZeneca is currently experiencing a media black-eye for making public claims that raised red flags about their coming shot, based on “very shaky science.” A more careful analysis of their claims might suggest words like manipulation and lies.
Public information justifying the potential EUA’s of the the coming shots make it simply impossible to give properly informed consent at this point.