The Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee Briefing Document on the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine contains disturbing indications that might be a safety signal on pathogenic priming, especially in older adults.
In the development of vaccines against coronaviruses like SARS-COV-1 and MERS in the early 2000’s, researchers found evidence of a serious problem. Teams of U.S. and foreign scientists vaccinated animals with the four most promising vaccines. At first, the experiment seemed successful as all the animals developed a robust antibody response to coronavirus. However, when the scientists exposed the vaccinated animals to the wild virus, the results were horrifying. Vaccinated animals suffered hyper-immune responses including inflammation throughout their bodies, especially in their lungs.
This issue is well known. Early in the COVID-19 scenario, Dr. Peter Hotez, of Baylor College of Medicine, testified before Congress about the dangers of accelerating coronavirus vaccine development, saying “(The) unique safety problem of coronavirus vaccines” was discovered 50 years ago while developing the Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) vaccine.”
He went to register that this “‘paradoxical immune enhancement phenomenon’ means vaccinated people may still develop the disease, get sicker and die.”
Researchers had seen this same “enhanced immune response” during human testing of the failed RSV vaccine tests in the 1950s. The vaccines not only failed to prevent infection; 80% of the children infected required hospitalization, and two children challenged with the RSV died (see Openshaw, 2005). In April of 2020, Hotez told CNN, “If there is immune enhancement in animals, that’s a showstopper.”
There’s been a serious terminology problem with this issue. The problem, of course, is not “immune enhancement,” which sounds like something helpful to the immune system. In fact, it is quite the opposite. The problem is, in reality “disease enhancement”; in fact, that is what it was called in the original RSV study. Disease enhancement now appears to be caused by initial exposure to a pathogen’s proteins, or parts of proteins, which primes the body to autoimmunity. That is “pathogenic priming.” In COVID-19, every protein in the SARS-CoV-2 has at least one epitope that matches human proteins someplace in the human body. About one-third of the epitopes in SARS-CoV-2 virus that match human proteins match immune system proteins.
The Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee Briefing Document on the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine contains disturbing indications that might be a safety signal on pathogenic priming, especially in older adults. Before those are reviewed, there are fundamental issues with the classification of serious adverse events that reflect the short-term thinking and externalization-of-cost mindset of the vaccine safety science paradigm.
The first issue is the categorization of “Serious vs. Non-Serious” adverse events in the study and in the report. To a person experiencing neurologic adverse events including Bell’s Palsy, neuroinflammatory and thrombotic events, these events are not “non-serious” and can, over time, develop into life-threatening conditions that require continuous medical intervention and repeated billable office visits for care. The short-term study excludes any means of detecting whether the initial exposure may play a fundamental root cause role in setting up patients for life-long chronic illness. The vaccine adverse events themselves seen in the Pfizer study may be indicative of pathogenic priming, especially since more serious adverse events were seen with the second dose.
The second issue is that the design and analysis set-up of the study are biased against finding adverse events.
The report states:
“Among non-serious unsolicited adverse events, there was a numerical imbalance of four cases of Bell’s palsy in the vaccine group compared with no cases in the placebo group, though the four cases in the vaccine group do not represent a frequency above that expected in the general population.”
The comparison to baseline rates is meaningless because other vaccines are in use in the population. Thus, any risk due to the COVID-19 vaccine adds to or multiplies existing risk present in the population from other vaccines.
Among the 18-55 year-old participants, there were 370 solicited serious adverse events (SSAEs) in the vaccinated group and 73 in the unvaccinated. Of the vaccinated, 18% experienced SSAEs; in the placebo group, only 3% did, implying that SSAEs can be expected at a rate five times greater in the vaccinated compared to the unvaccinated.
These included severe fatigue, headache, chills, vomiting, diarrhea, muscle and joint pain. Whether these conditions represent instances of pathogenic priming, identifying individuals who are now at higher risk of serious morbidity and mortality if they become infected with SARS-CoV-2 is unknown, but given past studies, seems likely.
In the over 55 group, which was a smaller group, there were 60 SSAEs in the vaccinated group and 24 in the unvaccinated. Of the vaccinated, 6.5% experienced SAEs, compared to 1.4% in the unvaccinated, implying a 4.46% increased risk overall of SSAEs due to vaccination.
However, in the older group, the vaccinated group was 10 times more likely to have a SSAE upon receipt of the second vaccine dose than the first dose compared to the 1:1 ratio in the unvaccinated. In the younger group, the vaccinated were only 3.61 times more likely to have second-dose SSAEs than the age-matched placebo group, which had about as many SSAEs in the first and second dose.
Reblogged this on Rangitikei Environmental Health Watch.
Any and ALL so-=called Covid vaxxes are nothing like what they want US to believe.
Of course, som of us will believe anythingn….but if you cannot (or WILL not) begin to ask yourself how in hell you/we sre EVER going to know what chemicals the shot MIGHT (or, rather WILL) contain….who can our inheritors blame when They find (y)our WILL is null and void for (y)our negligence in failing to determine what shite the Pfracking chemos grafted into the stuff that the idiopathetic, negligent quack fired into your veins?
End of sermon….more on the sabbath
LikeLiked by 1 person
Too true, Mike. Someone sent me videos of the FDA committee meetings where the Pfizer vaccine was approved. They are extremely enlightening.
Reblogged this on Alexanders' Blog.
Totally right. In Italy last year before this all started most of the oldies there took a vaccine –and couple that with all the five gee masts and wham!! Same thing in Wuhan…mass vax program in 2019–september I think…and wham!
Interesting, Den. Bears checking out.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Cytokine Storm? Of course.
Trace, it would seem that anyone with any history of allergies would need to give all the COVID vaccines wide berth.
LikeLiked by 2 people
LikeLiked by 1 person
Tubularsock has a very strong allergy toward death so will skip this totally.
Same here, Tube. I suppose there are a few causes I’m willing to die for but Pfizer doesn’t happen to be one of them.
Reblogged this on Citizens.
Reblogged this on Waikanae Watch.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7142689/ are they using a study 10-month-old before testing and 95% positive results.
Thanks for the link, gerry. It’s my sense the article is based on two decades of research into potential coronavirus vaccines.
Reblogged this on AuntyUta and commented:
” severe fatigue, headache, chills, vomiting, diarrhea, muscle and joint pain”
This 86 year old, that is me, I do have already some of these symptoms some of the time or even most of the time. Who says, it won’t get worse with a vaccination?