New Zealand and the Pfizer COVID19 vaccine

Atlas Monitor | 30 March

There are important things people need to know about the Pfizer Covid19 vaccine the New Zealand government approved and is currently being administered.

Felony charges against Pfizer

Pfizer have been indicted on and plead guilty to felony violations in the US to the charges of fraudulent marketing of 13 different drugs. In 2009, Pfizer was ordered by US Department of Justice to pay US$2.3 billion in fines. At the time it was the

largest health care fraud settlement in the history of the Department of Justice, to resolve criminal and civil liability arising from the illegal promotion of certain pharmaceutical products.

Pfizer is a repeat offender. As noted in this article by The National Center for Biotechnology Information, part of the United States National Library of Medicine, it is abundantly evident that corporations such as Pfizer

treat both criminal and civil penalties as simply business expenses, to be weighed against the revenues earned from illegal behaviour … In the absence of such personal liability, both criminal and civil penalties appear to be, to Pfizer at least, a business expense worth incurring. You have to spend money to make money.

The article continues:

Pfizer has been a “habitual offender,” persistently engaging in illegal and corrupt marketing practices, bribing physicians and suppressing adverse trial results. Since 2002 the company and its subsidiaries have been assessed $3 billion in criminal convictions, civil penalties and jury awards.

See Also:

Intimidation and corporate liability immunity

Pfizer have also used bullying tactics on Latin American countries to secure vaccine delivery. The company is forcing countries to put up state assets as collateral to cover the potential cost of lawsuits stemming from adverse reactions after receiving the shots. Pfizer went as far as asking

for additional indemnity from civil cases, meaning that the company would not be held liable for rare adverse effects or for its own acts of negligence, fraud or malice. This includes those linked to company practices – say, if Pfizer sent the wrong vaccine or made errors during manufacturing.

The issue is compounded when you consider that Pfizer received government funding for vaccine research and development and is now attempting to push liability costs back on to the government.

The New Zealand government has granted Pfizer complete liability protection from any claims regarding adverse reactions to the vaccine. Consequently, Pfizer cannot be sued if you suffer any serious adverse reaction from the vaccine. Instead, you will have to lodge an ACC claim. Specific details of the indemnity given to Pfizer, and other pharmaceutical companies supplying New Zealand with Covid19 vaccines, are withheld under the Official Information Act (OIA). The Ministry of Health has taken the view that disclosure of such details ‘would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information’. In other words, disclosure and any kind of detailed transparency might be a problem for Pfizer et al.

In brief – a repeat offender has been granted liability protection by the New Zealand government and details of that protection are to be kept hidden from the public. Why? What is the incentive for a corporation to exercise any corporate responsibility and act morally and ethically if government protects it from any consequences? I suggest none. Ultimately this liability protection suggests a lack of confidence by Pfizer in the safety of its own product.

Serious gaps in the data and undisclosed known risks

There are many other problems with this vaccine including but not limited to:

Pfizer have not provided data demonstrating that the vaccine does anything more than potentially relieve mild symptoms caused by mild cases of coronavirus (i.e. the common cold) that could resolve on their own and have not provided data proving that the vaccine prevents or reduces infection and transmission, let alone hospitalisation and death. Pfizer New Zealand’s Sydney-based medical director Krishan Thiru admitted this on RNZ Morning Report. His comments begin at 07.47 in the interview. As the British Medical Journal points out, the trials simply have not been designed to prove any meaningful efficacy. An analysis in Forbes magazine shows that an examination of the vaccine study protocols reveals they are engineered to succeed. The article notes that

It appears that all the pharmaceutical companies assume that the vaccine will never prevent infection. Their criteria for approval are the difference in symptoms between an infected control group and an infected vaccine group. They do not measure the difference between infection and noninfection as a primary motivation … It boggles the mind and defies common sense that the National Institute of Health, the Center for Disease Control, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, and the rest would consider the approval of a vaccine that would be distributed to hundreds of millions on such slender threads of success … It appears that these trials are intended to pass the lowest possible barrier of success.

Pfizer cannot rule out what is known as “pathogenic priming” or “antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE)” also known as immune enhancement – which can occur after a vaccinated person is subsequently exposed to the wild virus and experiences a severe adverse reaction. No data has been provided as an assurance against this risk despite it being a known risk. See here also.

ADE occurred and caused enhanced hepatitis in ferrets tested with the SARS 1 vaccine. The same mRNA technology was also used in a vaccine tested on cats. The cats died. Indeed ADE has also been observed in human cell lines.

In fact, regarding ADE, there has been concern within the scientific community that trial participants and future patients are not or will not be partaking with proper informed consent. A recent study found that

Vaccines for SARS, MERS and RSV have never been approved, and the data generated in the development and testing of these vaccines suggest a serious mechanistic concern: that vaccines … be they composed of protein, viral vector, DNA or RNA and irrespective of delivery method, may worsen COVID-19 disease via antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE). This risk is sufficiently obscured in clinical trial protocols and consent forms for ongoing COVID-19 vaccine trials that adequate patient comprehension of this risk is unlikely to occur, obviating truly informed consent by subjects in these trials.

The authors concluded

The specific and significant COVID-19 risk of ADE should have been and should be prominently and independently disclosed to research subjects currently in vaccine trials, as well as those being recruited for the trials and future patients after vaccine approval, in order to meet the medical ethics standard of patient comprehension for informed consent.

To be clear – antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE)/pathogenic priming is a real risk. However, Pfizer and the other pharmaceutical companies producing SARS-CoV-2 vaccines have provided no data demonstrating that these vaccines do not carry that risk. The New Zealand government should be waiting to see data demonstrating no risk before proceeding with a vaccination campaign.

Pfizer cannot rule out that the vaccine could condition the body to attack a spike protein that is responsible for the development of the human placenta. Recently Michael Yeadon, Pfizer’s former (UK) chief scientific officer for allergy and respiratory research and German physician and epidemiologist Wolfgang Wodard sent a petition to the European Medicines Agency, expressing their concern about this. In their letter they state

Several vaccine candidates are expected to induce the formation of humoral antibodies against spike proteins of SARS-CoV-2. Syncytin-1, which is derived from human endogenous retroviruses (HERV) and is responsible for the development of a placenta in mammals and humans and is therefore an essential prerequisite for a successful pregnancy, is also found in homologous form in the spike proteins of SARS viruses. There is no indication whether antibodies against spike proteins of SARS viruses would also act like anti-Syncytin-1 antibodies. However, if this were to be the case this would then also prevent the formation of a placenta that would result in vaccinated women essentially becoming infertile. To my knowledge, Pfizer/BioNTech has yet to release any samples of written materials provided to patients, so it is unclear what, if any, information regarding (potential) fertility-specific risks caused by antibodies is included.

The Pfizer vaccine also contains Polyetheline Glycol (PEG) that carries a known risk of anaphylaxis. The UK’s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MRA) was compelled to issue a belated warning stating ‘any person with a history of anaphylaxis to a vaccine, medicine or food should not receive the Pfizer BioNTech vaccine’. The reason for the late warning was that Pfizer had not done any testing on the safety of this ingredient.

Immunologists have warned that the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines present the risk of progressive neurodegenerative disorders such as Prion disease and specifically Alzheimers disease. Another example of a Prion disease is BSE also known as Mad Cow Disease. Authors of a study in The Journal of Microbiology & Infectious Diseases concluded that ‘regulatory approval of theRNA based vaccines for SARS-CoV-2 was premature and that the vaccine may cause much more harm than benefit’.

A global vaccination campaign is underway despite Pfizer, regulators and scientists acknowledging all of the above. However, warnings in Norway are being issued to people over 80, who are most at risk from Covid, against getting the vaccine when dozens died after getting the Pfizer vaccine. The World Health Organisation (WHO) is now recommending against the use of the vaccine during pregnancy. People with a history of significant allergic reactions are also being advised against getting the vaccine. The MHRA and the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) have identified three groups of people that are advised not to get the Pfizer COVID vaccine. On balance, there is considerable evidence to suggest that this vaccine is potentially problematic but little to assuage concerns.

It seems paradoxical that a vaccine could be potentially dangerous to those most at risk from Covid19. Can it even be considered a vaccine and would it be better characterized as experimental gene therapy?

Flawed safety testing and bias sample groups

mRNA technology in a vaccine has never been used in a living population. It is understood that it works by essentially overriding your DNA and reprogramming your cells to create the Covid spike protein, which your immune system then attacks.

In the safety testing that has been conducted the scientists eliminated all but the healthiest people in the sample group. If you smoked, vaped, had experienced any adverse reactions to vaccines previously, suffered allergic reactions to medication, had any psychiatric or any pre-existing conditions; you were excluded from the group. Pregnant women were also excluded despite being a high-risk group. The exclusion criteria include ‘individuals currently working in occupations with high risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 (eg, healthcare worker, emergency response personnel)’. These are the individuals that government are mobilising to vaccinate first. It seems counterintuitive to exclude individuals from a Covid19 vaccine trial when they are the very people who are most likely to be exposed to Covid19 and therefore need vaccination. Here are the full exclusion criteria.

In brief, the safety testing that has been done, has been done on super-healthy people. This atypical sample bears no resemblance to the general population. The implication is that this could be an attempt to manipulate data and present the vaccine in the most positive light possible to get approval and generate the greatest return financially to the company, rather than any ethical or moral obligation to ensure vaccine safety.

Proper randomized double blind studies with an inert placebo as a control, which are the gold-standard norm, have not been conducted properly. As has been noted due to the nature of the trials blinding is being breached quite easily. The Pfizer trial is also using the meningitis vaccine as a placebo in order to contrive a safety profile rather than ‘assist in blinding’ as claimed. If the studies consistently used an inert placebo, they would reveal far more adverse reactions from the Covid vaccine compared to the control [meningitis]. Both vaccines are acknowledged to cause tiredness (fatigue], fever and aches among other more serious side effects. They negate each other and so Pfizer can then claim that the vaccine produces no more adverse effects than the placebo and is therefore safe. This is disingenuous at best. Pfizer later offered the vaccine to the placebo cohort thereby eliminating the control group and precluding the harvesting of any data for long term safety studies.

To be absolutely clear – the FDA, which governments around the world are taking the lead from, has neither approved nor licensed these vaccines [Moderna and Pfizer] but allowed them for emergency use on the assumption that the vaccines may be “effective”at a lower level of evidence than the “effectiveness” standard FDA uses for product approvals.

Misleading “efficacy” claims

Pfizer trumpets claims of 95% efficacy with the vaccine. This is the “relative risk reduction” [RRR]. It is the RRR between vaccinated and unvaccinated trial participants. Out of the 18,198 people given the vaccine 8 developed Covid19 compared to 162 of out 18,325 who were in the unvaccinated placebo group. This means that the risk of getting Covid19 in the unvaccinated is 0.88%. Vaccination reduces the risk from 0.88% to 0.04%. The “absolute risk reduction” [ARR] is therefore 0.84%, calculated by 0.88 minus 0.04. There is a 95% difference between 0.88 and 0.04, but that is represents the RRR. Presenting the RRR in the absence of the ARR gives the impression that the risk reduction of the vaccine is better than it really is.

According to the journal Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation

relative risks do not tell us anything about the likelihood that the outcome would occur in each of these groups and how much higher or lower this risk is. To make sense out of a relative risk one needs to know the absolute risk that is simply the likelihood that an outcome will occur.

The point is that the risk of getting Covid19, according to Pfizer’s data, if you are unvaccinated is 0.88%. That is less than one percent, which is very low by any measure.

Vaccine development, rollout complications and scepticism

Australia and France have suspended some of their vaccine development and rollouts and now South Africa has followed. Pfizer have withdrawn their emergency use application in India after the regulatory agency asked for more data on safety. France, Sweden and Poland have decided not to recommend the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine for the elderly. Germany did not authorize the vaccine for use in people 65 or over citing a “lack of effectiveness” as did Austria and Belgium. Switzerland will not authorise the AstraZeneca vaccine at all as data was ‘not yet sufficient’. Two regions in Sweden are pausing their vaccination campaigns after a quarter of vaccinated healthcare workers suffered side effects. Adverse reactions were reported during the 2020 AstraZeneca trials, including spinal cord damage consistent with transverse myelitis, death and acute neuro encephalopathy. Johnson & Johnson and Eli Lilly trials were also halted due to safety concerns.

AstraZeneca, which the New Zealand government has a purchase agreement with, also has a long dubious history. The ‘company has been embroiled in numerous controversies over illegal marketing, product safety, anticompetitive behavior [sic] and tax avoidance’.

This could be the Tamiflu situation all over again. Governments all over the world spent millions stockpiling a drug that was ineffective. It could be worse – it could be a Thalidomide type event and we will not know the full extent of the problem until years later. What is also concerning is the plan to roll out a Covid19 vaccination campaign at the same time as the annual influenza vaccine drive. It is known that there is an increased risk of non-influenza respiratory virus infections (i.e. coronavirus) with getting the flu shot.

The whole world has watched how this Covid19 vaccine sausage was made. 30 percent of New Zealanders are sceptical of the vaccine. Polls in the US show that half the population will not take the vaccine. In France, just under half of the population say will not get the vaccine. Vaccine acceptance rates elsewhere include Kuwait (23.6%), Jordan (28.4%), Italy (53.7), Russia (54.9%) and Poland (56.3%). The conversation is here and people are understanding the necessity for informed consent.

See and share the manufacturer’s fact sheet [aka package inserts] for the Covid19 injections, which state these injections are not FDA-approved and risks are unknown:

Moderna: https://www.fda.gov/media/144638/download
Pfizer: https://www.fda.gov/media/144414/download
Johnson & Johnson: https://www.janssenlabels.com/emergency-use-authorization/Janssen+COVID-19+Vaccine-Recipient-fact-sheet.pdf
AstraZeneca: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulatoryapproval-of-covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca/information-for-uk-recipientson-covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca

Problems with PCR testing as explained by John Rappaport

From “CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel” [1]:

“Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms.”

Translation: A positive test doesn’t guarantee that the COVID virus is causing infection at all. And, ahem, reading between the lines, maybe the COVID virus might not be in the patient’s body at all, either.

From the World Health Organization (WHO): “Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) technical guidance: Laboratory testing for 2019-nCoV in humans” [2]:

“Several assays that detect the 2019-nCoV have been and are currently under development, both in-house and commercially. Some assays may detect only the novel virus [COVID] and some may also detect other strains (e.g. SARS-CoV) that are genetically similar.”

Translation: Some PCR tests register positive for types of coronavirus that have nothing to do with COVID—including plain old coronas that cause nothing more than a cold.

The WHO document adds this little piece: “Protocol use limitations: Optional clinical specimens for testing has [have] not yet been validated.”

Translation: We’re not sure which tissue samples to take from the patient, in order for the test to have any validity.

From the FDA: “LabCorp COVID-19RT-PCR test EUA Summary: ACCELERATED EMERGENCY USE AUTHORIZATION (EUA) SUMMARYCOVID-19 RT-PCR TEST (LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA)” [3]:

“…The SARS-CoV-2RNA [COVID virus] is generally detectable in respiratory specimens during the acute phase of infection. Positive results are indicative of the presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA; clinical correlation with patient history and other diagnostic information is necessary to determine patient infection status…THE AGENT DETECTED MAY NOT BE THE DEFINITE CAUSE OF DISEASE (CAPS are mine). Laboratories within the United States and its territories are required to report all positive results to the appropriate public health authorities.”

Translation: On the one hand, we claim the test can “generally” detect the presence of the COVID virus in a patient. But we admit that “the agent detected” on the test, by which we mean COVID, “may not be the definite cause of disease.” We also admit that, unless the patient has an acute infection, we can’t find COVID. Therefore, the idea of “asymptomatic patients” confirmed by the test is nonsense. And even though a positive test for COVID may not indicate the actual cause of disease, all positive tests must be reported—and they will be counted as “COVID cases.” Regardless.

From a manufacturer of PCR test kit elements, Creative Diagnostics, “SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus Multiplex RT-qPCR Kit” [4]:

“Regulatory status: For research use only, not for use in diagnostic procedures.”

Translation: Don’t use the test result alone to diagnose infection or disease.

“non-specific interference of Influenza A Virus (H1N1), Influenza B Virus (Yamagata), Respiratory Syncytial Virus (type B), Respiratory Adenovirus (type 3, type 7), Parainfluenza Virus (type 2), Mycoplasma Pneumoniae, Chlamydia Pneumoniae, etc.”

Translation: Although this company states the test can detect COVID, it also states the test can read FALSELY positive if the patient has one of a number of other irrelevant viruses in his body. What is the test proving, then?

“Application Qualitative”

Translation: This clearly means the test is not suited to detect how much virus is in the patient’s body. I’ll cover how important this admission is in a minute.

“The detection result of this product is only for clinical reference, and it should not be used as the only evidence for clinical diagnosis and treatment. The clinical management of patients should be considered in combination with their symptoms/signs, history, other laboratory tests and treatment responses. The detection results should not be directly used as the evidence for clinical diagnosis, and are only for the reference of clinicians.”

Translation: Don’t use the test as the exclusive basis for diagnosing a person with COVID. And yet, this is exactly what health authorities are doing all over the world. All positive tests must be reported to government agencies, and they are counted as COVID cases.”

Those quotes, from official government [US CDC, FDA and WHO] and testing sources, torpedo the whole “scientific” basis of the test.

Additionally, the test has never been validated properly as an instrument to detect disease. Even assuming it can detect the presence of the COVID virus in a patient, it doesn’t show HOW MUCH virus is in the body. And that is key, because in order to even begin talking about actual illness in the real world, not in a lab, the patient would need to have millions and millions of the virus actively replicating in his body.

Proponents of the test assert that it CAN measure how much virus is in the body. But can they prove it?

Sources:
[1]: (link)
[2]: (link)
[3]: (link)
[4]: (link)

Atlas Monitor

News & Analysis

New Zealand and the Pfizer COVID19 vaccine

Problems with PCR testing as explained by John Rappaport

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Problems with PCR testing as explained by John Rappaport

Related posts

Leave a Reply Cancel reply