December 16, 2020 (American Thinker) — The currently reported COVID-19 “surge” arrived just in time for many to use it as an excuse for emergency authorization of vaccines. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently issued an emergency use authorization for a COVID-19 vaccine in the United States. (An important point that cannot be elaborated in this article is that “emergency use authorization” is very different from, and much more dangerous than, the normal FDA approval process). The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has recommended that millions of doses of the vaccine be given to health care professionals first. Health care professionals and Americans in general need to know what follows.
Numerous previous articles described the dishonesty of public health officials, including the CDC, regarding the definition of “COVID-19 death” and COVID-19 data in general. It was mentioned that if misleading language was used to describe COVID-19 death data, then one may reasonably question whether public health officials and influential collaborators in the pharmaceutical industry would be misleading when describing future COVID-19 vaccine safety and efficacy data. It appears as though such misleading language is being used to describe the safety and the efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccine recently authorized for emergency use in the U.S.
Other commentaries have discussed the dangers of COVID-19 vaccines and the fact that a COVID-19 vaccine may be unnecessary; this article will not go completely into specifics on the topic. Generally speaking, it would be an outright lie or negligent for public health officials or pharmaceutical representatives to say that the long-acting COVID-19 vaccine is “safe” if the vaccine has not been studied in humans (or non-humans for that matter) for more than two months.
Concerns over the health and safety of the human test subjects in Pfizer's European COVID vaccine study have caused two eminent doctors to launch a petition calling for an immediate halt to those studies.
On December 1, 2020, Dr. Michael Yeadon, an ex chief of research at Pfizer and Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, a lung specialist and former department head of public health lodged an appeal to the EMA, the European Medicine Agency responsible for approving drugs across the EU, asking them to suspend the ongoing Pfizer/BioNtech COVID vaccine study on BNT162b (EudraCT number 2020-002641-42).
LifeSite is joining Drs. Yeadon and Wodarg in their call for an immediate suspension of this study and we are encouraging people to co-sign their petition to the EMA which is to be found in the petition section on this page.
Please SIGN and SHARE this important petition, and then please contact the EMA at the address listed below, in the 'For More Information' section.
In their application to the EMA, Drs. Yeadon and Wodarg give the following reasons why the Pfizer study could pose dangers to the health and safety of the study participants:
- First, the doctors say that the study design must be improved as the highly inaccurate PCR test is currently being used to detect the presence of COVID in the study participants. This means that the efficacy of the vaccine is in doubt. The doctors recommend changing from the PCR test to Sanger sequencing.
- Second, and more important, the doctors advocate animal testing of the vaccine to exclude the possibility of the risks to the life and health of human participants from known side-effects of other similar studies on corona viruses.
These side-effects can include: an exaggerated immune response when the subject comes into contact with the "real world" virus; possible infertility of an "indefinite duration" for women; severe allergic responses to polyethylene glycol which is contained in the mRNA vaccine being tested by Pfizer; and, other latent, serious side effects which, because of the short duration of the study, may only become known well after the conclusion of the study.
Because of these unacceptable risks to the life and health of the Pfizer/BioNtech COVID vaccine study participants, we are joining with Drs. Yeadon and Wodarg as co-signers of their petition to the European Medicine Agency, asking for an immediate halt to these studies.
Thank you for SIGNING and SHARING, today!
And, after you have signed this petition, please send the sample email in the section below to the official European Medicine Agency email: [email protected]
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
Subject: Please act on the petition of Dr. Wodarg and Dr. Yeadon and stay the Phase III clinical trial(s) of BNT162b
Dear Sir or Madam,
I am hereby co-signing the petition of Dr. Wodarg and Dr. Yeadon to support their urgent request to stay the Phase III clinical trial(s) of BNT162b (EudraCT Number 2020-002641-42) and other clinical trials. The full text of the petition of Dr. Wodarg and Dr. Yeadon can be found here: https://2020news.de/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Wodarg_Yeadon_EMA_Petition_Pfizer_Trial_FINAL_01DEC2020_EN_unsigned_with_Exhibits.pdf
I hereby respectfully request that EMA act on the petition of Dr. Wodarg and Dr. Yeadon immediately.
Regards, [Your name]
**Photo Credit: Shutterstock.com
If one pays close attention to the wording used by public health and pharmaceutical officials, one will observe some cunning language. Such persons may state something like “no safety concerns” have been discovered yet with the COVID-19 vaccine. This may make the average American think public health officials and vaccine-makers are claiming that the vaccine is “safe”; that would not be true. Such a statement cannot possibly be made because, again, long-term dangers of the long-acting substance are unknown. Notably, serious adverse events have indeed been reported with the COVID-19 vaccine (page 41).
With emergency use authorization, the COVID-19 vaccine clinical trial may quickly become one of the largest human guinea pig trials in the history of the world with many people likely thinking it has been shown to be safe. It has not. Typically, animals — including guinea pigs — are used to test the safety of substances with long-acting effects on the human body. The recently authorized COVID-19 vaccine was apparently tested on animals to determine immune response, not safety. Safety results from animal studies were either kept quiet or not conducted. In this case, human beings become the guinea pigs.
The statement that the COVID-19 vaccine is “95% effective” is also misleading. When one hears the statement that a clinical trial concluded that a COVID-19 vaccine is “95% effective,” one may think every person who received the COVID-19 vaccine was exposed to SARS-CoV-2 and then 95% of those persons did not test positive or experience symptoms. That is not what is meant when (whether wittingly or unwittingly) public health and pharmaceutical officials misleadingly state that the vaccine is “95% effective” or has “95% efficacy.”
The COVID-19 vaccine is undergoing a clinical trial in which it is apparently not known (or at least not published) how many clinical trial participants have been exposed to SARS-CoV-2. The clinical trial is being conducted in the U.S., Turkey, South Africa, Argentina, and Germany and is a conventional clinical trial, which “vaccinates people and then waits … to see if they get infected anyway while they go about their normal lives.” (The remainder of the previously quoted article is not endorsed.)
One may notice a significant problem: a person could have received two doses of the COVID-19 vaccine and then “go about his life” by being locked down in his house with little or no interaction with others for a significant amount of time. If such a person did not eventually experience symptoms of COVID-19, then the vaccine would apparently be considered “highly effective” in that person (page 46).
That is not all. The COVID-19 vaccine authorized for emergency use requires two doses. And the clinical trial that claims that the vaccine is “95% effective” may have included some participants in the “95% efficacy” data only seven days after receiving the second dose of the vaccine (pages 13-32, 46). The FDA summarizes its conclusions on the COVID-19 vaccine in this way:
The protocol-specified 2-dose vaccination regimen was highly effective in preventing PCR-confirmed COVID-19 occurring at least 7 days after completion of the vaccination regimen. (page 46)
It is an absurd conclusion; it is not science. If a clinical trial participant received the second dose of the COVID-19 vaccine, was locked down in his home for seven days without any human interactions, was never exposed to SARS-CoV-2, and then did not experience symptoms of COVID-19 after seven days, it appears as though the pharmaceutical company and the FDA would include that participant in the category in which the vaccine was said to have been “highly effective”.
Indeed, the language used to describe the “safety and efficacy” of the recently authorized COVID-19 vaccine is misleading.
One may consider the following questions: if those involved with the authorization of the COVID-19 vaccine in the pharmaceutical industry, FDA, CDC, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), etc., could be held liable and either sued or punished in other ways for damages that show up after two months, would they authorize it so quickly?
Or, if the pharmaceutical industry, the CDC, the FDA, and other public health officials use such misleading language to describe COVID-19 data in general and the safety and efficacy of the recently authorized COVID-19 vaccine, can they, and the COVID-19 vaccine they authorize, really be trusted?
Published with permission from the American Thinker.
LifeSiteNews has produced an extensive COVID-19 vaccines resources page. View it here.