Firstly, there are no clear definitions as to what “safe” or “effective” mean in the context of this pandemic environment when they are used to inform the public collectively. These are words as good as the experiments backing them.
The health administrators using them have middle-man’d themselves between the source of information and its destination, which makes them an information authority, not an information source. Science is no longer used to refer to a method used in determining possibility, but a dogma coined “the Science” constituting certainly.
And what “we” “know” “the science” is telling “us” is “authoritative”. Who is anyone to question a higher power? Such a thing is heresy.
Gone are the days of informing people to consult doctors for personalised advice. We all have one doctor now, the State public health administrator.
The objective of the public health administrator is not actually to inform the public about clinical trial data, but rather moderate it to elicit as much informed consent for vaccines as possible. This is because the health administrator measures their success via increases in the vaccine adoption rate, not by increases in the public education rate. Information which increases this rate gets through, that which doesn’t is left alone, and anything which would decrease it is omitted.
It is generally assumed the vaccine adoption rate increases through a more informed public. But this is not necessarily true, and only generally assumed by a general public which are uninformed.
Take for instance, this quote from Anthropology Professor Emily Brunson, found on page 14 of the United Nations ‘Guide to COVID-19 Vaccine Communications’:
"I think we need to avoid the trap of thinking that information or knowledge is enough, because for a lot of the people, and when you look at hesitancy and parental vaccine hesitancy in the US, the group who is most likely to purposefully choose to not vaccinate are highly educated. In speaking with them, these are people who have read the primary literature themselves, and they’re correctly interpreting it, so it’s not a misunderstanding. They have other concerns that go beyond the traditional public health message of, ‘This is what you should be doing’ "
Emily is a highly specialised expert. Because of this, Emily’s purview is highly narrow too. In fact, her considerations are limited solely to tailoring public health guidance to increase vaccine acceptance.
Emily isn’t burdened by any other considerations. All these have already been taken into account by other highly specialised experts, who have already informed her as to what she must do.
This allows Emily to ignore more troubling questions which may inhibit her ability to work effectively in her role. Question such as, why would highly educated people correctly interpreting the primarily literature of vaccine clinical trials be hesitant to take the vaccine? As far as Emily is concerned, this question has already been answered, and who is she to question other experts like her, lest they in turn start to question her. The entire credential system of trust venerating her authority would collapse. Emily is not an anarchist so she sticks within her purview, though she probably is vaccine hesitant. And not just her.
On May 11 the heads of the CDC and FDA testified to Congress that around 50% of their employees where vaccinated, and couldn’t give exact numbers.
This was well after the vaccines had been made available, and in fact was one day before the FDA authorised them for children over 12.
So let us look at the primary literature the FDA produced to authorize emergency use of Pfizer's mRNA vaccine.
“Clinical laboratory tests were assessed in Phase 1 at 1-week postvaccination. The planned safety follow-up for currently enrolled adolescents and adults is through 24 months after vaccination #2”
This means phase III trials for the Pfizer mRNA vaccine are still on-going and won’t conclude until 2023. By definition this means the vaccine is still experimental. You won't find any official source explicitly refuting this. What you will find are health administrators outlining the following four talking points:
1) The trials were speed up by doing things consecutively rather than in succession.
2) The sizeable increase in government funding, such as through Operation Warp Speed, allowed for a sizeable increase of resources used.
3) That research surrounding mRNA technology had been long underway before the pandemic.
4) That phase 4 post-market surveillance to monitor safety is standard.
The first two talking points address quantitative advances to the scientific process, ignoring qualitative aspects. Qualitative refers to observation of data over time. Quantitative just means the amount of data to be observed. These trials have produced more data but less observations of that data over time.
The third point attempts to address the rushed observation period. Of course, human clinical trials on mRNA vaccines did not take place prior to the pandemic. The ones currently being done are the first ever on humans.
The fourth point is why health administrators cannot be trusted. Stating such a thing is an intentional conflation of phase 3 and 4 trials. Since phase 4 comes after phase 3, and phase 4 begins when a drug is administered to the public, they can say phase 4 post-market surveillance is standard procedure to infer that phase 3 trials have concluded. But really, stage 3 and 4 trials are being done consecutively, as the vaccine has been authorised for use prior to the completion of stage 3, thus entering stage 4.
The simple distinction here is that stage 3 trials are done on trial participants. Stage 4 is passive surveillance of the general public using reporting systems such as VAERS. Usuually these are done sequentially, but in this case the two are concurrent.
This vaccine has been rushed through the clinical trial process and as a result is experimental. Which is precisely the reason why it isn't an FDA approved drug.
under an EUA, FDA can allow unapproved medical products (or unapproved uses of approved medical products) to be used in an emergency to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions caused by threat agents.
This means the vaccine is not approved by the FDA. No mRNA vaccines have ever been approved by the FDA. The Emergency Use Authorization allows them to bypass approval. No official source will explicitly refute this.
This is all publicly avaliable information which has been obfuscated. For instance, a Pfizer press release from Nov 18th 2020, entitled: ‘Pfizer and BioNTech Conclude Phase 3 Study of COVID-19 Vaccine Candidate’, clearly states the Phase 3 trial won't conclude until 2023 :
“The Phase 3 clinical trial of BNT162b2 began on July 27 and has enrolled 43,661 participants to date, 41,135 of whom have received a second dose of the vaccine candidate as of November 13, 2020. Approximately 42% of global participants and 30% of U.S. participants have racially and ethnically diverse backgrounds, and 41% of global and 45% of U.S. participants are 56-85 years of age. A breakdown of the diversity of clinical trial participants can be found here from approximately 150 clinical trials sites in United States, Germany, Turkey, South Africa, Brazil and Argentina. The trial will continue to collect efficacy and safety data in participants for an additional two years.”
So when one search engines the phrase "is pfizer vaccine experimental", this being standard due diligence currently, one finds right at the top, COVID-19 vaccines are not experimental and they have not skipped trial stages , courtesy of Reuters, which uses the Pfizer press release as evidence that the experimental period has concluded.
The first thing you’ll notice is that no one has put their name to the Reuters article. Granted, neither do I to this, but I don’t claim to be credible, nor I do not finesse my way to the top of SEO, nor do I subject you to ads.
The second thing you’ll notice is that yes, of course, the reason no one put their name to the article is because it originally falsely stated that the vaccines had been approved.
A third thing you’ll notice is the title of the article claims explicitly that the vaccines are not experimental, yet it never actually addresses this, as all claims debunked in the body are strawmen to circumvent this fact.
”CLAIM 1 - “All the vaccines are considered experimental”
“CLAIM 2 - “All were allowed to skip animal trials”
“CLAIM 3 - “None have completed initial research trials”
“CLAIM 4 - “None will complete a research trial for 2-3 years”
It's all pronoun trickery. And they intially outright lied about approval being granted too.
The on-going status of Pfizers trials can be viewed here. They are currently still recruiting. Fact check that.
The popular denial surrounding this is nothing short of astouding. So much so, it even warrants the following clarification.
The noun—trial, semantically relates to an iteration of a repetition conducted as part of another noun—experiment. One could say that an experiment consists of a series of trials.
If a series of trials for a vaccine are ongoing, and these trials are distinct from post-market surveillance, as in they are phase I, II, III; then the experiment to which they are apart must too be ongoing.
If an experiment is being conducted on a vaccine; regardless of any other use that vaccine may be granted under emergency authorisation; then the adjective—experimental, is rightly pretended to its noun—vaccine.
Since this is a fact, it cannot be dealt with directly. Those who to take issue with it, can do so only with its tone. They don’t like its tone because it justifies vaccine hesitancy. They don't like its tone because they can't engage with its substance. What they actually don't like is actually having to think when fighting against 'misinformation'. They are generally intellectually lazy people who are emotionally driven. Crusaders against heresy that become comfy on a diet of debunking microchip theories.
So we have established there are unknowns. Let us look at what they are.
Pfizer submitted a Pharmacovigilance Plan (PVP) to monitor safety concerns that could be associated with Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine. The Sponsor identified vaccine-associated enhanced disease including vaccine-associated enhanced respiratory disease as an important potential risk. Available data do not indicate a risk of vaccine-enhanced disease, and conversely suggest effectiveness against severe disease within the available follow-up period. However, risk of vaccine-enhanced disease over time, potentially associated with waning immunity, remains unknown and needs to be evaluated further in ongoing clinical trials and in observational studies that could be conducted following authorization and/or licensure.
-Page 44, Page 52, FDA emergency authorization for the Pfizer Vaccine
Vaccine Enhanced Disease is when a vaccine has the opposite effect. It makes a recipient more at risk if they catch a virus then they otherwise would been if unvaccinated.
“Vaccine-associated enhanced disease (VAED) occurs when an individual who has received a vaccine, develops a more severe presentation of that disease when subsequently exposed to that virus, compared with when infection occurs without prior vaccination. This assumes that the vaccine recipient has not previously been exposed to the disease and is seronegative at time of immunisation.
. . .The potential for vaccination with a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine to be associated with enhanced disease after subsequent infection is a theoretical risk, and the vaccine-induced antibody (so called antibody dependent enhancement) or TH1 biased T-cell responses leading to adverse responses to natural SARS-CoV-2 infection need to be carefully evaluated once a COVID-19 vaccine rollout commences.
. . .Previous animal trials of experimental vaccines against SARS-CoV-1 and MERS-CoV have also been shown to induce a more serious disease when subsequently exposed to the virus.”
. . .Due to this theoretical concern, animal models of SARS-CoV-2 infection and preliminary data from phase I, II and III human trials of various COVID-19 vaccine candidates, have been closely monitored to measure specific cell subtypes (CD4 and CD8 T-cells) and the shift in Th1 to a Th2 CD4 T-cell response which can indicate increased risk of VAED. Clinical trials to date have not shown evidence of VAED after immunisation.”
There are manufacturing concerns too.
"For DP, the manufacturing process was changed from a Classical process to an Upscale process involving an increase in batch size (capable of accommodating larger RNA input) to meet commercial need. A comparison of available DP batch release data and an in-depth analytical comparability assessment between six representative Classical process DP batches and one Upscale process DP batch support the use of the Upscale process for DP manufacture under emergency use. A more comprehensive comparability assessment encompassing additional lots from multiple DP manufacturing nodes is ongoing and the results will be provided to the EUA upon completion of the study."
"Stability studies have been designed to support the use of vaccine under the EUA. All available stability data generated using the BNT162b2 DS and DP lots support the emergency deployment of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine. All stability studies of the DS and DP lots are ongoing and will continue to be monitored. Data will be submitted to the EUA as they become available."
This means the vaccine batches administered to the public are different to the ones used in the clinical trials. This is due to the up-scaling requirements for mass production, which can effect the consistency and stability of the vaccine ingredients. Investigation into the effects or extent of this are still on-going.
“Based on the totality of scientific evidence available, including data from adequate and well-controlled trials described in Section 4 of this review, it is reasonable to believe that the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine (BNT162b2) may be effective in preventing such serious or life-threatening disease or condition that can be caused by SARS-CoV-2.”
As you can see, the primary literature isn't so certain in its determination as those interpreting it for the general public. If something were to go wrong in the future, I can tell you exactly what would happen.
First, the public health administrators who had assured the public of efficacy and safety would alleviate themselves of responsibility by saying that “the science” at the time indicated such a hypothesis, but that “science” is an on going process subject to change. People under the fair assumption that “the science” was certain, because that is what the health administrators said, would have it condescendingly pointed out to them that science is actually an ever evolving process, and not the dogmatic body of knowledge they had previously presented it as. Effectively, the health administrators will say, don’t look at us, look at the primary literature we were informed by.
Second, the FDA would say it never approved the vaccine, that they never gave any certainties as to the effect of its emergency usage. It would, for the first time, bring up external pressures placed upon its body by government, the pandemic, and point out that government officials and the media misrepresented what it wrote in its report.
Third, public outrage would be ultimately directed toward the Pharmaceutical corporations, but they wrote indemnity clauses into their supply contracts and can’t be sued.
The separation of power here is between those who made it, those who granted it authorisation, and those who advocated its use. Those who authorised it never advocated it. Those who advocated it never authorized it. And those who made it are legally unaccountable.
The matter would become a quagmire of semantics, lawyers and pundits getting involved, and it would eventually fade away into legal complexity and deep philosophical questions, such as define the verb ‘is’.
Currently two things are evident:
1) what is known about the efficacy and risk associated with the Pfizer vaccine indicate it is reasonable to believe it may be safe and effective.
2) what is known about the efficacy and risk associated with the Pfizer vaccine is much less than what is unknown.
Since there can only be evidence for what is known, and none for that which is unknown, there can only currently exist evidence that the vaccine may be safe and effective. There cannot be evidence it may not be.
This same logical fallacy was used by tobacco companies, their scientists and doctors, throughout most of the 20th century. They would simply say, “There is no evidence of a link between smoking and cancer”. It took decades for opponents to definitively prove there was, have it scientifically acknowledged, and then finally recognised by law.
Now this ploy is being used once more by Pharmaceutical companies and their rubber stamp government agencies. Their mRNA vaccines are given a default status of safe, precisely because they are so new and there lacks adequate information to prove otherwise. The arduous burden of proof is then placed upon those who must wait for what is unknown to become known.
What results is a magical thing, where by those who read the primary sources become misinformed, and those who don’t are given little gold stickers for understanding ‘the science’ – singular, which they can redeem for an informed take on things. It’s quite an enticing prospect not to have to read anything all while attaining knowledge and truth. And of course, it is no surprise that these secular-minded individuals most intoxified by this faith are the ones who most scoff at it when it presents in other forms. But it's the same product with a different label marketed to them. And the product is internalised control, 'in a new range for the professional classes!'.
An interesting provision in the emergency use authorisation granted these mRNA vaccines is they are only authorized on the condition there are no other FDA approved drugs which can be used to treat covid.
“There is no adequate, approved, and available alternative to the product for diagnosing, preventing, or treating the disease or condition.”
This means if an already approved alternative were available, then the vaccines would have their emergency use authorisation revoked and they would be required to attain full approval.
Perhaps this explains a few perplexing things. It probably explains why Trump was promoting any vaccine alternative as if he were David Duke giving out endorsement leprosy. Maybe it explains why Ivermectin is being surpressed.
And finally there’s this study doing the rounds recently, which appears to refute a standing scientific dogma that it is impossible for RNA to alter DNA.
There is so much still unknown about mRNA vaccines technology. Because of this it is completely reasonable to be hesitant until more is known. Yet more and more the broader public are being mislead into believing that this is unreasonable. Not only unreasonable but dangerous. So dangerous the law should be brought to bear upon them, and their liberties restricted.
And this is ultimately about liberty. Not freedom, which people often mistake it for. No one has a right to freedom, as that grants the permission to rape, murder, and commit other such crimes. But everyone has liberty, which is simply that if the State wants to prevent someone from doing something, they must justify it.
Removal of liberties over vaccine hesitancy must be justified. To justify this, vaccine hesitency must be proven unreasonable. To do this the evidence for vaccine hesitancy must be directly addressed. It is not enough to strawman the the reasoning behind hesitancy to its lowest common denominator.
Someone concerned about vaccine micro chips doesn’t share the same reasonable hesitancy as someone concerned about vaccine enhanced disease. The justification used for removing the freedoms of the former cannot be used to remove those of the latter. And yet this is what is being planned currently by health administrators, and the politicians they advise all around the world. It appears they are doing this because it’s the only way they can justify unjustly removing the freedom of those who are justly hesitant. They are removing their liberties, not their freedoms.
There is no such thing as trusting science. Science is a method. This method simply collects evidence, studies it to develop a hypothesis, and then test its hypothesis. It lays no claim on universal truth. No scientist ever would. When a health administrator says “the science changed” in relation to incorrect advice they've given, what they are really saying is that they either incorrectly used the scientific method to inform their decision making, or they have perverted the scientific method. It's usually the latter.
Health administrators have become public relations officials, serving the interests of their institutions over the interests of science. They now believe in their own authority as a higher power than that which validates it, and because of this will face the same issues the institutional authority of the Church once did, when followers begun to discover discrepancies between what the Church was doing and what its scripture said.
These days, sure, scientists can read the golden plates themselves, but nobody will listen to those of them unbound by private sector NDAs or public sector endowments speak out and reach people.
Take for instance, this poor fuck in the video below, a real scientist, trying earnestly to fight back against the health adminstrators.
See the heresy against dogmatic interpretation has weakened the credibility of the prophets and profiteers of authoritarian science. In response they have mounted a kind of holy war on information, an inquisition against all non-authoritative interpretations of the scientific script.
However, as per a condition of Western values, those exercising speech generally gain popularity over than those suppressing it, so long as they can be heard. Complete supression is the option for the latter.
So here we are, within a modern information pickle, where scientific dogma is failing to suppress the very means by which it gained legitimacy as an authority—its scientific method.
Scientific authoritarians have milked all they needed from the scientific method, and intend to ride deep learning algorithms into the future. They no longer need populations to produce anything but data to feed these. And the exact opposite of liberty is required of this, as data is best collected in a structured and uniformed state.
There is a need to bring people into greater conformity as inputs, so that outputs are less randomised. People will become nothing but a vessel through which The Science flows. A great non-stop human experiment feeding the machine atop of which scientific autocracy holds reign, guiding us into some future.
And the the isolation of these zealots from broader society, their levitation above it through the illumination of massing data, must give them a higher view. No faces only numbers when looking down. They will become Gods, or at least think of themselves as such. Ones we might not necessity all want to worship.
How could such an elevation in perceived knowledge, above that which is considered common, not become dehumanising in its application of reason and logic to irrational reality? What exactly couldn’t be justified as greater good?
There is a new State Religion. It is not science, but The Science! It is all knowing, authoritive, and subject to change at any moment. It is unaccountable. And it demands not your attention, only your faith. If you can't give it that, then give it heresy.
"We place no reliance on virgin or pigeon; Our method is science, our aim is religion."