Amid a profound lack of success among Covid-19 vaccines when it comes to originally-promised goals-- preventing infection and transmission-- top vaccine makers have announced plans to develop yet another vaccine that they hope will work against all Coronaviruses. It's called a "pan-coronavirus" vaccine.
That's according to Medscape. The article did not detail what was meant by the vaccine "working." Originally, the Covid-19 vaccines were touted to prevent Covid. However, when it quickly became apparent that the vaccines were not good at preventing infection, transmission, or illness; advocates stated the vaccines "work" because, in theory, they prevent serious illness and death. However, scientists say most people who get Covid without being vaccinated will have mild illness and not die.
According to Medscape:
With the knowledge that any of the other coronaviruses could pose a serious future threat, Pfizer and its partner BioNTech announced plans on Wednesday to develop a vaccine that will work against SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) and the entire class, or family, of related coronaviruses.
Trials in people of this "pan-coronavirus" vaccine are scheduled to start this fall, Reuters reported. The aim of this universal vaccine is to lessen the threat from new variants before they emerge – to provide "durable variant protection."
Vaccine makers and their public health partners have struggled amid a crisis in confidence among the public. They continue to push vaccination, including multiple boosters, for nearly everyone, including babies.
The vaccines have no long term data to show their safety profile over time, or how they may interact with other medicines and vaccines. Scientists say some vaccine side effects emerge months or years after the vaccine is given.
Nonetheless, advocates say the vaccines are proven to be safe and effective.
A number of serious and deadly side effects have been identified, but vaccine advocates say the benefits of vaccination outweigh any risks.
- The Clot Factor: A Full Measure Town Hall
- Long Vax, Long Covid Resources
- Covid-19 Natural Immunity: The Definitive Summary
- Covid-19 Vaccine: 80 of the Most Common Adverse Events
- Covid-19 Vaccine Concerns Summary
- Covid-19 Vaccine Analysis: Common Adverse Events
- Covid-19 Origins: Separating Rumor from Fact (WATCH)
- Report a Possible Vaccine Adverse Event
Believe it not.
And yet, in accord with many testimonials such as Dr Malone, Dr Yeadon, Dr. Martin, Dr Ruby, Dr Mikovits--this mRNA "drug" is NOT a vaccine. Pfizer is a criminal corporation, and they continue to swindle world governments for billions of dollars at a pop!
As well as murder and injure millions !
FRAUDCI has been trying for over 40 years to find a vax for AIDS, after he wrestled it from the bowels of the National Cancer institute through lies, and obfuscation just to get access to the billions in funding, and amp up his notoriety. AND NOW HE THINKS AFTER A BOTCHED COVID VAX, THAT HE IS GONNA BE ABLE TO DEVELOP A VAX FOR SOMETHING IN THE FUTURE? HE NEEDS TO STICK TO WHAT HE WAS hired for. He has never done a single thing that helped anyones health since he took over, over 40 years ago, and has destroyed almost everything he touches. THE MAN IS A MANIACAL PSYCOPATH, and along with GATES, and the terrorist TEDROS that worked for GATES before he installed him in the United Nations WHO, is on a path to destroy peoples futures, this should be the finishing touches..IF WE LET HIM...WHICH WE WONT...
The common cold is a corona virus.Nothing has ever been developed to combat it.
THis is yet another attempt at population control death and infertility
Why can't we sue to get our money back as the product did not deliver as advertised.
I'll take my chances with the virus. I've been given an immune system and it works pretty darn good!
Same! And I take C, D3, zinc and Quercetin to make sure it stays strong
I think that anyone reading this article would be justified in believing something like this: Vaccine makers failed miserably in developing their COVID vaccines. They originally claimed that their vaccines would “prevent” COVID; we now know that this isn’t true. Yet they continue to push for more and more people to get vaccinated despite their being “no long term data to show their safety profile over time, or how they may interact with other medicines and vaccines”.
The only thing missing from this article is the accusation that “they are only in it for the money”.
But I think that this article is grossly unfair and completely distorts the true picture.
First of all, SA’s statement that the vaccines were “touted to prevent COVID” implies (to me anyway) that the vaccine makers were claiming that the vaccines would be 100% effective. But the original prediction from the vaccine makers was that the vaccines would be about 90% effective (here is a quote from the Pfizer news release following the initial trials: “The case split between vaccinated individuals and those who received the placebo indicates a vaccine efficacy rate above 90%”). I can’t recall anyone ever saying that they would be 100% effective.
Likewise I challenge the claim that “advocates stated the vaccines "work" because, in theory, they prevent serious illness and death” because I assume putting “work” in quotes was meant to indicate that they didn’t so “work”. Well, I don’t remember anyone saying that no one who was vaccinated was going to get seriously ill or die. As I recall no one in the original testing group did get seriously ill or die, and that is what the medical community reported. But that’s not the same as saying that no one was ever going to die if they got vaccinated.
This misrepresentation of the facts has appeared in this newsletter many times. It’s time that it stopped.
This article complains that “working” was not defined. Yet it also notes a “profound lack of success among COVID-19 vaccines” and “it quickly became apparent that the vaccines were not good at preventing infection, transmission, or illness” without bothering to define what “profound lack of success” and “not good” means.
So let me try to put some definition around “working”. Back in November, 2021, the CDC released a report on the COVID number of cases, hospitalizations, and deaths.
Here are the numbers from the CDC report (cases per 100,000 population as of 11/20):
Note: “Vaccinated” means two shots plus booster
Cases (vaccinated): 48.02
Cases (unvaccinated): 450.91
Hospitalizations (vaccinated): 3.9
Hospitalizations (unvaccinated): 63.9
Deaths (vaccinated): .14
Deaths (unvaccinated): 6.03
So the unvaccinated are 9.39 times as likely to get COVID, 16.38 times as likely to be hospitalized, and 43.07 times as likely to die as the vaccinated are. Or expressed a different way, the unvaccinated make up 90.8% of the cases, 94.2% of the hospitalizations, and 97.7% of the deaths.
I found another CDC morbidity report that split the data between “pre-Delta” and “post-Delta”. And the vaccines clearly don’t work as well, post-Delta. There were 78,256 unvaccinated deaths and 20,313 vaccinated deaths. That means that 79% of the deaths were among the unvaccinated (meaning you were 3.76 times as likely to die if you were unvaccinated).
Now it’s possible that I have misinterpreted this data. And it’s possible that the numbers have meaningfully changed since the first of the year. If only we could find some nonpartisan investigative reporter to dig into this data and use that as the basis for the claim that the vaccines don’t really work. If only.
So my definition of “working” is that it lowers the odds of dying by a factor of at least 3.76. What’s your definition?
But given the worsening results of the post-Delta period, it seems logical to me that having a vaccine that would work against other strains would be a real benefit. I, for one, would be happy to take it.
This article also states that “the vaccines have no long term data to show their safety profile over time, or how they may interact with other medicines and vaccines”. To which I reply, “true and what is your point”? I assume that there would be a choice – not administer the vaccine for many years to see what side effects show up. Or go with the info you have and administer it right away. Incidentally, I looked up when the polio vaccine was first given to the public at large. It was pretty much immediately after it was approved. No long-term wait there. I guess SA would think that was a mistake.
And, of course, the current polio vaccine regimen consists of four shots. But getting a COVID booster (when admittedly boosters were not part of the original plan), seems now to be regarded as a failure or at least a reason to poke fun.
And, finally, SA notes that “scientists say most people who get Covid without being vaccinated will have mild illness and not die”. So, I guess it’s OK to quote scientists when they something that furthers your narrative. But it’s always been a source of amazement to me when people take hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin and get better and then claim that those drugs helped them, completely ignoring the fact that they were almost certainly going to get better with or without those drugs.
SA has complained many times about reporters putting their opinions into their articles. I challenge anyone to read this article and not clearly see lots and lots of opinions and bias. But the worst part is the dripping sarcasm and snark.
Please use Brave.com, rumble or some non-google search engine to hear Ernest Ramirez, talking about losing his 16 year old son, Junior.
Also Dr David Martin (a PhD) has spoken a lot about Peter Dazak’s quotes from pre-2019 about the need for a “pan coronavirus vaccine.” He talked about creating the hype around a virus (to scare us) & using the media to make the pan-vax be accepted by the public. I will try to post a link to his quote. It was pretty damning (now, considering).
& of course we all now know that Dazak & his EcoHealth Alliance nonprofit was how the money from NIAID to pay for the gain of function research done at Wuhan Institute of Virology got laundered such that it wouldn’t be obvious that US tax dollars were used to fund GoF work AFTER a moratorium on it had been put in place (giving a pass to Dr Ralph Baric at UNC and then to WIV). It seems US tax dollars were used to make this chimera bioweapon.
We are dealing with organized crime, & some in our leadership are involved (& have been, no matter which party was in the White House.
.
I spelled Peter Daszak’s name incorrectly in my other comment. .
Here’s what he said in a public forum circa 2016/17 (I don’t know the exact date from memory).
“MCM” means Medical Countermeasure, aka a vaccine.
“We need to increase public understanding of the need for MCMs such as a pan-influenza or pan-coronavirus vaccine. A key driver is the media, and the economics follow the hype. We need to use that hype to our advantage to get to the real issues. Investors will respond if they see profit at the end of process.” -Peter Daszak
Keep up the real journalism, SK. There aren’t many of you left!
Read more: https://www.city-data.com/forum/politics-other-controversies/3287814-modernas-covid-19-vaccine-patents-were-10.html#ixzz7Y8Ss1oin
You are literally the only person I have hope of looking into Daszak and into the related NIH grants & patents awarded to Ralph Baric at UNC. There’s even a MTA (Materials Transfer Agreement) anyone can find detailing Baric’s transfer of his work back to Moderna (It may have been the NIH. Same difference. DHHS/BARDA & Dod/DARPA are listed on Moderna’s 10-K SEC filings in the years before 2019.)
This isn’t the quote but it’s another sketchy one, considering.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cmbRR-JGHnQ
Please look into this, SK, if you haven’t already. The patents & grants are easy to find.