The Excel file presented here contains the exact records used in computing the various statistical results reported in the paper by Santiago and Oller at DOI https://doi.org/10.56098/ijvtpr.v3i1.73. They have not been changed in any way except to remove elements added to blank cells, evidently by Medicare authorities. Also, 37 antirely blank records had to be deleted in order to make the counting functions and ordinary scrolling and data sorting functions work as they normally do in Excel. The Medicare data for Connecticut showing up to 7 doses of COVID-19 injectable fluids were sorted and stacked in such a manner as to enable the counting and statistical comparisons across the various subsamples referred to in the Santiago and Oller paper. Those computational processes were applied only to make the normal Excel functions for ordinary scrolling, counting, creating tables, and charting results feasible. Again, Santiago and Oller express gratitude to Steve Kirsch and his anonymous source(s) for the Medicare data published here. All of the results reported by Santiago and Oller were obtained from these data and are easily replicable by anyone with the requisite statistical and algebraic skill set.
{"title":"Supplementary Files for Santiago & Oller","authors":"J. Oller, CDC and Medicare US and Connecticut","doi":"10.56098/ijvtpr.v3i1.75","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.56098/ijvtpr.v3i1.75","url":null,"abstract":"The Excel file presented here contains the exact records used in computing the various statistical results reported in the paper by Santiago and Oller at DOI https://doi.org/10.56098/ijvtpr.v3i1.73. They have not been changed in any way except to remove elements added to blank cells, evidently by Medicare authorities. Also, 37 antirely blank records had to be deleted in order to make the counting functions and ordinary scrolling and data sorting functions work as they normally do in Excel. The Medicare data for Connecticut showing up to 7 doses of COVID-19 injectable fluids were sorted and stacked in such a manner as to enable the counting and statistical comparisons across the various subsamples referred to in the Santiago and Oller paper. Those computational processes were applied only to make the normal Excel functions for ordinary scrolling, counting, creating tables, and charting results feasible. Again, Santiago and Oller express gratitude to Steve Kirsch and his anonymous source(s) for the Medicare data published here. All of the results reported by Santiago and Oller were obtained from these data and are easily replicable by anyone with the requisite statistical and algebraic skill set.","PeriodicalId":391540,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research","volume":"16 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-04-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133591892","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Emergency Response Technical Centre NIVD under China CDC
Laboratory testing for COVID-19, Emergency Response Technical Centre, NIVD under China CDC, March 15th, 2020
2020年3月15日，中国疾病预防控制中心新冠肺炎应急技术中心实验室检测
{"title":"Laboratory testing for COVID-19","authors":"Emergency Response Technical Centre NIVD under China CDC","doi":"10.56098/ijvtpr.v3i1.74","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.56098/ijvtpr.v3i1.74","url":null,"abstract":"Laboratory testing for COVID-19, Emergency Response Technical Centre, NIVD under China CDC, March 15th, 2020","PeriodicalId":391540,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research","volume":"33 10","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-04-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"113941367","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
U. Kämmerer, S. Pekova, R. Klement, Rogier Louwen, Peter Borger, Klaus Steger
For the first time in medical history, the result of a laboratory assay (RT-qPCR) was used as the sole criterion to diagnose a disease (Covid-19) without any rating of clinical symptoms and to justify the implementation of population-wide non-pharmaceutical interventions during virus season. The aim of this study is (1) to evaluate a robust RT-qPCR test that overcomes major concerns raised within the scientific community on the first WHO-recommended RT-qPCR protocol to detect SARS-CoV-2 sequences, (2) to genomically characterize individual SARS-CoV-2 strains circulating in the Czech Republic from autumn 2020 to spring 2021 applying NGS and (3) to re-initiate the currently missing scientific dialogue and return to reason and evidence-based medicine. We present a RT-qPCR test designed for the detection of all SARS-CoV-2 variants known so far. Based on the genomic mutation profile, we demonstrate that the three individual waves culminating from autumn 2020 to spring 2021 in the Czech Republic were successive, but lacked direct genomic relationship between each other. This became obvious with the omicron variant, which did not reveal direct evolutionary connection to any of the previous SARS-CoV-2 variants. In addition, we provide evidence that neglected principles of good scientific practice resulted not only in the publication of the WHO-recommended Charité RT-qPCR protocol, but also in health-related problems. Unnecessary quarantine of false positive-tested, healthy individuals, as well as lockdowns and atrocious collateral damage on societies and economies worldwide due to a high number of false-positive “PCR-cases.” Further, some chain of infection caused by false negative-tested, symptomatic individuals lead to real Covid-19 clusters. Both our results and literature data confirm that validation of any PCR-based diagnostic test by sequencing is mandatory on a regular basis. To prevent future misconduct, science needs a reality check and must re-initiate the scientific dialogue and liberate itself from political influence and dogma.
{"title":"A RT-qPCR test targeting the conserved 5´-UTR of SARS-CoV-2 overcomes major shortcomings of the first WHO-recommended RT-qPCR test","authors":"U. Kämmerer, S. Pekova, R. Klement, Rogier Louwen, Peter Borger, Klaus Steger","doi":"10.56098/ijvtpr.v3i1.71","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.56098/ijvtpr.v3i1.71","url":null,"abstract":"For the first time in medical history, the result of a laboratory assay (RT-qPCR) was used as the sole criterion to diagnose a disease (Covid-19) without any rating of clinical symptoms and to justify the implementation of population-wide non-pharmaceutical interventions during virus season. The aim of this study is (1) to evaluate a robust RT-qPCR test that overcomes major concerns raised within the scientific community on the first WHO-recommended RT-qPCR protocol to detect SARS-CoV-2 sequences, (2) to genomically characterize individual SARS-CoV-2 strains circulating in the Czech Republic from autumn 2020 to spring 2021 applying NGS and (3) to re-initiate the currently missing scientific dialogue and return to reason and evidence-based medicine. We present a RT-qPCR test designed for the detection of all SARS-CoV-2 variants known so far. Based on the genomic mutation profile, we demonstrate that the three individual waves culminating from autumn 2020 to spring 2021 in the Czech Republic were successive, but lacked direct genomic relationship between each other. This became obvious with the omicron variant, which did not reveal direct evolutionary connection to any of the previous SARS-CoV-2 variants. In addition, we provide evidence that neglected principles of good scientific practice resulted not only in the publication of the WHO-recommended Charité RT-qPCR protocol, but also in health-related problems. Unnecessary quarantine of false positive-tested, healthy individuals, as well as lockdowns and atrocious collateral damage on societies and economies worldwide due to a high number of false-positive “PCR-cases.” Further, some chain of infection caused by false negative-tested, symptomatic individuals lead to real Covid-19 clusters. Both our results and literature data confirm that validation of any PCR-based diagnostic test by sequencing is mandatory on a regular basis. To prevent future misconduct, science needs a reality check and must re-initiate the scientific dialogue and liberate itself from political influence and dogma.","PeriodicalId":391540,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research","volume":"39 4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-04-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132543264","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The medicinal preparation called Comirnaty by Pfizer-BioNTech is an aqueous dispersion of lipid nanomaterials, intended to constitute, after thawing and dilution, the finished product for intramuscular injection. In the present study, we examine some evident chemical-physical criticalities of the preparation, regarding the manifest instability of its qualitative-quantitative composition, as well as its consequent toxicological potential, in this case related to the possible formation of ROS (reactive oxygen species), after intramuscular inoculation, in different biological sites, such as, potentially, kidneys, liver, heart, brain, etc., causing dysfunctions and alterations thereof. Of particular concern is the presence in the formulation of the two functional excipients, ALC-0315 and ALC-0159, never used before in a medicinal product, nor registered in the European Pharmacopoeia, nor in the European C&L inventory. The current Safety Data Sheets of the manufacturer are omissive and non-compliant, especially with regard to the provisions of current European regulations on the registration, evaluation, authorization and restriction of nanomaterials. The presence of electrolytes in the preparation and the subsequent dilution phase after thawing and before inoculation raise well-founded concerns about the precarious stability of the resulting suspension and the Polydispersity index of the nanomaterials contained in it, factors that can be hypothesized as the root causes of numerous post-vaccination adverse effects recorded at statistical-epidemiological level. Further immediate studies and verifications are recommended, taking into consideration, if necessary and for purely precautionary purposes, the immediate suspension of vaccinations with the Pfizer-BioNTech Comirnaty preparation.
{"title":"Chemical-physical criticality and toxicological potential of lipid nanomaterials contained in a COVID-19 mRNA vaccine","authors":"G. Segalla","doi":"10.56098/ijvtpr.v3i1.68","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.56098/ijvtpr.v3i1.68","url":null,"abstract":"The medicinal preparation called Comirnaty by Pfizer-BioNTech is an aqueous dispersion of lipid nanomaterials, intended to constitute, after thawing and dilution, the finished product for intramuscular injection. In the present study, we examine some evident chemical-physical criticalities of the preparation, regarding the manifest instability of its qualitative-quantitative composition, as well as its consequent toxicological potential, in this case related to the possible formation of ROS (reactive oxygen species), after intramuscular inoculation, in different biological sites, such as, potentially, kidneys, liver, heart, brain, etc., causing dysfunctions and alterations thereof. \u0000Of particular concern is the presence in the formulation of the two functional excipients, ALC-0315 and ALC-0159, never used before in a medicinal product, nor registered in the European Pharmacopoeia, nor in the European C&L inventory. The current Safety Data Sheets of the manufacturer are omissive and non-compliant, especially with regard to the provisions of current European regulations on the registration, evaluation, authorization and restriction of nanomaterials. \u0000The presence of electrolytes in the preparation and the subsequent dilution phase after thawing and before inoculation raise well-founded concerns about the precarious stability of the resulting suspension and the Polydispersity index of the nanomaterials contained in it, factors that can be hypothesized as the root causes of numerous post-vaccination adverse effects recorded at statistical-epidemiological level. Further immediate studies and verifications are recommended, taking into consideration, if necessary and for purely precautionary purposes, the immediate suspension of vaccinations with the Pfizer-BioNTech Comirnaty preparation.","PeriodicalId":391540,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research","volume":"53 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127962189","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-12DOI: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-2327212/v1
H. Banoun, P. Provost
Background. Messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines have been widely used as the main sanitary measure destined to fight the COVID-19 pandemic. Rapidly purported as being “safe and effective”, this new generation of vaccines is radically different from those developed traditionally and for which potentially associated adverse events (AEs) are considered through a standard 6-week post-vaccination period. Hypothesis. Here, we posit that the reporting period for AEs related to the COVID-19 vaccines may need to be longer. Method. In this retrospective, observational study, we aimed to assess the chronology of new/worsening ailments occurring after the administration of COVID-19 vaccines based on the changes to the participants’ pharmacological records. Patients vaccinated against COVID-19 and experiencing health-related events during the study period (between September 30, 2021 and July 15, 2022) were included and the changes to their pharmacological records were analyzed. Results. One hundred and twelve (112) adult patients (63 men, 49 women; 67.54 ± 14.55 years-old; mean ± standard deviation) have reported changes to their pharmacological record following health-related events, which occurred 11.57 weeks (median; range 0.04-47.14) following their last COVID-19 injection of 3 doses (median; range 1-4). The most frequent medical ailments that appeared or worsened were cardiovascular diseases (CVD; N=61), cancer (N=31), respiratory diseases (RD; N=22) and zona (N=10), half of which occurred after the second dose. Nineteen (19) patients (10 men, 9 women; 78.2 ± 11.4 years-old) died on average 17.14 weeks (SD 13.71) after their last injection. Conclusion. Most (76.1%) of the health-related events experienced by patients vaccinated against COVID-19 occurred beyond the 6-week period prescribed by the health authorities. Our findings call for further investigations and an extension of the post-vaccination AE reporting period.
{"title":"A 6-Week Time Period May not be Sufficient to Identify Potential Adverse Events Following COVID-19 Vaccination","authors":"H. Banoun, P. Provost","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-2327212/v1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-2327212/v1","url":null,"abstract":"Background. Messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines have been widely used as the main sanitary measure destined to fight the COVID-19 pandemic. Rapidly purported as being “safe and effective”, this new generation of vaccines is radically different from those developed traditionally and for which potentially associated adverse events (AEs) are considered through a standard 6-week post-vaccination period. \u0000Hypothesis. Here, we posit that the reporting period for AEs related to the COVID-19 vaccines may need to be longer. \u0000Method. In this retrospective, observational study, we aimed to assess the chronology of new/worsening ailments occurring after the administration of COVID-19 vaccines based on the changes to the participants’ pharmacological records. Patients vaccinated against COVID-19 and experiencing health-related events during the study period (between September 30, 2021 and July 15, 2022) were included and the changes to their pharmacological records were analyzed. \u0000Results. One hundred and twelve (112) adult patients (63 men, 49 women; 67.54 ± 14.55 years-old; mean ± standard deviation) have reported changes to their pharmacological record following health-related events, which occurred 11.57 weeks (median; range 0.04-47.14) following their last COVID-19 injection of 3 doses (median; range 1-4). The most frequent medical ailments that appeared or worsened were cardiovascular diseases (CVD; N=61), cancer (N=31), respiratory diseases (RD; N=22) and zona (N=10), half of which occurred after the second dose. Nineteen (19) patients (10 men, 9 women; 78.2 ± 11.4 years-old) died on average 17.14 weeks (SD 13.71) after their last injection. \u0000Conclusion. Most (76.1%) of the health-related events experienced by patients vaccinated against COVID-19 occurred beyond the 6-week period prescribed by the health authorities. Our findings call for further investigations and an extension of the post-vaccination AE reporting period.","PeriodicalId":391540,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research","volume":"14 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130332621","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Case reports involving two academic researchers suggest that adverse events (AEs) to COVID-19 messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccination are largely underreported due to numerous clinical, systemic, political and media factors. The lack of proper analysis and consideration of the reported AEs also suggests that these injections are not as safe as widely purported. The resulting biased risk-benefit assessment may only produce misinformed public health recommendations and misguided political decisions, thereby exposing the population to an underestimated risk, in possible violation of the precautionary principle and of the right to a free and informed consent. The possible mechanisms underlying AEs to COVID-19 vaccination raise serious concerns regarding the new vaccine application of the mRNA technology that need to be addressed before expanding it to other infectious diseases. The legal considerations of AE underreporting are also discussed, and recommendations are formulated. AEs to mRNA injections are a reality and need to be better assessed than heretofore, diagnosed and reported to public health authorities for follow-up investigation in order to inform policy decisions and updates to physician guidelines in an objective, scientifically based, independent, and transparent manner.
{"title":"The Blind Spot in COVID-19 Vaccination Policies: Under-Reported Adverse Events","authors":"P. Provost","doi":"10.56098/ijvtpr.v3i1.65","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.56098/ijvtpr.v3i1.65","url":null,"abstract":"Case reports involving two academic researchers suggest that adverse events (AEs) to COVID-19 messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccination are largely underreported due to numerous clinical, systemic, political and media factors. The lack of proper analysis and consideration of the reported AEs also suggests that these injections are not as safe as widely purported. The resulting biased risk-benefit assessment may only produce misinformed public health recommendations and misguided political decisions, thereby exposing the population to an underestimated risk, in possible violation of the precautionary principle and of the right to a free and informed consent. The possible mechanisms underlying AEs to COVID-19 vaccination raise serious concerns regarding the new vaccine application of the mRNA technology that need to be addressed before expanding it to other infectious diseases. The legal considerations of AE underreporting are also discussed, and recommendations are formulated. AEs to mRNA injections are a reality and need to be better assessed than heretofore, diagnosed and reported to public health authorities for follow-up investigation in order to inform policy decisions and updates to physician guidelines in an objective, scientifically based, independent, and transparent manner.","PeriodicalId":391540,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129011105","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Jean-claude Perez, C. Moret-Chalmin, L. Montagnier
Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease, the formerly rare but universally fatal prion disease in humans, normally progresses over several decades before it leads to death. In the Appendix to this paper, we highlight the presence of a prion region in the spike protein of the original SARS-CoV-2, and in all the “vaccine” variants built from the Wuhan virus. The prion region in the spike of SARS-CoV-2 has a density of mutations eight times greater than that of the rest of the spike, and, yet, strangely that entire prion region disappears completely in the Omicron variant. In the main body of our text, we present 26 cases of Creuzfeldt-Jacob Disease, all diagnosed in 2021 with the first symptoms appearing within an average of 11.38 days after a Pfizer, Moderna, or AstraZeneca COVID-19 injection. Because the causal progression, the etiopathogenesis, of these atypical and new cases of human prion disease — cases of what is apparently a totally new form of rapidly developing Creuzfeldt-Jacob Disease — we focus on the chronology of the symptomatic development. We consider it from an anamnestic point of view — one in which we compare the typical development of pre-COVID cases of Creuzfeldt-Jacob Disease to the extremely accelerated development of similar symptoms in the 26 cases under examination. By such an approach, we hope to work out the etiopathogenesis critical to understanding this new and much more rapidly developing human prion disease. By recalling the sequential pathway of that the formerly subacute and slowly developing disease followed in the past, and by comparing it with this new, extremely acute, rapidly developing prion disease — one following closely after one or more of the COVID-19 injections — we believe it is correct to infer that the injections caused the disease in these 26 cases. If so, they have probably also caused a many other cases that have gone undiagnosed because of their rapid progression to death. By late 2021, 20 had died within 4.76 months of the offending injection. Of those, 8 died suddenly within 2.5 months confirming the rapid progression of this accelerated form of Creuzfeldt-Jacob Disease. By June 2022, 5 more patients had died, and at the time of this current writing, only 1 remains still alive.
{"title":"Emergence of a New Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease: 26 Cases of the Human Version of Mad-Cow Disease, Days After a COVID-19 Injection","authors":"Jean-claude Perez, C. Moret-Chalmin, L. Montagnier","doi":"10.56098/ijvtpr.v3i1.66","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.56098/ijvtpr.v3i1.66","url":null,"abstract":"Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease, the formerly rare but universally fatal prion disease in humans, normally progresses over several decades before it leads to death. In the Appendix to this paper, we highlight the presence of a prion region in the spike protein of the original SARS-CoV-2, and in all the “vaccine” variants built from the Wuhan virus. The prion region in the spike of SARS-CoV-2 has a density of mutations eight times greater than that of the rest of the spike, and, yet, strangely that entire prion region disappears completely in the Omicron variant. In the main body of our text, we present 26 cases of Creuzfeldt-Jacob Disease, all diagnosed in 2021 with the first symptoms appearing within an average of 11.38 days after a Pfizer, Moderna, or AstraZeneca COVID-19 injection. Because the causal progression, the etiopathogenesis, of these atypical and new cases of human prion disease — cases of what is apparently a totally new form of rapidly developing Creuzfeldt-Jacob Disease — we focus on the chronology of the symptomatic development. We consider it from an anamnestic point of view — one in which we compare the typical development of pre-COVID cases of Creuzfeldt-Jacob Disease to the extremely accelerated development of similar symptoms in the 26 cases under examination. By such an approach, we hope to work out the etiopathogenesis critical to understanding this new and much more rapidly developing human prion disease. By recalling the sequential pathway of that the formerly subacute and slowly developing disease followed in the past, and by comparing it with this new, extremely acute, rapidly developing prion disease — one following closely after one or more of the COVID-19 injections — we believe it is correct to infer that the injections caused the disease in these 26 cases. If so, they have probably also caused a many other cases that have gone undiagnosed because of their rapid progression to death. By late 2021, 20 had died within 4.76 months of the offending injection. Of those, 8 died suddenly within 2.5 months confirming the rapid progression of this accelerated form of Creuzfeldt-Jacob Disease. By June 2022, 5 more patients had died, and at the time of this current writing, only 1 remains still alive.","PeriodicalId":391540,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research","volume":"58 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132692489","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This editorial presents the main questions for volume 3, issue 1 of the IJVTPR, titled Injuries, Causes, & Treatments. The focus is on the clinical outcomes still unfolding from billions of injections of the COVID-19 “vaccines” — the “synthetic gene therapies” administered, according to the Pharmaceutical Technology trackers in 2022, in more than 13 billion doses to more than 5 billion persons at the time of this writing. What are (1) the components in those injections that are (2) causing the observed clinical outcomes, and, (3) what treatments are possible for people who have received one or more of the injections?[1] Yuval Noah Harari has said that in a hundred years “the corona virus epidemic” will be marked “as the moment when a new regime of surveillance took over, especially, surveillance under the skin”. He says it enables overseers to “collect biometric data, analyze it, and understand people better than they understand themselves”. Or, as Klaus Schwab of the World Economic Forum put it, the power of “genetic editing” redefines everyone who receives it. Just so, the COVID era has elevated the subject-matter of this journal to a higher level than could even have been imagined in the summer of 2019 when it was being conceptualized. The Inaugural Issue was well underway before March 11, 2020 when the World Health Organization proclaimed the corona pandemic. The first issue of the journal would not appear until July 15, 2020, only months before what Schwab would call the “Fourth Industrial Revolution”. Is the “Fourth” one — with transformative gene editing at its core — an intended resuscitation of the “Third Reich”? Who could have imagined beforehand and who can now comprehend the events that are confronting us all?
{"title":"Injuries, Causes, & Treatments, IJVTPR 3(1): For “Such a Time as This”","authors":"J. Oller","doi":"10.56098/ijvtpr.v3i1.64","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.56098/ijvtpr.v3i1.64","url":null,"abstract":"This editorial presents the main questions for volume 3, issue 1 of the IJVTPR, titled Injuries, Causes, & Treatments. The focus is on the clinical outcomes still unfolding from billions of injections of the COVID-19 “vaccines” — the “synthetic gene therapies” administered, according to the Pharmaceutical Technology trackers in 2022, in more than 13 billion doses to more than 5 billion persons at the time of this writing. What are (1) the components in those injections that are (2) causing the observed clinical outcomes, and, (3) what treatments are possible for people who have received one or more of the injections?[1] Yuval Noah Harari has said that in a hundred years “the corona virus epidemic” will be marked “as the moment when a new regime of surveillance took over, especially, surveillance under the skin”. He says it enables overseers to “collect biometric data, analyze it, and understand people better than they understand themselves”. Or, as Klaus Schwab of the World Economic Forum put it, the power of “genetic editing” redefines everyone who receives it. Just so, the COVID era has elevated the subject-matter of this journal to a higher level than could even have been imagined in the summer of 2019 when it was being conceptualized. The Inaugural Issue was well underway before March 11, 2020 when the World Health Organization proclaimed the corona pandemic. The first issue of the journal would not appear until July 15, 2020, only months before what Schwab would call the “Fourth Industrial Revolution”. Is the “Fourth” one — with transformative gene editing at its core — an intended resuscitation of the “Third Reich”? Who could have imagined beforehand and who can now comprehend the events that are confronting us all?","PeriodicalId":391540,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research","volume":"30 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115526536","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Results from the 2019/2020 nationwide Control Group Survey of Unvaccinated Americans (CGS) show that those refusing vaccines are thriving while those accepting them are being injured and met with a multiplicity of grave injuries as well as sudden unexpected death. This survey quantified the long-term health risks of total vaccine avoidance against the health outcomes observed in the 99.74% vaccine-exposed American population. Based upon the sample sizes for the controls vs. the exposed population, the p-values and odds ratios evidence the astronomical odds against the innocence of vaccines as the actual cause of well over 90% of the disabling and life-threatening chronic conditions suffered by Americans. The true “controls” (calculated to represent 0.26% of the population in 2020) have established the baseline disease risk incurred by those without exposure to vaccination. The null hypothesis, that no significant difference would be found between vaccinated vs. unvaccinated persons in heart disease, diabetes, digestive disorders, eczema, asthma, allergies, developmental disabilities, birth defects, epilepsy, autism, ADHD, cancers, and arthritis, is rejected with overwhelming statistical confidence and power in every single contrast. Because 99.74% of the U.S. population is vaccine-exposed, published national disease rates invariably reflect the frequency of observed negative outcomes arising from exposure to vaccines. The Control Group comparison graphs lead to the inescapable conclusion, and near mathematical certainty, that vaccine exposure is the actual cause of the observed disparity in health outcomes between vaccinated and unvaccinated populations. Vaccines are NOT moving the population toward better health, as suggested by the World Health Organization and the US Department of Health & Human Services, but rather toward epidemic levels of lifelong debilitating chronic disorders.
{"title":"Health versus Disorder, Disease, and Death: Unvaccinated Persons Are Incommensurably Healthier than Vaccinated","authors":"J. Garner","doi":"10.56098/ijvtpr.v2i2.40","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.56098/ijvtpr.v2i2.40","url":null,"abstract":"Results from the 2019/2020 nationwide Control Group Survey of Unvaccinated Americans (CGS) show that those refusing vaccines are thriving while those accepting them are being injured and met with a multiplicity of grave injuries as well as sudden unexpected death. This survey quantified the long-term health risks of total vaccine avoidance against the health outcomes observed in the 99.74% vaccine-exposed American population. Based upon the sample sizes for the controls vs. the exposed population, the p-values and odds ratios evidence the astronomical odds against the innocence of vaccines as the actual cause of well over 90% of the disabling and life-threatening chronic conditions suffered by Americans. The true “controls” (calculated to represent 0.26% of the population in 2020) have established the baseline disease risk incurred by those without exposure to vaccination. The null hypothesis, that no significant difference would be found between vaccinated vs. unvaccinated persons in heart disease, diabetes, digestive disorders, eczema, asthma, allergies, developmental disabilities, birth defects, epilepsy, autism, ADHD, cancers, and arthritis, is rejected with overwhelming statistical confidence and power in every single contrast. Because 99.74% of the U.S. population is vaccine-exposed, published national disease rates invariably reflect the frequency of observed negative outcomes arising from exposure to vaccines. The Control Group comparison graphs lead to the inescapable conclusion, and near mathematical certainty, that vaccine exposure is the actual cause of the observed disparity in health outcomes between vaccinated and unvaccinated populations. Vaccines are NOT moving the population toward better health, as suggested by the World Health Organization and the US Department of Health & Human Services, but rather toward epidemic levels of lifelong debilitating chronic disorders.","PeriodicalId":391540,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research","volume":"127 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115614939","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Chaufan Claudia, Natalie Hemsing, Jennifer McDonald, Camila Heredia
Background: “Vaccine hesitancy” has been described as a major public health problem, especially in the COVID-19 era. Identified factors driving “hesitancy” include the concerns of recipients with the safety, side effects, and risk-benefit ratio of COVID-19 vaccines[1] — a proper assessment and disclosure of which are critical to the requisite process of informed consent. However, the expert literature has given little attention to the evidence informing these concerns, focusing instead on features of the recipients themselves to explain the phenomenon of so-called “hesitancy”. Goal: This umbrella review will expand the scope of research on “vaccine hesitancy” by examining how the safety, side effects, and risk-benefit ratio concerns of recipients of COVID-19 vaccines are addressed in the expert literature. Inclusion criteria: We will include systematic reviews on COVID-19 “vaccine hesitancy” that examine hesitancy in any population involved with COVID-19 vaccination decisions for themselves or as caretakers (e.g., decisions about “vaccinating” their children) to capture the broadest possible range of perspectives on the phenomenon of interest. Only completed, published, and refereed systematic reviews in English will be included. Methods: We will search PubMed, the Epistemonokos COVID-19 platform (COVID-19 L·OVE), and the WHO Global Research on COVID-19 Database to locate quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods studies reviews. Reviews that meet the inclusion criteria will undergo quality assessment (AMSTAR) and data extraction. Two reviewers will independently conduct title and abstract screening and extract and synthesize the data. Disagreements will be resolved through full team discussion. Subgroup analyses will be performed to compare findings according to social indicators of target populations, country location of the first author, and other contextual factors. Thematic analysis and synthesis will be used to “transform the data” into themes by applying a deductive-inductive approach. Frequency distributions will be calculated to assess the strength of support for each theme. Findings will be presented in tabular and narrative forms to facilitate their interpretation. Significance: Informed consent is a fundamental bioethical principle in medical research and practice. Insufficient attention to the concerns of vaccine recipients about these matters, compounded by a neglect to discuss the evidence-base informing these concerns, may contribute to the very problem that the COVID-19 “vaccine hesitancy” expert literature purports to address. This is especially true of an intervention based on novel technologies and intended to be delivered on a global scale. Identifying if and how the expert literature engages with these concerns is critical. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42022351489. [1] Although we use the phrase “COVID-19 vaccines” throughout, we believe they should more appropriately be referred to as “COVID-19 g
{"title":"The Risk-Benefit Balance in the COVID-19 “Vaccine Hesitancy” Literature: An Umbrella Review Protocol","authors":"Chaufan Claudia, Natalie Hemsing, Jennifer McDonald, Camila Heredia","doi":"10.56098/ijvtpr.v2i2.62","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.56098/ijvtpr.v2i2.62","url":null,"abstract":"Background: “Vaccine hesitancy” has been described as a major public health problem, especially in the COVID-19 era. Identified factors driving “hesitancy” include the concerns of recipients with the safety, side effects, and risk-benefit ratio of COVID-19 vaccines[1] — a proper assessment and disclosure of which are critical to the requisite process of informed consent. However, the expert literature has given little attention to the evidence informing these concerns, focusing instead on features of the recipients themselves to explain the phenomenon of so-called “hesitancy”. \u0000Goal: This umbrella review will expand the scope of research on “vaccine hesitancy” by examining how the safety, side effects, and risk-benefit ratio concerns of recipients of COVID-19 vaccines are addressed in the expert literature. \u0000Inclusion criteria: We will include systematic reviews on COVID-19 “vaccine hesitancy” that examine hesitancy in any population involved with COVID-19 vaccination decisions for themselves or as caretakers (e.g., decisions about “vaccinating” their children) to capture the broadest possible range of perspectives on the phenomenon of interest. Only completed, published, and refereed systematic reviews in English will be included. \u0000Methods: We will search PubMed, the Epistemonokos COVID-19 platform (COVID-19 L·OVE), and the WHO Global Research on COVID-19 Database to locate quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods studies reviews. Reviews that meet the inclusion criteria will undergo quality assessment (AMSTAR) and data extraction. Two reviewers will independently conduct title and abstract screening and extract and synthesize the data. Disagreements will be resolved through full team discussion. Subgroup analyses will be performed to compare findings according to social indicators of target populations, country location of the first author, and other contextual factors. Thematic analysis and synthesis will be used to “transform the data” into themes by applying a deductive-inductive approach. Frequency distributions will be calculated to assess the strength of support for each theme. Findings will be presented in tabular and narrative forms to facilitate their interpretation. \u0000Significance: Informed consent is a fundamental bioethical principle in medical research and practice. Insufficient attention to the concerns of vaccine recipients about these matters, compounded by a neglect to discuss the evidence-base informing these concerns, may contribute to the very problem that the COVID-19 “vaccine hesitancy” expert literature purports to address. This is especially true of an intervention based on novel technologies and intended to be delivered on a global scale. Identifying if and how the expert literature engages with these concerns is critical. \u0000Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42022351489. \u0000 \u0000[1] Although we use the phrase “COVID-19 vaccines” throughout, we believe they should more appropriately be referred to as “COVID-19 g","PeriodicalId":391540,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research","volume":"13 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-11-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128123760","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：