Search Results for: vaccine efficacy

Since the beginning of 2020, Public healthcare has taken a paradigm shift from Evidence-based clinical practice to one of hypothesis/opinion based pandemic dependent clinical practices. Driven by misinformation, coercion, and conflict of interests from the globally unelected bodies like WHO, CDC, NIH, FDA, and country-wise health and welfare institutions. All this is fueled by the will full blindness and an act of survival by the guardians of healthcare – the healthcare professionals.

The pandemic was primarily driven by testing and positivity, not the threat of illness and fatality (which was less than 0.5%). Therefore it never qualified for any kind of emergency use authorization interventions (either novel drugs or vaccination). 

All cause morbidity and mortality rates were falsely escalated by relating them to PCR positivity, not those related to respiratory failure (Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome, ARDS). No proof was established through autopsies and direct evidence of viral dissemination. In fact, mandates of lockdowns and reduced access to critical care resulted in higher fatality rates of those with preexisting illnesses.

The helplessness of the primary care, overwhelmed state of emergency care physicians, and the misinformation about the threat to the global population (promoted by the MSM and political leadership) was conveniently utilized to bring the under-development vaccine as a holy grail.

Once this was established, the testing was conveniently disowned under the pretext of mass vaccination and the emergence of variants.

The emergence of variants story was so created to mask the failure of the vaccine to stop the transmission ( keeping alive the mandate of vaccination to reduce the severity of illness instead of transmission). The concept of Absolute risk reduction (the real clinical endpoint) was conveniently replaced by relative risk reduction anyway during initial clinical trials, which in itself is a fraudulent way of endorsing the efficacy of the vaccine.

Later in 2021, the story of insufficient vaccine response (by falsely measuring the unwanted systemic antibodies) was carried out to propose the need for boosters.

Our concerns surfaced when the rate of all-cause morbidities and mortalities increased post-vaccination period (among the vaccinated). An attempt to negate these concerns was fueled by bringing in the phenomenon of long covid cases.

Further, our concerns were raised when the vaccine mandate was extended to the younger adults and children.

The likely lifetime injuries, those observed in the older and younger adult population, remain an existential threat.

Those include hypercoagulation, cardiovascular complications, neurological diseases, higher propensity to cancer, reproductive disorders, and developmental disorders in the newborn.

The plausible mechanisms are hyperinflammation, dysfunctional immune reactions, and organ damage caused by an unknown entity in the vaccine. 

Dr. C. Kannan Janakiraman
Consultant & Patient Advocate
Integrative medicine & Functional Nutrition
Signmed Wellness Clinic
#913, Ess Emm Square,
2nd D cross, 1st Block HRBR Layout,
Kalyan nagar
Bengaluru 560043
Karnataka state, INDIA
Tel: +91 809 587 3684 / 914 131 9546
skype: cjanakir
https://www.linkedin.com/in/ckannanjanakiraman/

Have you heard the good news?

“Today the Government of Canada announced the removal of all COVID-19 entry restrictions, as well as testing, quarantine, and isolation requirements for anyone entering Canada, effective October 1, 2022.” https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/news/2022/09/government-of-canada-to-remove-covid-19-border-and-travel-measures-effective-october-1.html

I hope the next step would be stopping the vaccination, which has no need or relevance to COVID-19, as it has been developed WITHOUT testing against the virus. (https://bioanalyticx.com/claims-of-vaccines-relevancy-and-efficacy-a-big-fat-lie/).

Hallucination, artistry, and fake-science

The above is a factually and scientifically accurate description – end of the debate. No more arguments, please. Because no one has shown:

• A specimen of the isolated and purified virus
• A sample of the sequenced RNA from the virus.
• Test validation (authentication) report of the virus and/or its sequenced RNA.
• Effectiveness of vaccines against (killing or neutralizing) the virus

Medical authorities, including from CDC and FDA, are as ignorant as anyone else about the scientific aspect of the virus and have made stupid and fraudulent claims, e.g., considering virus isolate (gunk) as pure/isolated virus.

The critical point is that most, if not all, virus-related matters are chemistry-based, and medical and biological professionals lack the needed knowledge and expertise to realize their errors. That is why they, even critical ones, have not successfully challenged or debunked the virus story.

Therefore, an independent third-party, not peer, review of the (scientific) claims is urgently needed to address the pandemic, vaccination situation, and, more importantly, the future of illnesses and medicines development business.

Further details (1, 2, 3, 4, and more).

In the article (link), Mr. Steve Kirsch (author of the article) describes Dr. Martin Kulldorff as a “Vaccine Scientist.” Is he (Dr. Kulldorff) a vaccine scientist? Has he worked with vaccines or the virus (its isolation or testing)? Not really. As per Dr. Kulldrorff’s CV, he is a statistician and epidemiologist (sub-class of statistics). So, why is he considered a scientist?

A scientist concerning virus or virology is a person who has extensive experience in the area, most importantly isolation and characterization of the virus and potentially linking the virus to the illness or at least to the body or its fluids. Dr. Kulldorff’s expertise shows nothing in this respect. So considering him, a scientist is not a valid claim but a misrepresentation of his work or academic involvement.

A statistician or epidemiologist interprets the claim made by a scientist about the GIVEN results/data obtained from scientific/laboratory work, i.e., what are the chances of the correctness of the interpretation (not the results/data) to be statistically true?

A virus has never been isolated, its test or testing has never been validated, and there cannot be a treatment (vaccine) for a non-existing thing. So, from a scientific perspective, one cannot assess the vaccine’s good (efficacy) or bad (adverse) effect. Saying it otherwise is simply a lie or fraud.

The best one can say is observing (observational/survey data noted in the article) the effects of the injection, presumably a mixture (soup/gunk) of unknown components. One of the components is mRNA, a chemical compound that could potentially be dangerous or lethal. The danger comes from the fact that mRNA is similar in chemical structure and characteristics to the body’s DNA. There is always a possibility that mRNA gets substituted into the body’s DNA.

It is like lead toxicity, where lead ions replace similar bi-valent metals such as zinc, calcium, and iron, vital for body nourishment and survival, hence toxicity or lethality. So considering that mRNA would not interfere with the body’s RNA or DNA is a very unscientific (dumb) claim, especially when no such experimental evaluation has been done. A true scientist would not make such unsubstantiated claims.

Science requires that an experimental or laboratory study be conducted to evaluate the side effects of the mRNA. In that case, it may be done by injecting pure mRNA, which presumably should be available as it is synthetic material prepared in the laboratory or “factory.” Unfortunately, such a study has never been done. Therefore, no statistical or epidemiological assessment or claims can be valid or relevant.

So, science or scientists are nowhere to be found like the virus, but only the claims – be careful about the claims.

For further details, please follow the links (1, 2)

It is unfortunate that people often use the word “study” in describing COVID-19. Unfortunately, the use of the word “study” is a marketing catchphrase to attract people’s attention and legitimize the views expressed.

In reality, concerning COVID-19, no study has been done or can be done. Conducting an investigation/study requires an actual or physical sample of the substance and a valid test with a measurable parameter. In the case of COVID-19, none is available, including a test, the virus (SARS-COV-2), RNA and/or protein.

Even in the case of masks’ usefulness or relevance, all studies/claims have to be fake or false, as testing a mask’s efficacy requires a physical sample of the virus that does not exist [link]. Hence, all “studies” or claims in this regard will remain unsubstantiated opinions – thus requiring frequent flip-flopping.

In addition, people do not realize that opinions/stories of virus mutation are examples of the flip-flop to hide the lack of vaccine relevance or efficacy, as vaccines have never been tested against the virus [link]. It is a scientific fact and not an opinion.

Just be careful when reading the literature or listening to “scientific” or “expert” opinions.

A recent article states that Pfizer quietly admits it will never manufacture original FDA approved COVID vaccines [which is named Comirnaty](link).

Comirnaty was a shell game to deceive the public that “now” mRNA is an “approved” product, not EUA. In one of my posts, I clearly described this deception that there can’t be an approved product because to have an approved product, the EUA product has to be withdrawn, which never happened. link

On the other hand, it appears that the vaccination days are numbered. There are two reasons:

(1) lack of efficacy/benefits of vaccination and widespread acknowledged severe adverse effects, including deaths;

(2) Full scientific data has to be submitted to the FDA (I believe by 2023) to establish the safety and efficacy of the EUA vaccines, which is not forthcoming. Safety and efficacy cannot be established without the availability of the isolated and purified virus, which is unavailable.

Furthermore, the recent (August 11, 2022) changes in CDC guidelines support this view, which states,

“COVID-19 remains an ongoing public health threat; however, high levels of vaccine- and infection-induced immunity and the availability of medical and nonpharmaceutical interventions have substantially reduced the risk for medically significant illness, hospitalization, and death from COVID-19.” link

It means that majority are immune (vaccinated or not), so obviously, there is a limited or no need for vaccination.

Secondly, per guidelines, “People who have symptoms of COVID-19 or who have had known exposure to someone with COVID-19 should be tested for COVID-19.” (link). Asymptomatic would not require testing – this is huge. This will significantly reduce testing numbers (hence positives). This would indicate fewer COVID-19 positives – which will help declare that the “battle” won against the pandemic. Hence no or limited use of vaccination and, by extension, discontinuation.

Move on to the next “project.” It does not have to be real or genuine, but a bigger and better one – must  “follow the science”!

Be watchful of the practice of “peer-reviewed.” This word has caused enormous damage to science and brought unthinkable (financial and health) sufferings to the public. The peer-reviewed process is implied and promoted as an independent review or assessment of the scientific claims or publications, which is inaccurate. Instead, it is a review process by people having the same expertise, interest, and mindset, with or without conflict of interest – like buddies. Certainly not independent or unbiased by any means as often assumed.

For example, often suggested that tens if not hundreds of studies and publications are available in “peer-reviewed” journals describing the isolation of the virus. Indeed, numerous publications explain the procedure or process, but no isolated virus is available anywhere. Therefore, anyone who asks for the isolated virus specimen is considered an outsider (not a peer) incapable of understanding the “science.” The question asked is not about the science but a specimen of the isolated virus.

It is like inquiring about a car. An inquirer is never required to have an engineering degree or work experience in the auto industry to examine or assess/review the car’s performance. Most valuable reviews are from the users of the vehicles, not by the automakers or the government authorities. Makers of the item do not provide reviews but advertisements. Unfortunately, in the medicines/pharmaceutical area, developers of the products (peers) provide reviews. For example, the virus exists, causes the illness, the PCR/antigen tests the virus, and vaccines work. These are the claims made by peers, not by the users or any independent third party.

Anyone who asks about specimens of the isolated virus, validation report for the PCR/antigen tests, vaccines’ safety, and efficacy tested against the virus is considered a conspiracy theorist or anti-vaxxer. Is anyone who asks questions about cars’ availability or performance considered anti-cars or anti-industry? Of course, not, but a smart buyer or consumer! The person wants the car, likes to buy it, and likes to make an informed decision.

On the other hand, in reality, “scientists,” experts, or peers (or so-called “vaxxers”) in the medical/pharmaceutical areas have nothing to show for their claims. They have simply been lying hidden under the cover of “peer reviews.”

So, in the future, if something is presented as being peer-reviewed for its authenticity, in particular medical/pharmaceutical areas, ignore it while requesting an independent audit or third-party review.

The falseness of science at the CDC

A recent article describes the view of the CDC official (Dr. Fauci) “that COVID-19 vaccines don’t protect “overly well” against the virus.” (link). This should not be news, as it was expected and predicted (link).

However, another claim is made that “[vaccine] protect quite well against severe disease leading to hospitalization and death” Scientifically and logically, this view is incorrect.

Scientifically and technically, vaccines are not considered medicines (such as antibiotics) to treat the infection but prepare the body to kill bugs (in this case, the virus). A vaccine (immunization) is like a protection net or wall to create a fence against the entry of the virus. However, if the net is penetrated through (as acknowledged), then there is no protection, and the virus will cause its effect, which should be treated with anti-infection treatment.

Furthermore, stating that “At my age, being vaccinated and boosted, even though it didn’t protect me against infection, I feel confident that it played a major role in protecting me from progressing to severe disease.” This is speculation, not a scientific judgment. A scientific claim in this regard requires a lab study/experiment, which should first show that the virus causes the infection and then, secondly, the infection is treatable by the vaccine. In this respect, the vaccine should then not be considered a vaccine but an anti-infection drug. It should be used as an anti-infection drug, not a vaccine for immunization.

The observation and statement provide strong evidence against the CDC’s COVID-19 virus theory and claims. The illness, if it exists, may more likely be misdiagnosed (commonly assumes seasonal hiccups). Certainly, illness has nothing to do with the virus because, to date, no virus has been found or isolated from any ill person.

Please, reconsider “scientific” practices at the CDC. For further details, please see here (1, 2)

Some information from the Health Canada (HC) website (link) with comments in italics for general awareness

1. This information was provided by the drug’s manufacturer when this drug product was approved for sale in Canada. (implies HC may or may not have appropriately evaluated the information but approved the drug anyway) This leaflet was prepared by Pfizer Canada ULC, Last Revised June 13, 2022
2. It is a summary of information about the drug and will not tell you everything about it. (implies the approval is granted without knowing the necessary information about the drug).
3. Contact your doctor or pharmacist if you have any questions about the drug. (doctors or pharmacists do not know more except what is provided to them or common knowledge)
4. PAXLOVID is used in adults to treat mild to moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in patients who: have a positive result from a severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) viral test. (There is no viral test available at present – this is false information).
5. COVID-19 is caused by a virus called coronavirus. (There is no evidence of it as no virus has ever been found or isolated from any patient.)
6. PAXLOVID contains two antiviral medicines copackaged together, nirmatrelvir and ritonavir. (These two separate drugs (potent chemicals) are provided in a blister pack rather than as currently available in separate bottles or packing. It is like packing two tablets of Advil and one tablet of Tylenol individually in a blister pack. It is not clear why it would be called or considered a new drug with a new name. These are old drugs, apparently with a new suggested indication).
7. To be used no longer than 5 days in a row, usually 30 tablets per course (Thirty tablets course at US$530, i.e., US$17 a pill. It could be argued that it will be far cheaper if the same drugs are obtained from a chemical supplier. However, as a result, the efficacy and marketing “claims” of PAXLOVID will evaporate in smoke quickly (link).
8. PAXLOVID stops the virus from multiplying. (A false claim, drugs have not been tested against this claim because no virus specimen is available at present to test).
9. This can help your body to overcome the virus infection and may help you get better faster. (Infections are usually treated with anti-infectious medicine such as antibiotics, not with antivirals. Vaccines are considered to protect from viruses)

In short, PAXLOVID is not a new drug or product but a new package or dosage regimen of two old antiviral drugs. It is important to note that, as in the case of vaccine development for COVID-19 (link), the efficacy assessment of the product is not based on the actual scientific or experimental data using the virus (SARS-COV-2). Currently, no drug or vaccine can be tested against the virus or with patients, as the virus’s presence or isolation has not been established yet.

Disinformation:

There is a virus-based pandemic (Link)

There is a virus (SARS-COV-2) (Link)

There is a test for the virus (Link)

The virus has been isolated (Link)

The RNA/virus has been sequenced (Link)

The spike protein is real and from the virus (Link).

The vaccines, including mRNA, have been tested against the virus (Link)

The vaccines are effective against the virus and protect people (Link)

There is evidence that face-mask and social distance provide protection (Link)

Lockdown can stop the spread of the virus (Link)

Physicians are trained in the science of isolation and identification of viruses (Link)

Science has been followed (Link)

Prove it wrong!