national

Pfizer, BioNTech start combined trials of COVID-19 vaccine candidate in Japan

32 Comments

Pfizer Inc and BioNTech SE announced on Tuesday the start in Japan of combined Phase I and Phase II clinical trials of their mRNA vaccine candidate against the coronavirus.

The study will recruit 160 people aged from 20 to 85, the firms said in a statement. Earlier, they had agreed to supply Japan with 120 million doses of their experimental coronavirus vaccine in the first half of 2021.

Pfizer, which is developing the vaccine with German partner BioNTech, has said it may confirm if the vaccine is effective as soon as this month, but also needs safety data from a global trial of 44,000 people that will not be available until next month.

Japan has pledged to secure enough vaccine supply for its entire population by the middle of 2021. In addition to Pfizer, it has struck deals on supplies with AstraZeneca Plc and other overseas makers of vaccine candidates.

Clinical trials of AstraZeneca and Oxford University's experimental COVID-19 vaccine resumed in Japan this month after being put on hold over the illness of a British volunteer.

© Thomson Reuters 2020.

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

32 Comments

Comments have been disabled You can no longer respond to this thread.

Japan has pledged to secure enough vaccine supply for its entire population by the middle of 2021

If this is true, I will be the first to take it.

I believe in Vaccines!

4 ( +10 / -6 )

A little bit late to the race but every entry is welcome, outcomes are not yet decided and every new candidate could be safer, more efficient or cheaper than those in the lead.

One very important detail is the approval for clinical trials of a mRNA therapeutic in Japan, apparently the country over-protective policies are being relaxed, at least while the pandemic is active. With a little bit of luck the government officials in charge of approving new products will finish the terrible approach of letting people die from preventable diseases and complications just to be sure anything approved has been tried overseas for a decade or so.

2 ( +9 / -7 )

Frontrunners in the COVID-19 vaccine development: Pfizer (with German partner BioNTech), Moderna, AstraZeneca, and Johnson & Johnson

PREVENTS DISEASE: NO - Wait, isn't it supposed to prevent COVID-19?

PREVENTS DEATH: NO - Wait, it's not going to save lives of people at risk?

PREVENTS TRANSMISSION: NO - Wait, it will still spread throughout the population?

BUT....REDUCES COUGH & HEADACHE (if you're stricken with COVID-19): YES. Great...just great.

ADVERSE SIDE EFFECTS already seen in final phase:

Being bed bound with a fever of over 101 (5 or more hours), shakes, chills, a pounding headache and shortness of breath. Drained for a day and unable to focus. Expect to take the next day off work. 

The bar was set pretty low this time for approval

Oh well...it'll be free and you'll have less cough and headache but you'll still get COVID-19. Liquid confidence in a syringe.

-3 ( +7 / -10 )

PREVENTS DISEASE: NO - Wait, isn't it supposed to prevent COVID-19?

PREVENTS DEATH: NO - Wait, it's not going to save lives of people at risk?

PREVENTS TRANSMISSION: NO - Wait, it will still spread throughout the population?

Completely false. Any vaccine approved is required to do all three things safely.

Pulling out of the air that they have no efficacy is very easy, the difficult part is to prove it. Specially because phase III of the clinical trials is not even finished, so it is impossible to have the necessary data to prove it.

This is just a terribly bad attempt of misinformation.

2 ( +11 / -9 )

Completely false. Any vaccine approved is required to do all three things safely.

Pulling out of the air that they have no efficacy is very easy, the difficult part is to prove it. Specially because phase III of the clinical trials is not even finished, so it is impossible to have the necessary data to prove it.

This is just a terribly bad attempt of misinformation.

Here you go:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/williamhaseltine/2020/09/23/covid-19-vaccine-protocols-reveal-that-trials-are-designed-to-succeed/

Forbes Article Author:

Prof. William A. Haeltine

Professor at Harvard Medical School and Harvard School of Public Health

Founded two academic research departments, the Division of Biochemical Pharmacology and the Division of Human Retrovirology

I'm sure you're going to find a way to character assassinate him and try to debunk his expertise.

-3 ( +7 / -10 )

Also, if you need to revisit the current side effects here is the CNBC article published this month:

Side effects from final Phase III:  

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/01/coronavirus-vaccine-trial-participants-exhaustion-fever-headaches.html

I'm sure you'll find a way to say that it'll all be totally safe and we can look forward to giving it to children and pregnant mothers. Go pharma go.

-2 ( +7 / -9 )

https://www.forbes.com/sites/williamhaseltine/2020/09/23/covid-19-vaccine-protocols-reveal-that-trials-are-designed-to-succeed/

This has absolutely none of the proof required for your comment, it just states the obvious thing that is that a vaccine is not meant to prevent infection but only to eliminate the disease, which is precisely the purpose of every single vaccine for pathogens ever made. This is what a vaccine is supposed to do, when the pathogen enters the body it is very likely to produce infection, which will then be aborted by the acquired immunity producing a very minor syndrome or even a completely asymptomatic infection, reducing obviously the risk of death (because no complication is produced) and transmission (because a much less amount of virus is produced in the body). Contrary to what he says, prevention of infection is not a required criterion for any vaccine, that is not what they are meant to do.

The other problem is thinking that a limited requirement automatically means every single candidate will only have this level of efficacy and safety. Which is not rational, competition alone is enough to provide a reason for some of the candidates to be vastly superior to this requirement. To say this is not true data from the trials is required, and since phase III is not even finished it is impossible for anybody to have it.

There, thanks for providing proof that your post is false.

I'm sure you're going to find a way to character assassinate him and try to debunk his expertise.

That is completely unnecessary, This article is enough to prove that he is completely out of the field of his expertise, and making invalid assumptions that have already been proved false. Phase III trials over 6 months of duration are not new for this vaccine, they have already been done before, and volunteers included are in the thousands for each candidate. Focusing on the interim numbers as if they were the final considerations for approval is not valid. They are meant only to allow for the trial to be completed so they are much less stringent than what the approval requires.

But even if everything he said were right that still means your post is mistaken. One thing is that a vaccine have limited requirements in order to be allowed to complete a clinical trial, another completely different is that it is impossible for any of the vaccine candidates to surpass those requirements just because.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/01/coronavirus-vaccine-trial-participants-exhaustion-fever-headaches.html

So having a terribly small percentage of people with heavy side effects over a few hours (even if they themselves did not know if they were given the vaccine or placebo) somehow proves that everybody will now have them?

Sorry but that is nonsense, part of the safety requirements is that the vaccine is much safer than the natural infection. That obviously includes side effects, any vaccine that is not better than the natural infection (that frequently is asymptomatic) cannot be approved by definition.

Bring a comparison of the frequency and severity of side effects between vaccine and placebo and demonstrate it is significantly higher for the vaccine. What if the numbers are around the same between groups? what if lthe difference is less than 0.01%?

Again you don't have the results of the trials, you are trying to guess what the results will be and basing your criticism on what you believe they will be, beliefs are irrelevant. Bring data, scientifically analyzed.

So it is still a terribly bad attempt at misinforming people, and even worse, it is something that was already explained before in another article, why insist in something you already know to be mistaken? It feels almost as if your only purpose was to convince people of something you yourself know to be wrong.

2 ( +10 / -8 )

@neowave

Prof. William A. Haeltine

Professor at Harvard Medical School and Harvard School of Public Health

I really hope the professor never get to read how you use his valid (if exaggerated) worries just to somehow prove that vaccines inevitably be bad. That is not what he is saying, and the guy is a very vocal supporter of vaccines in general, and do think that vaccine hesitancy (or more specifically antivaxxers) are a huge problem for public health.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

Excerpts from the Forbes article:

"We all expect an effective vaccine to prevent serious illness if infected. Three of the vaccine protocols—Moderna, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca—do not require that their vaccine prevent serious disease only that they prevent moderate symptoms which may be as mild as cough, or headache."

"The greatest fear people have is dying from this disease. A vaccine must significantly or entirely reduce deaths from Covid-19. Over two hundred thousand people have died in the United States and nearly a million worldwide. None list mortality as a critical endpoint."

"It appears that all the pharmaceutical companies assume that the vaccine will never prevent infection. Their criteria for approval is the difference in symptoms between an infected control group and an infected vaccine group. They do not measure the difference between infection and noninfection as a primary motivation."

" It boggles the mind and defies common sense that the National Institute of Health, the Center for Disease Control, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, and the rest would consider the approval of a vaccine that would be distributed to hundreds of millions on such slender threads of success."

"It appears that these trials are intended to pass the lowest possible barrier of success."

"It is clear from these studies that the vaccines currently under trial will not be the silver bullet needed to end the pandemic."

I'm surprised at your confidence hasn't wavered one bit in this unreleased vaccine and again NO LONG TERM STUDIES AND NO STUDIES ON EFFECTS ON CHILDREN, PREGNANT MOTHERS and the ELDERLY. Well...if you're that confident then go for it. It'll help you reduce your cough and headache while likely causing more severe side effects (high fever, severe headache, exhaustion, inability to focus, out of commission for at least a day) that will put you out for a day or two (and more than 1 dose each year). Just make sure you have a caretaker present. If you have children make sure you, yourself experience the side effects first before deciding they should be injected a couple times per year on a yearly basis. God forbid everyone gets their injection the same day. 

If this COVID-19 vaccine you are so looking forward to:

Won't stop transmission

Won't stop hospitalization

Won't stop death

Only reduces your cough and headache IF YOU GET COVID-19

With severe side effects in normally healthy people

Untested on children and pregnant mothers (what adverse side effects will they have?)

DOES NOT HAVE LONG TERM STUDIES

you must be getting paid very well to keep parroting the narrative that everyone should be looking forward to this vaccine without hesitation. Good job. Go pharma.

1 ( +10 / -9 )

If you can, get this vaccine. There are only three good vaccines right now.

BioNTech vaccine produced by Pfizer.

Moderna vaccine.

Novavax vaccine.

The rest are dud vaccines that carry side effects or provide weak protection.

-2 ( +7 / -9 )

So having a terribly small percentage of people with heavy side effects over a few hours (even if they themselves did not know if they were given the vaccine or placebo) somehow proves that everybody will now have them?

Now you are just dismissing the adverse events as if they were meaningless and that we have nothing to worry about....these severely negative side effects happen...nothing to see here...move along. C'mon son!

Here's some discussion on the Forbes article to help you put things in better perspective:

https://thehighwire.com/videos/cracked-teeth-other-covid-vaccine-side-effects/

-4 ( +5 / -9 )

Excerpts from the Forbes article:

Yes, none of those excerpts prove that your post is true, it is still mistaken without hope because you keep assuming no vaccine will be above the minimum requirements for the interim points of evaluation. Not even the final requirements for the vaccine. You are still wrong even if you keep copying and pasting something that apparently you are struggling to understand.

Again, for as many times as you need because it seems that repetition is necessary, minimum requirements are perfectly fine when there is no alternative to beat, and they can be surpassed without any problem (and most likely will) specially when many candidates are competing for having the best protection and safety.

Neither you nor the article show any data to prove that vaccines are not going to surpass the partial and final requirements, which is necessary if you want to say things "are" or "will be" instead of "may be".

So, where is the data I asked on the first place?

I'm surprised at your confidence hasn't wavered one bit in this unreleased vaccine and again NO LONG TERM STUDIES AND NO STUDIES ON EFFECTS ON CHILDREN, PREGNANT MOTHERS and the ELDERLY

This is another thing I have already corrected you, Phase III trials DO test on elderly patients and people with comorbidities, to a much greater detail than the natural infection.

COVID-19 have no long term studies, so any possible side effects years after vaccination are much more likely to be had from the infection, because patients are exposed to millions times more antigens in a much greater variety than with any vaccine now being developed.

So I ask again, why keep using an argument you know is mistaken? is is more important to you to convince people, even about something you know is mistaken? Public health should be a much greater priority than convincing other people to make the same mistakes as you.

If this COVID-19 vaccine you are so looking forward to:

Won't stop transmission

Won't stop hospitalization

Won't stop death

this is the point, IF as something that comes out of your imagination, a completely hypothetical situation that you were unable to prove is even likely. If something has no advantage then it will not get approved, nor used, as easy as that, but that is unlikely to happen in an astronomically low scale. Partial results have surpassed minimum requirements without problems, if you don't like it that has no importance.

It is still perfectly possible that a safe and effective vaccine will be ready for next year, be it from the candidates already on Phase III or those one step behind.

Now you are just dismissing the adverse events as if they were meaningless and that we have nothing to worry about....these severely negative side effects happen...nothing to see here...move along. C'mon son!

You know what is much worse than having a headache for a few hours? dying from COVID-19. Specially when you don't even know if the headaches have anything to do with the vaccine (because it is still possible each of the people with the side effects got a placebo)

Life is not perfect, but if the worst case scenario is that a vaccine gives you a terribly low chance of having a bad day, that would still be better than a higher chance of spending a couple of weeks on the ICU with who knows what long lasting sequelae or even dying from the infection.

Here's some discussion on the Forbes article to help you put things in better perspective:

So when people ask you the minimum necessary to prove any of your alarmist misrepresentations actually hold any basis on reality your only answer is a video? and from a horribly discredited antivaxxer source that has repeatedly lied about very important matters just for profit? It is not surprising that you insist repeating things that you know are false with such bad examples.

Again, if you don't have the data why is it so difficult to simply accept it?

2 ( +10 / -8 )

You know what is much worse than having a headache for a few hours? dying from COVID-19. Specially when you don't even know if the headaches have anything to do with the vaccine (because it is still possible each of the people with the side effects got a placebo)

Life is not perfect, but if the worst case scenario is that a vaccine gives you a terribly low chance of having a bad day, that would still be better than a higher chance of spending a couple of weeks on the ICU with who knows what long lasting sequelae or even dying from the infection.

You're absolutely right. We need to vaccinate with this COVID-19 vaccine....for a "deadly" coronavirus.

"*According to the latest immunological studies, the overall lethality of Covid-19 (IFR) in the general population ranges between 0.1% and 0.5% in most countries, which is comparable to the medium influenza pandemics of 1957 and 1968.*"

https://swprs.org/studies-on-covid-19-lethality/

I know you're going to try to discredit that site (like you do every site that doesn't agree with your narrative of pharma does no wrong) so look at their sources in the tables. The links to data by country, charts are all there.

But yeah...let's keep the fear going. It'll help sell the pharma narrative that putting your family through serious negative adverse events (or risk of) is perfect for reducing your cough and headache (even if it doesn't prevent infection, transmission, hospitalization and death from COVID-19).

-2 ( +7 / -9 )

You're absolutely right. We need to vaccinate with this COVID-19 vaccine....for a "deadly" coronavirus.

More deadly that any vaccine used currently? yes, and hugely so. No single vaccine in use right now has even a tenth of the lethal rate of COVID-19

(and no, seeing how much you like to repeat proven lies, Fluzone do NOT have a high lethality rate, the vaccine is directed to elderly population that by itself have a high risk of death, the vaccine do not increase that risk at all)

I know you're going to try to discredit that site (like you do every site that doesn't agree with your narrative of pharma does no wrong) so look at their sources in the tables. The links to data by country, charts are all there.

Of course not, the swiss propaganda research site discredit itself constantly as a source of lies, misleading information and falsehoods, coming from the very name, which in reality has nothing to do with Swiss. The data presented do not prove at all that any vaccine is even comparable to the risk of COVID, which is something that I have already corrected you about.

The propaganda site is well known as an invalid source of information since their bias is part of the mission of the site, it is a well reported misinformation site by their own merits.

But yeah...let's keep the fear going.

You mean by repeating proven lies not based on any scientific data and using the worries of a professor to somehow justify your biased opinion that we should fear vaccines because the requirements to continue a trial are not up to perfection? No, sorry, knowledge and truth, reliable and well substantiated in evidence is the natural enemy of fear, something that you are trying to use to push people into believing things that you cannot prove.

It'll help sell the pharma narrative that putting your family through serious negative adverse events (or risk of) is perfect for reducing your cough and headache (even if it doesn't prevent infection, transmission, hospitalization and death from COVID-19).

Again, false. I asked you for scientific data to prove that your beliefs have any relationship with reality, but apparently you have none. That still means it is incorrect, false, misleading.

There is nothing that makes impossible for a vaccine to be effective and safe, as every other vaccine being used today. Something that even your own source (Prof. William A. Haeltine) repeats constantly.

Up until now the only thing you have proved is that you don't like this very real possibility and are not above using proved lies to defend your beliefs. That is not valid.

1 ( +6 / -5 )

None of the vaccines listed in this article pass my acceptance requirement. Remember how Hydroxychloroquine, a drug successfully used for 70 years was successfully pushed out by health business using claims of minor side effects and claims that although it is widely used it was not gone through enough trials to be safe. Real reason, it is so cheap there was no money to be made so we were prevented from even finding if it was of any use in the early stages of infection. They have purposely given it only to some dieing patience knowing that at that stage it was too late to make difference. So I am saying this to compare now with the Vaccines being rushed in regardless of incomplete trials and major side effects. Russians have done much more research, explained in detail why and how their Vaccine should work, did reasonable pre trials and trials and yet every cat and mouse are screaming that they are going to fast and since there are no side effects there are also no effects. I think I will gladly keep my distancing and mask for now and let the suckers help Pharmas to get rich.

1 ( +8 / -7 )

I read the Forbs article mentioned.

Only the J&J test includes a mortality rae requirement.

The first vaccine are meant to reassure some people with high rate of possible adverse effects compare to well tested vaccine.

At that stage, it is just a matter of global management of health issue, not indidual preservation. That will come with time and genuine full trials (phase III with comparison of mortality rates).

3 ( +4 / -1 )

who need vaccines?? according to Trump his son get infected and recovered after 2 SECONDS. i am speechless to this. Good luck to my dear fellow American friends

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

Remember how Hydroxychloroquine, a drug successfully used for 70 years was successfully pushed out by health business using claims of minor side effects and claims that although it is widely used it was not gone through enough trials to be safe. Real reason, it is so cheap there was no money to be made 

I think the real reason is that no benefits have been shown in various studies. The money argument doesn't really stand up. Dexamethasone is being widely used in later stage treatment of Covid 19 and it is relatively inexpensive. (Even Trump took it.)

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/covid-19-coronavirus-hydroxychloroquine-no-evidence-treatment

4 ( +7 / -3 )

None of the vaccines listed in this article pass my acceptance requirement

It is fortunate that your acceptance is not such a big factor for public health decisions, specially because you don't even have the data for the trials, so it seems more like a prejudice than a well documented judgment.

Remember how Hydroxychloroquine, a drug successfully used for 70 years was successfully pushed out by health business using claims of minor side effects and claims that although it is widely used it was not gone through enough trials to be safe.

HCQ is successful, but only for the pathologies where it had shown efficacy, every few years it tried against a new disease and fails repeatedly. Like in COVID-19 the problem is not the minor side effects (not so minor actually) but that there is no benefit for its use against this disease, so using it has no meaning.

Real reason, it is so cheap there was no money to be made so we were prevented from even finding if it was of any use in the early stages of infection. They have purposely given it only to some dieing patience knowing that at that stage it was too late to make difference. 

No, that is a myth, easily demonstrated as such by dexamethasone, that is also dirt cheap and no money can be made of it, but its well recognized as effective and safe, there has been many studies with HCQ where it failed to protect from infection, from complications and from death. That includes even healthy people.

So I am saying this to compare now with the Vaccines being rushed in regardless of incomplete trials and major side effects. 

Any vaccine for next year is not rushed, they are following a schedule used for other vaccines that are in use right now. And all have side effects, as long as they are less important in degree and number than the natural infection that is not a problem.

Russians have done much more research, explained in detail why and how their Vaccine should work, did reasonable pre trials and trials and yet every cat and mouse are screaming that they are going to fast and since there are no side effects there are also no effects. 

Anybody can explain how something should work, but for vaccines 6 months is the least amount of time to corroborate with some degree of certainty that things are as safe as they are supposed to be. For all we know the Russian vaccine is safe and effective, but the problem is that it was not tested for long enough to be sure it can be used in the general population, and that is an ethical problem.

I think I will gladly keep my distancing and mask for now and let the suckers help Pharmas to get rich.

"Pharmas" get much richer the less vaccines there are, one person visiting the ICU leaves more money than a thousand vaccines being sold, that is an argument FOR vaccines, not against.

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

Boy, lot of armchair medics chiming in here.

just make your own decision based on the advice of real doctors.

don’t have to waste more time than that.

5 ( +9 / -4 )

"Pharmas" get much richer the less vaccines there are, one person visiting the ICU leaves more money than a thousand vaccines being sold, that is an argument FOR vaccines, not against.

Pharmas make a fortune selling vaccines, and then make a greater fortune treating the complications caused by vaccines.

There are plenty of experiments demonstrating HCQ's effectiveness. Low doses given early, ideally with zinc, was shown to be effective, and is something that should be made available.

Unfortunately, some are focusing on experiments where massive doses of HCQ were given without zinc at late stages of infection, as if they wanted the experiments to fail.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uzXHnUViro&t=470s

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

Pharmas make a fortune selling vaccines, and then make a greater fortune treating the complications caused by vaccines.

Not even a peanut compared with the sales of treatments, specially for complications, because any complication that would require treatment is so rare that it would make absolutely no sense to even take it into account. The confusion comes from deep ignorance about anything to do with health services, people without understanding see for example 500 deaths in vaccinated people and their ignorance makes them think "oh 500 people died because of the vaccine" without taking the few seconds extra to read that an equivalent population of unvaccinated people had 600 deaths.

There are plenty of experiments demonstrating HCQ's effectiveness. Low doses given early, ideally with zinc, was shown to be effective, and is something that should be made available.

The last time I asked you for those "experiments" every single one of the reports you brought were very minor advantages and all perfectly attributable to bias in the selection that even the authors of the reports accepted would make up for the differences. The position of every single association of health professionals in the world is that HCQ have demonstrated no advantage in the treatment, much less enough to overcome the risks of using it. (And no, there are not a thousand bill gates to pay the trillions necessary to bribe every one of those associations, even if doctors were to accept bribes in order to let their family members and friends die without a supposedly effective treatment)

Unfortunately, some are focusing on experiments where massive doses of HCQ were given without zinc at late stages of infection, as if they wanted the experiments to fail.

That is a myth, propagated by people that make money from fraudulent treatments and that benefit from fooling people to distrust the science that prove they are crooks. Again, the last time you said those "experiments" were being investigated by the criminal "megadoses" but then you put as example perfectly valid studies, done with serum levels on par with patients with other diseases that actually respond to HCQ and not even one of the supposedly criminal studies was ever under investigation.

It may be that you trust too much those sites where they depend on videos to manipulate people instead of primary sources that you may not be understanding at all.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Does japan buying 120 m doses mean if we don’t take it we be in prisoned?

Will the military be involved in enforcement?

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Does japan buying 120 m doses mean if we don’t take it we be in prisoned?

Will the military be involved in enforcement?

Yes, obviously since this happens all the time.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Speaking of Covid-19, here's an important health message:

https://twitter.com/maxbrooksauthor/status/1318930412610211841?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1318930412610211841%7Ctwgr%5Eshare_2%2Ccontainerclick_1&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.co.uk%2Fnews%2Flive%2Felection-us-2020-54630561

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Boy, lot of armchair medics chiming in here.

just make your own decision based on the advice of real doctors.

don’t have to waste more time than that.

Apologies for being one of the armchair medics here. After seeing virusrex pushing the "pharma can do no wrong with their "safe" vaccines" and explaining away all issues as if they were minimal....just had to start putting more info out there for others to decide for themselves. Wouldn't be surprised if he's being paid by pharma to "calm the worries about vaccines" and further push their narrative onto several forums/sites.

The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 is what concerns me the most for Americans.

"Americans who suffer adverse reactions to coronavirus vaccines that the U.S. is racing to develop will have a hard time getting compensated for injuries from the drugs.

That’s because pandemic-related claims for vaccines will be routed to a rarely used federal program set up to encourage drugmakers to help combat public health emergencies. It spares pharmaceutical and device makers from costly liability lawsuits in exchange for taxpayers compensating injured patients — though it doesn’t guarantee there’s funding to do so."

"Connection between vaxx and autism has definitely not been debunked. And why would we need a fund for injuries if vaccines are safe? Answer: They are not."

Since it began in 2009, the program has paid out less than $6 million, and it has yet to receive any dedicated U.S. government funding for Covid-19." - Basically...you're on your own if you or your family is injured by this COVID-19 vaccine.

We hear "The Science in Settled" and you are no longer allowed to question the safety of vaccines? "Informed consent" rarely exists now among doctors as they aren't aware of the ingredients / possible risks / adverse events in each shot or even the fact that they grow the weakened viruses (depending on the vaccine) in chicken, mice, aborted fetal tissue and even insect cells and then injected them saying that they are totally safe and if you dare question that you are labeled a quack or antivaxxer. Hmmm....something's gone off the rails here.

Not a single vaccine on the CDC’s vaccine schedule has been subjected to “double-blind randomized placebo-controlled” studies. Due to the 1986 vaccine act, vaccine manufacturers cannot be sued for vaccine damage, but they regularly lose lawsuits on drugs that they manufacture, which are tested and approved by the FDA. Why should we trust them with vaccines that are not tested?

The risks of vaccines are very real, and parents are NOT allowed to question their safety.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Apologies for being one of the armchair medics here. After seeing virusrex pushing the "pharma can do no wrong with their "safe" vaccines" and explaining away all issues as if they were minimal....just had to start putting more info out there for others to decide for themselves. Wouldn't be surprised if he's being paid by pharma to "calm the worries about vaccines" and further push their narrative onto several forums/sites.

The apologies would be more appropriate about repeating false information even when you have been already been informed it is false. That is a much more pressing issue with the comments.

Of course pharma can do wrong, that is very different from your post that are all about pharma cannot do any good, and already did bad in the future because you make conclusions in the absence of data. that is simply mistaken.

"Americans who suffer adverse reactions to coronavirus vaccines that the U.S. is racing to develop will have a hard time getting compensated for injuries from the drugs.

You have been already corrected on this, anybody suspecting any adverse reaction will not even need to prove that was the case, only that it is possible to do. That is much simpler and easier, its a compromise to pay for possible damages instead of making people try to prove what is many times impossible, so not only they get no compensation, they would have to pay legal fees into bankruptcy.

That’s because pandemic-related claims for vaccines will be routed to a rarely used federal program set up to encourage drugmakers to help combat public health emergencies. It spares pharmaceutical and device makers from costly liability lawsuits in exchange for taxpayers compensating injured patients — though it doesn’t guarantee there’s funding to do so."

Again, you repeat something you know to be untrue, it is not "rarely" used since you yourself have said that billions have been paid, you contradict what you yourself wrtie.

And no, it does not spares companies, they still have complete liability as evidenced by the constant vigilance and corroboration that government laboratories do to test that the vaccines are as safe and efficient as they are supposed to do. The spared ones are the people seeking compensation, because they no longer have to fight companies, as longa as their claim is not obviously impossible they get compensation.

I know it destroys completely this false point, but it does not matter how much you want to ignore this very open truth, I can write it again as many times as you like.

"Connection between vaxx and autism has definitely not been debunked. And why would we need a fund for injuries if vaccines are safe? Answer: They are not."

False, autism has already been debunked by science as a consequence of vaccination, terminantly, without any realistic chance of being wrong. Only people that actively deny science still believe they are related. That and crooks that fake studies to profit from their own vaccines like Wakefield, hero of the antivaxxers even if he took advantage of minors for unethical experimentation.

We hear "The Science in Settled" and you are no longer allowed to question the safety of vaccines?

Using proved lies? of course not, you were never allowed to use lies to question anything.

Real professionals do question the safety of vaccines constantly and work to improve it. Antivaxxers on the other hand only repeat things they already know are false just to make other people share their mistakes, that is not valid, not for vaccines nor for anything else.

"Informed consent" rarely exists now among doctors as they aren't aware of the ingredients / possible risks / adverse events in each shot or even the fact that they grow the weakened viruses (depending on the vaccine) in chicken, mice, aborted fetal tissue and even insect cells and then injected them saying that they are totally safe and if you dare question that you are labeled a quack or antivaxxer. Hmmm....something's gone off the rails here.

You don't understand what informed consent means, doctors could ignore all of this (they don't) and it would be still informed consent as long as the patient is informed of everything of importance.

But still this is a moot point, doctors never say "this is totally safe" only antivaxxers that have never taken a vaccine can repeat this obvious lie. What doctors say (and its perfectly valid) is that the vaccine is much safer than the infection, and they are right.

Not a single vaccine on the CDC’s vaccine schedule has been subjected to “double-blind randomized placebo-controlled” studies

When developed of course they do, but those already determined to be safer than the infection by long term studies should NOT be subjected to placebo, its unethical, as unethical as to make a placebo trial of antibiotics for acute sepsis. There is such a thing as evident benefit. Antivaxxers ask for an impossible standard that would cause unnecessary sickness and death just to prove what is already known.

Due to the 1986 vaccine act, vaccine manufacturers cannot be sued for vaccine damage, but they regularly lose lawsuits on drugs that they manufacture, which are tested and approved by the FDA. Why should we trust them with vaccines that are not tested?

Because it is in the best interest of the population to have an effective and safe health intervention, so they recommend the vaccines, so they government is the one that takes the role of making sure they keep safe and effective and absorb the claims of people that suspect damage. All for the good of everybody. People that refuse to be treated because of imaginary risks are not generally a risk for others so the government does not test and corroborate pharmaceuticals as close as they do with vaccines, so the responsibility resides on the companies. If nobody wants to use them then they can choose to put their own health at risk and that will be all.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Unfortunately, some are focusing on experiments where massive doses of HCQ were given without zinc at late stages of infection, as if they wanted the experiments to fail.

That is a myth, propagated by people that make money from fraudulent treatments and that benefit from fooling people to distrust the science that prove they are crooks. Again, the last time you said those "experiments" were being investigated by the criminal "megadoses" but then you put as example perfectly valid studies, done with serum levels on par with patients with other diseases that actually respond to HCQ and not even one of the supposedly criminal studies was ever under investigation.

You brought up the investigation of HCQ studies, I simply mentioned that the study that should be investigated is the one that used massive doses of HCQ, much higher than the recommended maximum dose for HCQ. You responded saying that the doses were typical, and based on the HCQ dose used to treat another disease.

Well France Soir (FS) interviewed Prof Martin Landray (ML), one of the principal researchers of the Oxford Recovery trials. Have a look!

FS: “How did you decide on the dosage of hydroxychloroquine?”

ML: “The doses were chosen on the basis of pharmacokinetic modelling and these are in line with the sort of doses that you used for other diseases such as amoebic dysentery.” (very much like your response)

FS: “Are there any maximum dosage for HCQ in the UK?”

ML: “I would have to check but it is much larger than the 2400mg, something like six or 10 times that. … the HCQ dosage used are not dissimilar to that used, as I said, in for example amoebic dysentery.”

(according to the British National Formulary, the maximum dosage is about 400mg, for a 70kg person)

Then FS interviewed Doctor Christian Perronne (Professor of Infectious and Tropical Diseases) who told them:

“It is indeed the first time that I learn that we use hydroxychloroquine in amoebic dysentery, in addition to the dose being super-toxic for humans.”

“The classic treatment for colonic amoebiasis is based on a combination of hydroxyquinolines, tiliquinol and tilbroquinol, whose trade name is Intetrix.”

I think they confused hydroxychloroquine with hydroxyquinolines.”

“If my assumption is correct, it is incompetence. Most serious is the use of a huge, potentially fatal, dose,” added Professor Perronne.

I know you're always boasting of your unique ability to read primary sources, but it appears that both you and Prof Landray confused hydroxychloroquine with hydroxyquinoline!

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

Yeah, when I mentioned:

"I did hear of a study being investigated for malpractice, but it's the study that showed that hydroxychloroquine is useless for Covid-19 and potentially toxic. They used hydroxychloroquine concentrations that were up to 20X the recommended upper limit. The same study that was constantly used by the MSM to criticize Trump."

I was referring to a published article that was retracted.

The other article I brought up was not retracted; they simply terminated the study themselves. I guess the excuse they gave was that they concluded HCQ was not effective and that patients died. I suspect they terminated it when someone in their group realized that they had confused hydroxychloroquine with hydroxyquinolines and that the doses of hydroxychloroquine they were giving them were way too high, although you insisted the doses were fine and accused me of not reading the paper correctly.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

The other article I brought up was not retracted; they simply terminated the study themselves. I guess the excuse they gave was that they concluded HCQ was not effective and that patients died. I suspect they terminated it when someone in their group realized that they had confused hydroxychloroquine with hydroxyquinolines and that the doses of hydroxychloroquine they were giving them were way too high, although you insisted the doses were fine and accused me of not reading the paper correctly.

There is no such study, never was. I already brough the studies you referenced (using exactly the links you provided) and my own quote about the doses.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Strange, there are lots of experts criticizing the UK study for using too high doses of HCQ, for not treating patients in the early stages, and for not including zinc.

You claim the doses were not so high. So how do you explain the France Soir (FS) interview of Prof Martin Landray (ML), one of the principal researchers of the Oxford Recovery trials.

FS: “Are there any maximum dosage for HCQ in the UK?” (according to the British National Formulary, the maximum dosage is about 400mg, for a 70kg person)

ML: “I would have to check but it is much larger than the 2400mg, something like six or 10 times that. … the HCQ dosage used are not dissimilar to that used, as I said, in for example amoebic dysentery.”

And there is also Dr John Campbell, who clearly shows how the British study used inexplicably high doses of HCQ. Hmmm, who should we believe, all the experts who point out the inexplicably high doses of HCQ in the British study, or should we believe virusrex, who has been pushing for the "safe and effective can-do-no -harm" vaccines?

The truth is that low doses of HCQ with zinc (and azithromycin) when given in the early stages is very effective, and practically renders a rushed vaccine irrelevant.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

@Tokyo-Engr

I am not aware of the side-effects of quinones, but I do believe HCQ is safe at the recommended dose. Short term should be fine.

Did you feel the side effects right away, or only after 3 weeks?

What you're doing sounds good. I think my diet has enough zinc, but I too occasionally supplement with zinc. And now that summer has gone, I also supplement with vitamin D; I highly recommend that.

I think what we are doing is helpful to prevent Covid-19 complications, but as you said, even if it doesn't it is certainly making us healthier.

It would be great if I could have some HCQ, to take whenever I feel bad. Since that is unfortunately not possible, I am now considering getting some quercetin from Amazon; some people suggest it might work a bit like HCQ.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites