Pfizer Announcement : 2 Doses No Longer Required, Single Dose is 93% Effective After 2 Weeks

[shockshiok]

Pfizer Single Dose 92.6 % effective after 2 Weeks, Moderna Single Dose 92.1% effective. Supply problem Solve.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2036242

Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine
TO THE EDITOR

Table 1.Efficacy of BNT162b2 against Covid-19 According to Analysis Period.
Polack et al. (Dec. 31)1 report a vaccine efficacy of 94.8% against Covid-19 after two doses of the messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine BNT162b2 (Pfizer–BioNTech). The authors also report a vaccine efficacy of 52.4% from after the first dose to before the second dose, but in their calculation, they included data that were collected during the first 2 weeks after the first dose, when immunity would have still been mounting.1 We used documents submitted to the Food and Drug Administration2 to derive the vaccine efficacy beginning from 2 weeks after the first dose to before the second dose (Table 1). Even before the second dose, BNT162b2 was highly efficacious, with a vaccine efficacy of 92.6%, a finding similar to the first-dose efficacy of 92.1% reported for the mRNA-1273 vaccine (Moderna).3

With such a highly protective first dose, the benefits derived from a scarce supply of vaccine could be maximized by deferring second doses until all priority group members are offered at least one dose. There may be uncertainty about the duration of protection with a single dose, but the administration of a second dose within 1 month after the first, as recommended, provides little added benefit in the short term, while high-risk persons who could have received a first dose with that vaccine supply are left completely unprotected. Given the current vaccine shortage, postponement of the second dose is a matter of national security that, if ignored, will certainly result in thousands of Covid-19–related hospitalizations and deaths this winter in the United States — hospitalizations and deaths that would have been prevented with a first dose of vaccine.

Danuta M. Skowronski, M.D.
British Columbia Centre for Disease Control, Vancouver, BC, Canada
[email protected]
Gaston De Serres, M.D., Ph.D.
Institut National de Santé Publique du Québec, Quebec City, QC, Canada
Dr. De Serres reports having received grant support from Pfizer for an unrelated study of meningococcal antibody seroprevalence. No other potential conflict of interest relevant to this letter was reported.
This letter was published on February 17, 2021, at NEJM.org.
3 References

TO THE EDITOR
In their trial, Polack et al. found that the vaccine efficacy of the Covid-19 mRNA vaccine BNT162b2 was 95%. They reported similar efficacy across different subgroups. It is well known that subgroup analyses in randomized clinical trials are both important and challenging,1 and the authors rightly pointed out that their trial was not powered to definitively assess efficacy according to subgroup.

In their article, however, questionable results are reported in Table 3. In each trial group, the sum of the number of cases across age groups (9 in the vaccine group and 186 in the placebo group) does not equal the overall number of cases (8 and 162, respectively). This discrepancy does not appear for any other variables in Table 3 and in Table S4 in the Supplementary Appendix.

The reasons for the discrepancy are not clearly explained in the article. This is all the more problematic because of the between-group difference in the extent of the discrepancy, which could be interpreted as an overestimation of the vaccine efficacy in the age groups. At a time when national public health programs are defining immunization policies that are age-sensitive,2-4 it would be important to clarify these findings.

Jean-Noel Vergnes, D.M.D., Ph.D.
Paul Sabatier University, Toulouse, France
[email protected]
No potential conflict of interest relevant to this letter was reported.
This letter was published on February 17, 2021, at NEJM.org.
4 References

TO THE EDITOR
Polack et al. may have erroneously concluded that the differences in the absolute numbers of severe Covid-19 cases between the vaccine group and the placebo group provide preliminary evidence of protection against the development of severe Covid-19 illness. The percentage of Covid-19–positive patients in whom severe illness developed was 5.6% (9 of 162 patients) in the placebo group and 12.5% (1 of 8 patients) in the vaccine group — a difference of 6.9 percentage points (95% confidence interval [CI], 6.4 to 7.6) (P<0.001 by the chi-square test of proportions).1 Thus, the preliminary data do not appear to support the conclusion that this vaccine offers protection against severe Covid-19 illness or alleviate the theoretical concern over vaccine-mediated disease enhancement, given that the percentage of Covid-19–positive patients in whom severe illness developed was significantly higher in the vaccine group than in the placebo group.
Xiang Wang, Pharm.D.

Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada
[email protected]
No potential conflict of interest relevant to this letter was reported.
This letter was published on February 17, 2021, at NEJM.org.
1 Reference

RESPONSE
The authors reply: In response to Skowronski and De Serres: we would like to emphasize that alternative dosing regimens of BNT162b2 have not been evaluated. The decision to implement alternative dosing regimens resides with health authorities; however, we at Pfizer believe that it is critical for health authorities to conduct surveillance on implemented alternative dosing schedules to ensure that vaccines provide the maximum possible protection.

Vergnes questions the results of the subgroup analyses in our article and notes that the total number of Covid-19 cases in the age groups exceeds the overall number of cases presented in Table 3. The author incorrectly summed the Covid-19 cases in the age groups. Among the participants who received the BNT162b2 vaccine, five cases occurred in the age group of 16 to 55 years and three cases in the age group of more than 55 years. The numbers of cases among the older age groups are listed for those 65 years of age and older (1 case) and for those 75 years of age and older (0 cases). Therefore, the author’s assertion that the data overestimate vaccine efficacy in the age groups is unsubstantiated.

Wang suggests that, on the basis of an analysis that used a chi-square test of proportions, a vaccine efficacy of 95% was not demonstrated. We would like to clarify that it is not appropriate to use the proportion of Covid-19–positive patients in whom severe disease developed to assess vaccine protection against severe Covid-19. Protection against severe illness is an integrated effect of reducing the chance that any Covid-19 symptom will develop and reducing the risk that severe symptoms will develop after infection. The calculation provided by Wang considers only the second effect, and the estimate for the vaccine group is very imprecise owing to the small sample size (only 8 cases in this group). More importantly, the first effect was completely ignored. The estimation of vaccine efficacy against severe illness should be based on the incidence of severe illness in the total study population. After the first dos

Analysis Period​	Vaccine (N=21,669)​	Placebo (N=21,686)​	Vaccine Efficacy, % (95% CI)*​
​	no. of cases​	​
After dose 1 to before dose 2 (per Polack et al.1)​	39​	82​	52.4 (29.5–68.4)​
Beginning 7 days after dose 1 to before dose 2 (derived†)‡​	18​	57​	68.5 (46.5–81.5)​
Beginning 14 days after dose 1 to before dose 2 (derived†)§​	2​	27​	92.6 (69.0–98.3)​
≥7 Days after dose 2 (per Polack et al.1)​	9​	172​	94.8 (89.8–97.6)​
* The derived vaccine efficacies were calculated as 100×(1−[risk among vaccinated patients/risk among unvaccinated patients]), on the basis of those remaining at risk according to the specified analysis period. The vaccine efficacies reported by Polack et al. were calculated as 100×(1−IRR), where IRR is the calculated ratio of confirmed cases of Covid-19 illness per 1000 person-years of follow-up in the active vaccine group to the corresponding illness rate in the placebo group.
† The values were derived with the data reported by the manufacturer in Figure 13 of the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee briefing document.2
‡ Before day 7, a total of 21 cases had accrued in the vaccine group and 25 cases in the placebo group.
§ Before day 14, a total of 37 cases had accrued in the vaccine group and 55 cases in the placebo group.

e, vaccine efficacy against the development of severe Covid-19, calculated as 100×(1–IRR), where IRR is the ratio of confirmed cases of severe Covid-19 illness per 1000 person-years of follow-up for the active vaccine group to the corresponding illness rate in the placebo group, was 88.9% (95% CI, 20.1 to 99.7). This result provides evidence of protection against severe Covid-19 illness, thereby alleviating concern about the potential for vaccine-enhanced disease.

Judith Absalon, M.D., M.P.H.
Kenneth Koury, Ph.D.
William C. Gruber, M.D.
Pfizer, Pearl River, NY
[email protected]
Since publication of their article, the authors report no further potential conflict of interest.
This letter was published on February 17, 2021, at NEJM.org.

 

[shockshiok]

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...-dose-as-first-highly-effective-idUSKBN2AI0EC


Researchers urge delaying Pfizer vaccine's second dose as first highly effective
By Reuters Staff
2 MIN READ

(Reuters) - The second dose of Pfizer Inc’s COVID-19 vaccine could be delayed in order to cover all priority groups as the first one is highly protective, two Canada-based researchers said in a letter published in the New England Journal of Medicine.


Slideshow ( 2 images )
The vaccine had an efficacy of 92.6% after the first dose, Danuta Skowronski and Gaston De Serres said, based on an analysis of the documents submitted by the drugmaker to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

These findings were similar to the first-dose efficacy of 92.1% reported for Moderna Inc's mRNA-1273 vaccine, according to the letter here on Wednesday.
In its response, Pfizer said alternative dosing regimens of the vaccine had not been evaluated yet and that the decision resided with the health authorities.
ADVERTISEMENT

Some countries, grappling with low supplies, are looking at dosing patterns or volumes that differ from how the vaccines were tested in clinical trials.
There are differences over the merits of such strategies, with some arguing the urgency of the pandemic requires flexibility, while others oppose abandoning data-driven approaches for the sake of expediency.

Skowronski and De Serres cautioned that there may be uncertainty about the duration of protection with a single dose, but said the administration of the second dose a month after the first provided “little added benefit in the short term”.
ADVERTISEMENT

Skowronski works at the British Columbia Centre for Disease Control, while De Serres is from the Institut National de Santé Publique du Québec
In Britain, authorities have said that data supported its decision to move to a 12-week dosing schedule for Pfizer’s COVID vaccine. Both Pfizer and partner BioNTech have warned that they had no evidence to prove it.

Pfizer’s vaccine is authorized to be taken 21 days apart.

The U.S. FDA and the European Medicines agency have stuck by the interval tested in the trials.
Reporting by Shubham Kalia and Ann Maria Shibu in Bengaluru; Editing by Vinay Dwivedi and Sriraj Kalluvila
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

MORE FROM REUTERS

 

[tiongsrshit]

tiongs will object, their vaccine is lap sap 50% now yankee one reduce from 2 to 1.

yankee far superior to tiong

 

[Leongsam]

India is gaining immunity with zero doses.

 

[Peiweh]

Pfizer Single Dose 92.6 % effective after 2 Weeks, Moderna Single Dose 92.1% effective. Supply problem Solve.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2036242

Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine
TO THE EDITOR

Table 1.Efficacy of BNT162b2 against Covid-19 According to Analysis Period.
Polack et al. (Dec. 31)1 report a vaccine efficacy of 94.8% against Covid-19 after two doses of the messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine BNT162b2 (Pfizer–BioNTech). The authors also report a vaccine efficacy of 52.4% from after the first dose to before the second dose, but in their calculation, they included data that were collected during the first 2 weeks after the first dose, when immunity would have still been mounting.1 We used documents submitted to the Food and Drug Administration2 to derive the vaccine efficacy beginning from 2 weeks after the first dose to before the second dose (Table 1). Even before the second dose, BNT162b2 was highly efficacious, with a vaccine efficacy of 92.6%, a finding similar to the first-dose efficacy of 92.1% reported for the mRNA-1273 vaccine (Moderna).3

With such a highly protective first dose, the benefits derived from a scarce supply of vaccine could be maximized by deferring second doses until all priority group members are offered at least one dose. There may be uncertainty about the duration of protection with a single dose, but the administration of a second dose within 1 month after the first, as recommended, provides little added benefit in the short term, while high-risk persons who could have received a first dose with that vaccine supply are left completely unprotected. Given the current vaccine shortage, postponement of the second dose is a matter of national security that, if ignored, will certainly result in thousands of Covid-19–related hospitalizations and deaths this winter in the United States — hospitalizations and deaths that would have been prevented with a first dose of vaccine.

Danuta M. Skowronski, M.D.
British Columbia Centre for Disease Control, Vancouver, BC, Canada
[email protected]
Gaston De Serres, M.D., Ph.D.
Institut National de Santé Publique du Québec, Quebec City, QC, Canada
Dr. De Serres reports having received grant support from Pfizer for an unrelated study of meningococcal antibody seroprevalence. No other potential conflict of interest relevant to this letter was reported.
This letter was published on February 17, 2021, at NEJM.org.
3 References

TO THE EDITOR
In their trial, Polack et al. found that the vaccine efficacy of the Covid-19 mRNA vaccine BNT162b2 was 95%. They reported similar efficacy across different subgroups. It is well known that subgroup analyses in randomized clinical trials are both important and challenging,1 and the authors rightly pointed out that their trial was not powered to definitively assess efficacy according to subgroup.

In their article, however, questionable results are reported in Table 3. In each trial group, the sum of the number of cases across age groups (9 in the vaccine group and 186 in the placebo group) does not equal the overall number of cases (8 and 162, respectively). This discrepancy does not appear for any other variables in Table 3 and in Table S4 in the Supplementary Appendix.

The reasons for the discrepancy are not clearly explained in the article. This is all the more problematic because of the between-group difference in the extent of the discrepancy, which could be interpreted as an overestimation of the vaccine efficacy in the age groups. At a time when national public health programs are defining immunization policies that are age-sensitive,2-4 it would be important to clarify these findings.

Jean-Noel Vergnes, D.M.D., Ph.D.
Paul Sabatier University, Toulouse, France
[email protected]
No potential conflict of interest relevant to this letter was reported.
This letter was published on February 17, 2021, at NEJM.org.
4 References

TO THE EDITOR
Polack et al. may have erroneously concluded that the differences in the absolute numbers of severe Covid-19 cases between the vaccine group and the placebo group provide preliminary evidence of protection against the development of severe Covid-19 illness. The percentage of Covid-19–positive patients in whom severe illness developed was 5.6% (9 of 162 patients) in the placebo group and 12.5% (1 of 8 patients) in the vaccine group — a difference of 6.9 percentage points (95% confidence interval [CI], 6.4 to 7.6) (P<0.001 by the chi-square test of proportions).1 Thus, the preliminary data do not appear to support the conclusion that this vaccine offers protection against severe Covid-19 illness or alleviate the theoretical concern over vaccine-mediated disease enhancement, given that the percentage of Covid-19–positive patients in whom severe illness developed was significantly higher in the vaccine group than in the placebo group.
Xiang Wang, Pharm.D.

Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada
[email protected]
No potential conflict of interest relevant to this letter was reported.
This letter was published on February 17, 2021, at NEJM.org.
1 Reference

RESPONSE
The authors reply: In response to Skowronski and De Serres: we would like to emphasize that alternative dosing regimens of BNT162b2 have not been evaluated. The decision to implement alternative dosing regimens resides with health authorities; however, we at Pfizer believe that it is critical for health authorities to conduct surveillance on implemented alternative dosing schedules to ensure that vaccines provide the maximum possible protection.

Vergnes questions the results of the subgroup analyses in our article and notes that the total number of Covid-19 cases in the age groups exceeds the overall number of cases presented in Table 3. The author incorrectly summed the Covid-19 cases in the age groups. Among the participants who received the BNT162b2 vaccine, five cases occurred in the age group of 16 to 55 years and three cases in the age group of more than 55 years. The numbers of cases among the older age groups are listed for those 65 years of age and older (1 case) and for those 75 years of age and older (0 cases). Therefore, the author’s assertion that the data overestimate vaccine efficacy in the age groups is unsubstantiated.

Wang suggests that, on the basis of an analysis that used a chi-square test of proportions, a vaccine efficacy of 95% was not demonstrated. We would like to clarify that it is not appropriate to use the proportion of Covid-19–positive patients in whom severe disease developed to assess vaccine protection against severe Covid-19. Protection against severe illness is an integrated effect of reducing the chance that any Covid-19 symptom will develop and reducing the risk that severe symptoms will develop after infection. The calculation provided by Wang considers only the second effect, and the estimate for the vaccine group is very imprecise owing to the small sample size (only 8 cases in this group). More importantly, the first effect was completely ignored. The estimation of vaccine efficacy against severe illness should be based on the incidence of severe illness in the total study population. After the first dos

​	no. of cases​	​
Analysis Period​	Vaccine (N=21,669)​	Placebo (N=21,686)​	Vaccine Efficacy, % (95% CI)*​
After dose 1 to before dose 2 (per Polack et al.1)​	39​	82​	52.4 (29.5–68.4)​
Beginning 7 days after dose 1 to before dose 2 (derived†)‡​	18​	57​	68.5 (46.5–81.5)​
Beginning 14 days after dose 1 to before dose 2 (derived†)§​	2​	27​	92.6 (69.0–98.3)​
≥7 Days after dose 2 (per Polack et al.1)​	9​	172​	94.8 (89.8–97.6)​
* The derived vaccine efficacies were calculated as 100×(1−[risk among vaccinated patients/risk among unvaccinated patients]), on the basis of those remaining at risk according to the specified analysis period. The vaccine efficacies reported by Polack et al. were calculated as 100×(1−IRR), where IRR is the calculated ratio of confirmed cases of Covid-19 illness per 1000 person-years of follow-up in the active vaccine group to the corresponding illness rate in the placebo group.
† The values were derived with the data reported by the manufacturer in Figure 13 of the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee briefing document.2
‡ Before day 7, a total of 21 cases had accrued in the vaccine group and 25 cases in the placebo group.
§ Before day 14, a total of 37 cases had accrued in the vaccine group and 55 cases in the placebo group.

e, vaccine efficacy against the development of severe Covid-19, calculated as 100×(1–IRR), where IRR is the ratio of confirmed cases of severe Covid-19 illness per 1000 person-years of follow-up for the active vaccine group to the corresponding illness rate in the placebo group, was 88.9% (95% CI, 20.1 to 99.7). This result provides evidence of protection against severe Covid-19 illness, thereby alleviating concern about the potential for vaccine-enhanced disease.

Judith Absalon, M.D., M.P.H.
Kenneth Koury, Ph.D.
William C. Gruber, M.D.
Pfizer, Pearl River, NY
[email protected]
Since publication of their article, the authors report no further potential conflict of interest.
This letter was published on February 17, 2021, at NEJM.org.

Okaaaaay. And I bet you anything our leaders will say better get the 2nd shot because better to be safe at 95% instead of 92%. Wait for it.

 

[laksaboy]

Okaaaaay. And I bet you anything our leaders will say better get the 2nd shot because better to be safe at 95% instead of 92%. Wait for it.

Can jab don't waste. Anyway, the vaccines have a limited shelf life.

Remember that the PAP technocrats stockpiled plenty of Tamiflu after SARS happened in 2003.

All ready for next virus outbreak
JUN 1, 2013
https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/all-ready-for-next-virus-outbreak

There is also anti-viral flu medication to treat confirmed cases. In 2010 it was reported that MOH had a stockpile of Tamiflu enough for 1.39 million adults and 300,000 children.

 

[Leongsam]

 

[Kraken]

wah lau so now is only 1 jab, no more 2 ? like that

Okaaaaay. And I bet you anything our leaders will say better get the 2nd shot because better to be safe at 95% instead of 92%. Wait for it.

garhment always do kiasu except COST if cost is more, then PAP will say lagi 1 shot enough, no more 2

game changer now all 1 shot.

 

[kiketerm]

wah lau so now is only 1 jab, no more 2 ? like that


garhment always do kiasu except COST if cost is more, then PAP will say lagi 1 shot enough, no more 2

game changer now all 1 shot.

just say the magic words, "lower cost" and instant Government Policy.

 

[Leongsam]

Vaccine will definitely protect you against covid because you'll be dead.


Karen Hudson-Samuels: former Detroit television news director dead 24 hours after mRNA shot - The COVID Blog

2 minutes


TheCOVIDBlog.com
February 16, 2021

Mrs. Karen Hudson-Samuels

DETROIT — An iconic Detroit media icon is dead one day after receiving the experimental mRNA shots that are encouraged by media and government.
Mrs. Karen Hudson-Samuels was found dead in her home on February 9. It is unclear if the 68-year-old received the Pfizer or Moderna shot. Mainstream media outlet CBS 62 in Detroit said the cause of death “is still unknown.”

Hudson-Samuels’ career spanned four decades. It started at WGPR-TV in Detroit, the first black-owned television station in the United States. She was the news director at the station for many years. WGPR was on the air from 1975 to 1995. Hudson-Samuels’ last interview was on NBC Local 4 in Detroit on February 8. She died the next day.


&lt;span style="display: inline-block; width: 0px; overflow: hidden; line-height: 0;" data-mce-type="bookmark" class="mce_SELRES_start"&gt;&lt;/span&gt;
Hudson-Samuels was Chairperson of the Detroit Historical Society’s Black Historic Sites Committee. She was also key in establishing the William V. Banks Broadcast Museum. Banks founded WPGR-TV and WPGR-FM in Detroit.

Cliff Samuels, Karen’s widower, told Detroit media outlets that he suspects his wife “died of a stroke.” Funreal services are scheduled for Friday, February 19. Read more about Ms. Hudson Samuels here.

 

[redbull313]

Vaccine will definitely protect you against covid because you'll be dead.


Karen Hudson-Samuels: former Detroit television news director dead 24 hours after mRNA shot - The COVID Blog

2 minutes


TheCOVIDBlog.com
February 16, 2021

Mrs. Karen Hudson-Samuels

DETROIT — An iconic Detroit media icon is dead one day after receiving the experimental mRNA shots that are encouraged by media and government.
Mrs. Karen Hudson-Samuels was found dead in her home on February 9. It is unclear if the 68-year-old received the Pfizer or Moderna shot. Mainstream media outlet CBS 62 in Detroit said the cause of death “is still unknown.”

Hudson-Samuels’ career spanned four decades. It started at WGPR-TV in Detroit, the first black-owned television station in the United States. She was the news director at the station for many years. WGPR was on the air from 1975 to 1995. Hudson-Samuels’ last interview was on NBC Local 4 in Detroit on February 8. She died the next day.


&lt;span style="display: inline-block; width: 0px; overflow: hidden; line-height: 0;" data-mce-type="bookmark" class="mce_SELRES_start"&gt;&lt;/span&gt;
Hudson-Samuels was Chairperson of the Detroit Historical Society’s Black Historic Sites Committee. She was also key in establishing the William V. Banks Broadcast Museum. Banks founded WPGR-TV and WPGR-FM in Detroit.

Cliff Samuels, Karen’s widower, told Detroit media outlets that he suspects his wife “died of a stroke.” Funreal services are scheduled for Friday, February 19. Read more about Ms. Hudson Samuels here.

Go fuck yourself asswipe vaccine is safe

 

[Kraken]

Vaccine will definitely protect you against covid because you'll be dead.


Karen Hudson-Samuels: former Detroit television news director dead 24 hours after mRNA shot - The COVID Blog

2 minutes


TheCOVIDBlog.com
February 16, 2021

Mrs. Karen Hudson-Samuels

DETROIT — An iconic Detroit media icon is dead one day after receiving the experimental mRNA shots that are encouraged by media and government.
Mrs. Karen Hudson-Samuels was found dead in her home on February 9. It is unclear if the 68-year-old received the Pfizer or Moderna shot. Mainstream media outlet CBS 62 in Detroit said the cause of death “is still unknown.”

Hudson-Samuels’ career spanned four decades. It started at WGPR-TV in Detroit, the first black-owned television station in the United States. She was the news director at the station for many years. WGPR was on the air from 1975 to 1995. Hudson-Samuels’ last interview was on NBC Local 4 in Detroit on February 8. She died the next day.


&lt;span style="display: inline-block; width: 0px; overflow: hidden; line-height: 0;" data-mce-type="bookmark" class="mce_SELRES_start"&gt;&lt;/span&gt;
Hudson-Samuels was Chairperson of the Detroit Historical Society’s Black Historic Sites Committee. She was also key in establishing the William V. Banks Broadcast Museum. Banks founded WPGR-TV and WPGR-FM in Detroit.

Cliff Samuels, Karen’s widower, told Detroit media outlets that he suspects his wife “died of a stroke.” Funreal services are scheduled for Friday, February 19. Read more about Ms. Hudson Samuels here.

Now vaccine success make @Leongsam very angry. Bang table, maybe jump down soon. Faster kenna jab so can rub into face of ah Sam

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/heal...-pfizer-moderna-vaccines-after-first-n1258367


CDC says no safety problems with Pfizer, Moderna Covid vaccines after first month
No deaths have been attributed to the vaccines, the data showed.



Feb. 19, 2021, 3:19 PM EST / Source: Reuters
By Reuters
The two Covid-19 vaccines approved for use in the United States have reassuring safety profiles with no concerning new issues found in data collected from the first month of vaccinations, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said on Friday.
After administration of 13.8 million doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines to the U.S. population, most reports indicated non-serious side effects of the type that had been expected, such as headaches and fatigue. No deaths have been attributed to the vaccines, the data showed.

The CDC collected data between Dec. 14, 2020 and Jan. 13, 2021 from both an existing national surveillance system for adverse events and its own safety monitoring system established for Covid-19 vaccines.
Full coverage of the coronavirus outbreak
During that time, 6,994 reports of adverse events after vaccination were recorded in the national surveillance system with 90.8 percent of them classified as non-serious and 9.2 percent as serious.
Recommended

DATA GRAPHICSVariants are spreading across the U.S. Here's where they are, state by state.

DATA GRAPHICSGraphic: Coronavirus deaths in the U.S., per day
Rare cases of anaphylaxis, a severe allergic reaction requiring medical attention, were reported with both vaccines at a rate of 4.5 cases per million doses administered, down from the agency's previously reported rate of 5 per million doses administered. The rate of anaphylaxis linked to Covid shots is similar to other vaccines, CDC director Dr. Rochelle Walensky said Friday during the White House Covid-19 Response Team briefing.
"Healthcare providers and vaccine recipients can be reassured about the safety of Pfizer and Moderna Covid-19 vaccines," the CDC said in its Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
A total of 113 deaths were reported, including from death certificates and autopsy reports. No causal link between Covid-19 vaccination and fatalities was found, according to the CDC report.

 

[whoami]

Vaccine will definitely protect you against covid because you'll be dead.


Karen Hudson-Samuels: former Detroit television news director dead 24 hours after mRNA shot - The COVID Blog

2 minutes


TheCOVIDBlog.com
February 16, 2021

Mrs. Karen Hudson-Samuels

DETROIT — An iconic Detroit media icon is dead one day after receiving the experimental mRNA shots that are encouraged by media and government.
Mrs. Karen Hudson-Samuels was found dead in her home on February 9. It is unclear if the 68-year-old received the Pfizer or Moderna shot. Mainstream media outlet CBS 62 in Detroit said the cause of death “is still unknown.”

Hudson-Samuels’ career spanned four decades. It started at WGPR-TV in Detroit, the first black-owned television station in the United States. She was the news director at the station for many years. WGPR was on the air from 1975 to 1995. Hudson-Samuels’ last interview was on NBC Local 4 in Detroit on February 8. She died the next day.


&lt;span style="display: inline-block; width: 0px; overflow: hidden; line-height: 0;" data-mce-type="bookmark" class="mce_SELRES_start"&gt;&lt;/span&gt;
Hudson-Samuels was Chairperson of the Detroit Historical Society’s Black Historic Sites Committee. She was also key in establishing the William V. Banks Broadcast Museum. Banks founded WPGR-TV and WPGR-FM in Detroit.

Cliff Samuels, Karen’s widower, told Detroit media outlets that he suspects his wife “died of a stroke.” Funreal services are scheduled for Friday, February 19. Read more about Ms. Hudson Samuels here.

Sam. If teres thousands of death due to the vaccine, then we should panic. If its just 0.00001% wats there to be worried.

 

[syed putra]

I prefer to go to india for aryuvedic immune therapy.

 

[Leongsam]

Sam. If teres thousands of death due to the vaccine, then we should panic. If its just 0.00001% wats there to be worried.

These are unnecessary deaths and that is what makes them tragic. They are a result of the scaremongering by big pharma in bed with big tech in order to sell vaccines.

 

[Leongsam]

Now vaccine success make @Leongsam very angry. Bang table, maybe jump down soon. Faster kenna jab so can rub into face of ah Sam

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/heal...-pfizer-moderna-vaccines-after-first-n1258367


CDC says no safety problems with Pfizer, Moderna Covid vaccines after first month
No deaths have been attributed to the vaccines, the data showed.



Feb. 19, 2021, 3:19 PM EST / Source: Reuters
By Reuters
The two Covid-19 vaccines approved for use in the United States have reassuring safety profiles with no concerning new issues found in data collected from the first month of vaccinations, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said on Friday.
After administration of 13.8 million doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines to the U.S. population, most reports indicated non-serious side effects of the type that had been expected, such as headaches and fatigue. No deaths have been attributed to the vaccines, the data showed.

The CDC collected data between Dec. 14, 2020 and Jan. 13, 2021 from both an existing national surveillance system for adverse events and its own safety monitoring system established for Covid-19 vaccines.
Full coverage of the coronavirus outbreak
During that time, 6,994 reports of adverse events after vaccination were recorded in the national surveillance system with 90.8 percent of them classified as non-serious and 9.2 percent as serious.
Recommended

DATA GRAPHICSVariants are spreading across the U.S. Here's where they are, state by state.

DATA GRAPHICSGraphic: Coronavirus deaths in the U.S., per day
Rare cases of anaphylaxis, a severe allergic reaction requiring medical attention, were reported with both vaccines at a rate of 4.5 cases per million doses administered, down from the agency's previously reported rate of 5 per million doses administered. The rate of anaphylaxis linked to Covid shots is similar to other vaccines, CDC director Dr. Rochelle Walensky said Friday during the White House Covid-19 Response Team briefing.
"Healthcare providers and vaccine recipients can be reassured about the safety of Pfizer and Moderna Covid-19 vaccines," the CDC said in its Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
A total of 113 deaths were reported, including from death certificates and autopsy reports. No causal link between Covid-19 vaccination and fatalities was found, according to the CDC report.

CDC and WHO Corrupt Financial Entanglements with the Vaccine Industry

#TruthArmy #TruthOverProfits #BelieveMoms




Recently, the World Health Organization (WHO) released a statement that they had worked with Facebook to curb vaccine “misinformation.” Therefore, it appears that an international organization is working with a social media company to usurp free speech and accountable democracy in America.


In the first Global Vaccination Summit in Brussels on Sept. 12, 2019, Jason Hirsch, Facebook’s public policy manager, said the company was taking its role in the area “very seriously”. “We want to take a two-part approach to improving the quality of information about vaccinations on our platform,” he said. “The first thing that we are doing is reducing the distribution of misinformation about vaccinations and the second thing that we are doing is increasing exposure to credible, authoritative content on vaccinations.” But, is it Facebook’s role to decide what information people get to read regarding vaccine safety?

Like Bernadine Healy, former director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Children’s Health Defense believes that the public is smart and can be given the facts and make up their own minds about what is true and what isn’t. We are completely confident that the vaccine facts and the science are on our side. We invite any and all to peruse our website and share any articles with friends that you think will help them make decisions.


“Censorship reflects society’s lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime.” – Potter Stewart

Our guiding mission is to stop the chronic health epidemics affecting children today. We believe vaccines that over-stimulate the immune system are one of the leading causes of these epidemics. As the 2013 IOM Report concluded in their Summary, (bottom of page 5), that the entire Centers for Disease Control (CDC) Childhood Vaccine Schedule has never been studied for safety, we believe that, rather than trying to censor Children’s Health Defense viewership, we suggest WHO and CDC spend their money and time on real science and vaccine safety.


It is regrettable that instead of seriously addressing the issue and substantively addressing parents’ legitimate concerns, WHO and the CDC with the assistance of Facebook have chosen instead to try to silence critical and dissident voices rather than facilitating the exchange of ideas that is so necessary for humanity to progress.


Here are the major concerns:

1. There is corruption and conflicts of interest in the CDC, FDA, WHO and NIH whereby big pharma has influence and power over the interpretation of the outcomes/science and the related safety of vaccines. The Institute of Medicine (IOM) has persistently urged HHS to perform such studies since 1991. HHS has assiduously refused. There is, therefore, no way to scientifically claim that a specific vaccine averts more harms, including deaths, than it causes.
2. The latest data and science show that specific vaccines are unequivocally not safe. Yet government officials – with well-documented conflicts of interest with the $50 billion vaccine industry – systematically obscure the risks while exaggerating the benefits of vaccines.
3. The government has quietly admitted culpability by paying out over $4 billion for thousands of injuries and deaths caused by vaccines underscoring that vaccine injuries can and do happen, including autism. And, an HHS-funded study concluded that fewer than 1% of vaccine injuries are even reported.
4. Big Pharma is exerting influence over WHO, FDA and CDC to fast track and short cut safety studies in order to gain more profits faster. Big Pharma has zero financial risk when children get vaccine injured because the government prevents victims from suing big pharma – resulting in big pharma not being concerned about child vaccine safety.
5. State initiatives mandating vaccines regardless of family pre-conditions and/or religious beliefs, if left unchecked, will mentally impair an even greater percentage of our child population resulting in one of the greatest human biological experiments in modern history.

The pharmaceutical industry enforces policy discipline through agency budgets. The World Health Organization (WHO) gets roughly half its budget from private sources, including Pharma and its allied foundations. And CDC, frankly, is a vaccine company; it owns 56 vaccine patents and buys and distributes $4.6 billion in vaccines annually through the Vaccines for Children program, which is over 40% of its total budget. Further, Pharma directly funds, populates and controls dozens of CDC programs through the CDC foundation. A British Medical Journal editorial excoriates CDC’s sweetheart relationship with pharma quotes UCLA Professor of Medicine Jerome R. Hoffman “most of us were shocked to learn the CDC takes funding from industry… It is outrageous that industry is apparently allowed to punish the CDC if the agency conducts research that has potential to cut into profits.”


Collected from many sources, this page lists the conflicts of interest and financial entanglements of the WHO and the CDC that should be considered when determining the validity of statements made by either organization. This compilation doesn’t even include the twenty seven years of pharmaceutical industry criminal and civil penalties from 1991 through 2017 reported in a Public Citizen expose.

CDC Conflicts

CrossFit Settles Lawsuit With HHS After Agency Releases Emails Showing Continued Efforts to Conceal Donations
In a situation that parallels the Center for Disease Control’s (CDC’s) close relationships with vaccine manufacturers while continuing to promote vaccines as “safe and effective”, CrossFit, Inc. has uncovered documentation confirming large contributions from Coca-Cola and Pepsi to the CDC Foundation that the agency has deliberately kept from the public. CrossFit notes that these companies have contributed to Type 2 diabetes, liver disease, opioid addiction, and other illnesses and that conflicts of interest such as this are “endemic” within both the CDC and its parent agency, the Department of Health and Human Services.


CDC & FDA Committee Members Have Financial Conflict of Interest with Vaccine Pharmaceuticals
A Congressional Government Reform Committee report criticized the FDA and the CDC for routinely allowing scientists with conflicts of interest to serve on two influential advisory committees that make recommendations on vaccine policy.


The Normalization of Corruption—Big Pharma Takes “Tobacco Tactics” to a New Level
The 21st century organized crime lords—the pharmaceutical industry—have risen to unprecedented dominion over humanity. These renegade modern-day, too-big-to-fail outlaws have mastered and expanded the industry corruption playbook to levels that make the tobacco industry seem relatively tame and honest in comparison. Big Pharma has methodically choreographed a stealthy take-over of our most fundamental democratic institutions necessary to maintain industry in check: the regulatory institutions, the legislatures, politicians, free press/media, academia and objective science. Big Pharma today not only influences legislation for drugs, but the vaccine producers are also guaranteed a self-serving, automatically-captured consumer market in the form of 74 million children to whom the government mandates their limited-liability vaccine products in unprecedented numbers.


Close Ties and Financial Entanglements: The CDC-Guaranteed Vaccine Market
The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) is responsible for issuing annual vaccine recommendations for the U.S. civilian population, however it’s industry-beholden membership roster reads like a “who’s who” of the individuals and organizations who spearhead the nation’s vaccine business. Longstanding conflicts of interest that hold ACIP members captive to pharmaceutical industry interests are well known and well documented.


UPI Investigates: The vaccine conflict
In the early 2000s, a four-month investigation by United Press International (UPI) identified “a web of close ties”and financial entanglements between CDC’s ACIP members and vaccine companies, including: Sharing vaccine patents; oOwning vaccine company stock; getting research funding or money to monitor vaccine testing; Receiving funding for academic departments or appointments.


CDC Director Resigns, but CDC Conflicts of Interest are Par for the Course
Media outlets are announcing the abrupt resignation of Brenda Fitzgerald, the physician appointed in July, 2017 to head the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The resignation follows on the heels of reporting by Politico, which uncovered conflicts of interest including a personal financial stake in companies such as Merck and Bayer. This only illustrates, in microcosm, the CDC’s longstanding willingness to cozy up to Big Pharma and Big Health Care in defiance of ethics rules.


CDC Scientists Expose Agency Corruption
A letter sent by more than a dozen senior CDC scientists charging the agency with nursing an atmosphere of pervasive research fraud. The group, which claimed to represent scientists across the CDC’s diverse branches, calls itself SPIDER (Scientists Preserving Integrity, Diligence and Ethics in Research). The letter reveals that, for all intents and purposes, the CDC functions as a subsidiary of a rapacious pharmaceutical industry in partnership with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and numerous outside parties and rogue interests that all benefit from their endorsement of a highly profitable vaccine orthodoxy.


The U.S. Needs an Independent Vaccine Safety Organization
A 2009 report by the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) at the Department of Health and Human Services determined that CDC displayed a systemic lack of [ethics] oversight. Virtually all (97%) of the individuals sitting on CDC advisory committees, including Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), omitted relevant financial disclosure information from their required ethics form, and CDC rarely complied with the requirement to identify and resolve all conflicts of interest…before permitting [those individuals] to participate in committee meetings.


‘Every Child By Two’ Bites the Hand That Feeds Them
Every Child By Two (“ECBT”) puts on a front to the world that they are an independent, compassionate organization of parents dedicated to the important work of getting every child vaccinated. In fact, the organization is really a sock-puppet mouthpiece for two masters: 1) the Centers for Disease Control and, 2) vaccine makers, their two primary sources of funding.


The CDC Is Being Influenced by Corporate and Political Interests
The Hill newspaper covers the concerns of more than a dozen CDC informants about the inner workings of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that have been mounting in recent months amid disclosures of cozy corporate alliances. The group lodged an ethics complaint alleging the federal agency is being influenced by corporate and political interests in ways that shortchange taxpayers.


The Unofficial Vaccine Educators: Are CDC Funded Non-Profits Sufficiently Independent?
British Medical Journal. Some prominent vaccine advocacy organizations are pushing for greater compulsion. But are these groups—which present themselves as reliable sources of information—providing the public with independent information? With industry and CDC funding in hand, front groups such as Immunization Action Coalition (IAC) and Every Child by Two (ECBT) guarantee vaccine makers’ ability “to influence policy without having to stand on the front lines.”


HHS FY 2017 Budget in Brief – FDA
Whereas the FDA was publicly funded prior to 1992, by fiscal year 2017, three-fourths (75%) of the FDA’s annual budget increase came from user fees, with the pharmaceutical industry in essence paying FDA regulators’ salaries.


Drug Companies Are Paying Huge Sums to Fast-Track FDA Approval
According to a 2015 report in Fortune magazine, pharmaceutical companies are more than willing to pay “big bucks” to speed up the approval process, and in the process, they gain extraordinary leverage over regulatory decision-making.


Examining RFK Jr.’s Claim That the CDC “Owns Over 20 Vaccine Patents”
In addition to the CDC’s ownership of dozens of vaccine-related patents, the agency’s involvement with vaccine manufacturers also extends to licensing agreements and collaboration on projects to develop new vaccines.


Patents Assigned to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
The large number of patents held by the CDC deserves an in-depth review to determine exactly what current financial relationships with vaccine makers now exist and what…current impact those revenue streams are likely having on vaccine safety positions.


Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA): Conflicts of Interest and Vaccine Development—Preserving the integrity of the Process
The manuscript of the Hearing before the Committee on Government Reform in the U.S. House of Representatives, concerning conflicts of interest and vaccine development.

WHO Conflicts

Caught on Camera: W.H.O Scientists Question Safety Of Vaccines
This bombshell video footage, published by Del Bigtree’s The Highwire, captures a series of statements—profoundly unsettling in their matter-of-factness—made by professionals who, in early December, attended the World Health Organization’s (WHO’s) two-day Global Vaccine Safety Summit. However, the crème de la crème of the vaccine establishment attendees admitted that vaccines can be fatal, the design of safety studies makes it difficult to spot problems, safety monitoring is inadequate, and vaccine adjuvants increase risk.


What the WHO (World Health Org.) Doesn’t Want Us to Know
Regarding the DPT vaccine, highly regarded researcher Dr. Peter Aaby announced, “This vaccine is killing children,” at the Symposium About Scientific Freedom in Copenhagen on March 9, 2019.


Once Burned, Twice Shy—Why “Anti-Vaxxers” Are Really “Ex-Vaxxers”
In early 2019, the WHO hyperbolically declared “reluctance or refusal to vaccinate” to be one of ten major “global health threats.” What the WHO failed to mention is the preponderant role of commercial interests, especially those of drug companies, in shaping its goals and strategies.


WHO: Do financial contributions from ‘pharma’ violate WHO Guidelines?
In 2015, K. M. Gopakumar from Third World Network (TWN) investigated financial contributions by pharmaceutical companies to the WHO and found some to be in conflict with WHO’s guidelines for ethical promotion of medicines. As Gopakumar questions in closing, “These financial contributions thus raise doubts about the implementation of the Guidelines by the Secretariat. How can the WHO Secretariat be expected to scrutinise the conduct of the pharmaceutical companies concerned while accepting financial resources from them?”


Open Letter from International Organisations to the WHO on the Issue of Vaccine Safety
Over 120 groups and individuals, including Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Children’s Health Defense, sent a letter to the WHO in 2018 chastising the organization for its advocacy of less vaccine testing in order to speed up production. The letter included a list of steps that would need to be taken in order to restore confidence in the WHO emphasizing vaccine safety testing and conducting studies on health outcomes in vaccinated and unvaccinated populations.


Who is really helping the WHO?
Pharmaceutical industry influence makes itself felt not just domestically but also globally, and this has led to a corresponding amping-up of rhetoric against “anti-vaxxers” around the world. In early 2019, the World Health Organization (WHO) hyperbolically declared “reluctance or refusal to vaccinate” to be one of ten major “global health threats.” What the WHO failed to mention, however, is the preponderant role of “commercial interests”—and especially pharmaceutical industry interests—in shaping its goals and strategies.


Bill Gates, are vaccines a “miracle” over disease and a “fantastic investment” — or a disaster for child health that may break the bank?
The Gates Foundation—established in 2000 with an initial endowment of $42.9 billion and amplified by an additional $30 billion from Warren Buffet in 2006—has become the world’s leading global health player as well as the largest non-state funder of the World Health Organization (WHO). As a result of the Gates Foundation’s “tremendous agenda-setting power,” the global health community designated 2010–2020 as the Decade of Vaccines; developed a Global Vaccine Action Plan; and created the public-private Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI Alliance), which receives almost one-fourth of its funding from the Gates Foundation.


Conflicts of interest and pandemic flu
In 2010, the BMJ and the Bureau of Investigative Journalism published findings of their investigation into the financial ties between drug companies and the WHO in the context of the 2009 influenza “pandemic”. The article revealed that some of the experts advising WHO had declarable financial ties with drug companies that were producing antivirals and influenza vaccines.


“If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.” – George Washington

For more information, read The Facts About FDA’s Questionable Practices.

 

[Leongsam]

June 25, 2019
CDC’s Vaccine “Science”— A Decades Long Trail of Trickery

By

Children's Health Defense Team

Conflicts of Interest Undermine Children’s Health: Part VII




[Note: This is Part VII in a series of articles adapted from the second Children’s Health Defense eBook: Conflicts of Interest Undermine Children’s Health. The first eBook, The Sickest Generation: The Facts Behind the Children’s Health Crisis and Why It Needs to End, described how children’s health began to worsen dramatically in the late 1980s following fateful changes in the childhood vaccine schedule.]





The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and its governmental and private partners have fudged vaccine science for decades, leaving a well-documented trail of cover-ups and trickery. Some of the more notorious episodes involve secret meetings, attempts to keep publicly funded data out of the reach of independent scientists, destruction and fraudulent manipulation of data and other crimes, including embezzlement.

On the one hand, Verstraeten described a safety signal that would never go away—showing that thimerosal exposure in infancy displayed a statistically significant dose-related association with subsequent neurological damage—but he also hinted at the pressure that he was under to turn everything around and make it go away.
Manipulating thimerosal data

In June, 2000, the CDC convened a scientific review panel at the Simpsonwood Retreat Center near Atlanta. At the gathering (intended to be secret), over 50 experts—representing the CDC, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), state and international public health agencies and vaccine companies—met to discuss what they described as “theoretical concerns” about the risks of thimerosal-containing vaccines.


The lead Simpsonwood speaker, Thomas (“Tom”) Verstraeten, was a junior physician-biostatistician working in the CDC’s Epidemic Intelligence Service. Verstraeten had been conducting analyses designed to assess the impact of thimerosal-containing vaccines on neurodevelopmental disorders in children. His earliest tables—never reported or published but obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request by the autism advocacy organization SafeMinds—demonstrated “striking” and statistically significant effects “supportive of a causal relationship between vaccine mercury exposure and childhood developmental disorders (especially autism).” These initial analyses, dubbed “Generation Zero” by SafeMinds, found consistently elevated risks (2-11 times higher) in the high-exposure groups compared to the zero-exposure group, with the strongest effects “for the highest levels of mercury exposure at the earliest time of exposure.”


Between February 2000 and November 2003, Verstraeten and his CDC supervisors produced four further rounds of analyses that—with each round or “generation”—reduced or eliminated the elevated and statistically significant risks apparent in the Generation Zero data. This reflected, according to SafeMinds, “deliberate” methodological choices that took the findings in a direction “towards insignificance.” Verstraeten’s Simpsonwood presentation, which covered the “Generation One” analysis, made it clear that he was caught in the middle. On the one hand, Verstraeten described a safety signal that would “never go away”—showing that thimerosal exposure in infancy displayed a statistically significant dose-related association with subsequent neurological damage—but he also hinted at the pressure that he was under to “turn everything around” and “make it go away.” At Simpsonwood, Verstraeten stated (page 153):

[Y]ou can look at this data and turn it around and look at this, and add this stratum, I can come up with risks very high. I can come up with very low risks, depending on how you turn everything around. You can make it go away for some and then it comes back for others. To me the bottom [line] is, well, there is some things that just will never go away. If you make it go away here, it will pop up again there. So the bottom line is, okay, our signal will simply not just go away.

Other Simpsonwood attendees cautioned that “we have to be very, very careful that we got it right when we decide to make a policy call on this.” By the close of the meeting, all but one had agreed to rate the association between thimerosal and neurodevelopmental disorders as “weak.”


In a post-Simpsonwood email in July, 2000 to Harvard researcher Philippe Grandjean—a leading mercury and neurotoxicology expert—Verstraeten apologized for dragging Grandjean into a “nitty-gritty discussion” about thimerosal and neurodevelopment. Verstraeten stated, “I do not wish to be the advocate of the anti-vaccine lobby and sound like being convinced that thimerosal is or was harmful, but at least I feel we should use sound scientific argumentation and not let our standards be dictated by our desire to disprove an unpleasant theory.”


Verstraeten (by then working at GlaxoSmithKline) published the thimerosal data in Pediatrics in 2003. The publication used the later generations of analyses—featuring reworked exclusion criteria, exposure measures and statistical models. However, Verstraeten contested the notion that he or the CDC had “watered down” the original results. In a letter to the editor of Pediatrics in 2004, he described the study’s results as “neutral,” stating, “The bottom line is and has always been the same: an association between thimerosal and neurological outcomes could neither be confirmed nor refuted, and therefore, more study is required” [emphasis added].


Meanwhile, other CDC researchers—with Director Julie Gerberding (who later became a top Merck executive) at the helm—proceeded to hastily publish a handful of poorly designed epidemiological studies to shore up the Simpsonwood consensus. Authored by industry-funded scientists, the studies examined a single neurodevelopmental outcome (autism) and seemingly absolved thimerosal of any responsibility for causing it. Most of the studies intentionally used data from non-U.S. populations with far lower exposure to thimerosal (including Sweden, the Danish general population, Danish psychiatric departments and the United Kingdom). This made it easier to disguise potential associations between thimerosal and neurodevelopmental disorders. Despite many solid critiques of these and other gerrymandered studies, the CDC continues to trot them out as evidence of thimerosal’s putative safety to this day.


Although the CDC claims that it “tries to accommodate”requests from independent investigators to use VSD data, in practice, AHIP’s private control has made the data virtually impenetrable to anyone other than CDC- and HMO-approved researchers.
Outsourcing the Vaccine Safety Datalink

Verstraeten’s dataset, which included over 100,000 children born over the five-year period from 1992 to 1997, came from the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD). The VSD is a taxpayer-funded collection of millions of medical and vaccine records from large health maintenance organizations (HMOs), established by the CDC in 1990 to study the safety of vaccines already on the market. Researchers at the CDC and the participating HMOs regularly publish vaccine-favorable studies using VSD data, often comparing one vaccine with another to ensure a result of “no significantly elevated risk” in the group of interest.


In 2001, one year after Verstraeten shared his VSD-based thimerosal findings at Simpsonwood, the CDC outsourced VSD management and coordination to a private company—America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP)—giving AHIP responsibility for maintaining the “strategic direction” of VSD projects. Although the CDC claims that it “tries to accommodate” requests from independent investigators to use VSD data, in practice, AHIP’s private control has made the data virtually impenetrable to anyone other than CDC- and HMO-approved researchers. In 2005, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) admitted as much in a consensus report titled Vaccine Safety Research, Data Access, and Public Trust, which described “the limited ability of independent external researchers to conduct high-quality corroboration studies or studies of new hypotheses…after January 1, 2001” [emphasis added], including studies that “members of the public consider to have high priority” (Chapter 5).


In 2002, two independent researchers sought to gain access to VSD data and persisted until successful—but only after responding to numerous hurdles that are hard to construe as anything but intentional obstruction on the CDC’s part. These included having to submit a 200-page proposal and undergoing a months-long initial approval process at the CDC; having to submit separate proposals and undergo lengthy approvals at each of the HMOs, sometimes at considerable expense (and sometimes with approval granted and then retracted); encountering CDC refusal to allow reanalysis of data from published CDC VSD-based studies (with the CDC responding in multiple instances that the raw data no longer existed or that the dataset had been “damaged”); and getting charged thousands of dollars in user fees to access the data in a windowless room secured by armed guards.


Congressman Dave Weldon wrote to Gerberding, “The treatment that these well-published researchers have received from the CDC…has been abysmal and embarrassing. I would be curious to know whether Dr. Verstraeten [by then at GSK] …was required to go through the same process…to continue accessing the VSD.”

… ordered Thompson and coauthors to dump the datasets into a giant garbage can to get rid of the evidence establishing a causal vaccine-autism connection.
Destroying autism-MMR data

In the early 2000s, Dr. William Thompson, long-time CDC vaccine safety scientist, was assigned to a CDC study intended to extricate the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine from its controversial association with autism. Unexpectedly, the data refused to cooperate, showing a 250% increase in autism in African-American boys who received the MMR vaccine before their third birthday (compared to African-American boys who received the vaccine after age three). However, when Thompson and coauthors published the MMR study in 2004, the publication failed to report these critical findings, despite the fact that they deserved “additional, immediate investigation.” The CDC’s in-house analysis also showed an increased risk of autism in MMR-vaccinated children who had been developing normally and had no other medical problems, but the published article “mentioned the effect…only in passing.”


In 2014, Thompson sought federal whistleblower protection and testified to Congressman William Posey about the fraudulent omission of key autism results in the 2004 paper. Thompson alleged that he had acted at the direction of senior CDC officials, including Branch Chief and lead author Frank DeStefano, who ordered Thompson and coauthors to dump the datasets into a giant garbage can to get rid of the evidence establishing a causal vaccine-autism connection. Thompson handed over thousands of pages of documents to Congressman Posey revealing widespread fraud in the CDC’s vaccine division. He also expressed willingness to appear, under subpoena, before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform (OGR). However, the OGR Committee Chairman at the time, former Representative Jason Chaffetz, stonewalled until he left office in 2017. (According to a report in The Guardian, drug companies had been the single largest donor to his political campaigns.)

Instead of retracting the unapproved studies, CDC supervisors simply covered up the illicit activity.

Turning a blind eye

Reflecting the almost Keystone-Cops-like atmosphere at the CDC, another infamous mid-2000s episode remains unresolved to this day. The “most wanted fugitives” page on the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG) website shows that a visiting Danish scientist at CDC named Dr. Poul Thorsen “executed a scheme to steal [CDC-awarded] grant money” from 2004 to 2010. The indictment describes how Thorsen diverted over $1 million of CDC funds to his personal bank account through fraudulent invoicing and also “misallocated” additional monies. Thorsen eventually took refuge in Denmark to escape prosecution for 22 counts of wire fraud and money laundering and has been on the OIG’s “most wanted” list since 2012. Although his whereabouts in Denmark are well-known, HHS and the U.S. Department of Justice have made no effort to push for extradition, despite urging from Congressman Posey to pursue the matter as a high priority.


The CDC embraced Thorsen as one of its own before, during and after the embezzlement. Thorsen was an insider to such an extent that even as a foreign scientist he had a CDC government email address and CDC credit union account. From the time of his CDC arrival, the agency seized on the allegedly unscrupulous Thorsen as an ideal partner to cook up and publish slanted epidemiological studies that masked the MMR-autism and thimerosal-autism associations, including studies appearing in the New England Journal of Medicine and Pediatrics in 2002 and 2003. Later, senior CDC officials “continued to include [Thorsen] in discussions well after it was obvious he had forged documents and stolen money,” also arranging in-person meetings and collaborating and publishing with him after his indictment. Nor was the CDC troubled by the fact (uncovered by Children’s Health Defense in 2017 but known by the CDC since 2009) that Thorsen and his collaborators failed to request or obtain required ethical clearances for the 2002 MMR study and a later study. Instead of retracting the unapproved studies, CDC supervisors simply covered up the illicit activity.

Not trustworthy

Concerns about the CDC’s agenda and ethics are not confined to the agency’s vaccine division. In 2017, a dozen senior CDC scientists filed an anonymous complaint alleging that “questionable and unethical practices” had become “the norm and not the rare exception” as a result of corporate and political influence. However, the four case studies described above show that the culture of dishonesty and ethical violations that characterizes the U.S. vaccine enterprise is deeply entrenched. Given the CDC’s aggressive determination to leave “no child unvaccinated,” the agency’s longstanding vaccine criminality should be troubling to all Americans.


Note: This is Part VII in a series of articles adapted from the second Children’s Health Defense eBook: Conflicts of Interest Undermine Children’s Health. Sign up to get your free full text eBook.

 

[laksaboy]

These are unnecessary deaths and that is what makes them tragic. They are a result of the scaremongering by big pharma in bed with big tech in order to sell vaccines.

And pushed by career politicians who toe the line of their globalist masters' 'Great Reset' masterplan.

 

[capamerica]

Everyday there is a new development with the vaccines, cant keep up.

 

[QANONSG]

Even with 1 dose, the vaccines all contain microchips for mind control. 2 does would mean total control so this is yet another attempt for scientists to control the world. Resist. We will never let law, order or rational thought to be in control.