VigiAccess Database

This database allows you to browse and view data on suspected side-effects from various medicinal products (also known as suspected adverse drug reactions (“ADRs”)). All data contained herein is sourced from VigiBase®, the World Health Organization’s (the “WHO”) global database for ADRs, maintained by the Uppsala Monitoring Centre (the “UMC”).

To access the database follow the link below and type into the search box “comirnaty”.

Comirnaty contains the active ingredient(s): Covid-19 vaccine.

http://www.vigiaccess.org/

COVID Vaccines: Necessity, Efficacy and Safety

Covid-19 vaccines are exposing populations to serious, unnecessary and unjustified medical risks.

Abstract: COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers have been exempted from legal liability for vaccine-induced harm. It is therefore in the interests of all those authorising, enforcing and administering COVID-19 vaccinations to understand the evidence regarding the risks and benefits of these vaccines, since liability for harm will fall on them.
In short, the available evidence and science indicate that COVID-19 vaccines are unnecessary, ineffective and unsafe.


Necessity: immunocompetent individuals are protected against SARS-CoV-2 by cellular immunity. Vaccinating low-risk groups is therefore unnecessary. For immunocompromised individuals who do fall ill with COVID-19 there is a range of medical treatments that have been proven safe and effective. Vaccinating the vulnerable is therefore equally unnecessary. Both immunocompetent and vulnerable groups are better protected against variants of SARS-CoV-2 by naturally acquired immunity and by medication than by vaccination.

Efficacy: Covid-19 vaccines lack a viable mechanism of action against SARS-CoV-2 infection of the airways. Induction of antibodies cannot prevent infection by an agent such as SARS-CoV-2 that invades through the respiratory tract. Moreover, none of the vaccine trials have provided any evidence that vaccination prevents transmission of the infection by vaccinated individuals; urging vaccination to “protect others” therefore has no basis in fact.


Safety: The vaccines are dangerous to both healthy individuals and those with pre-existing chronic disease, for reasons such as the following: risk of lethal and non-lethal disruptions of blood clotting including bleeding disorders, thrombosis in the brain, stroke and heart attack; autoimmune and allergic reactions; antibody-dependent enhancement of disease; and vaccine impurities due to rushed manufacturing and unregulated production standards.


The risk-benefit calculus is therefore clear: the experimental vaccines are needless, ineffective and dangerous. Actors authorising, coercing or administering experimental COVID-19 vaccination are exposing populations and patients to serious, unnecessary, and unjustified medical risks.

COVID Vaccine Necessity, Efficacy and Safety

COMIRNATY

This post is in relation to COVID-19.

This database allows you to browse and view data on suspected side-effects from various medicinal products (also known as suspected adverse drug reactions (“ADRs”).

All data contained herein is sourced from VigiBase®, the World Health Organization’s (the “WHO”) global database for ADRs.

http://vigiaccess.org

Enter search database
Type in COMIRNATY
Search ADR database

Doctors and Scientists Accuse Medical Regulator of Downplaying COVID-19 Vaccine Dangers

On April 1st the experts issued a rebuttal letterto the EMA, following the regulator’s dismissal of their earlier warnings regarding COVID-19 vaccine dangers from clotting and bleeding.

Within days of the EMA receiving the group’s original letter on March 1st, outlining risks of blood disorders from COVID-19 vaccines, over a dozen countries suspended the AstraZeneca vaccine following deaths from clotting and bleeding, as the doctors had warned.

https://doctors4covidethics.medium.com/re-issued-press-release-doctors-and-scientists-accuse-medical-regulator-of-downplaying-covid-19-5960665964c7

European Medicines Agency and Covid-19 Vaccine Dangers

The European Medicines Agency is misleading citizens into medical experimentation, experts warn.

Doctors and scientists from 25 countries have today issued a rebuttal letter to the European Medicines Agency (EMA), following the regulator’s dismissal of their earlier warnings regarding COVID-19 vaccine dangers from clotting and bleeding.

Within days of the EMA receiving the group’s original letter on March 1st, outlining risks of blood disorders from COVID-19 vaccines, over a dozen countries suspended the AstraZeneca vaccine following deaths from clotting and bleeding, as the doctors had warned.

On March 23rd, however, the EMA dismissed the group’s concerns as relating to “minor” and “rare” events, concluding that “a positive benefit-risk balance has been established.”

The doctors and scientists have today hit back, accusing the EMA of misleading the public on the vaccines’ true risk-benefit profile. “Your reply of March 23 is unconvincing and unacceptable,” they wrote, noting that recorded cases of life-threatening cerebral venous thrombosis (CSVT) post-vaccination likely “represent just the tip of a huge iceberg”. Common reactions to vaccination, including headache, nausea, blurred vision and vomiting, they state, are symptoms of CSVT, and should be assessed as such, immediately.

Clotting and bleeding after vaccination can also “be expected to increase with each re-vaccination, and each intervening coronavirus exposure” the group warned. Over time “this renders both repeated vaccination and common coronaviruses dangerous to young and healthy age groups, for whom – in the absence of ‘vaccination’ – COVID-19 poses no substantive risk.

Follow link below.

https://doctors4covidethics.medium.com/rebuttal-letter-to-european-medicines-agency-from-doctors-for-covid-ethics-april-1-2021-7d867f0121e

Doctors for COVID ethics

Urgent Open Letter from Doctors and Scientists to the European Medicines Agency regarding COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Concerns.

Dear Sirs/Mesdames,

FOR THE URGENT PERSONAL ATTENTION OF: EMER COOKE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE EUROPEAN MEDICINES AGENCY

As physicians and scientists, we are supportive in principle of the use of new medical interventions which are appropriately developed and deployed, having obtained informed consent from the patient. This stance encompasses vaccines in the same way as therapeutics.

We note that a wide range of side effects is being reported following vaccination of previously healthy younger individuals with the gene-based COVID-19 vaccines. Moreover, there have been numerous media reports from around the world of care homes being struck by COVID-19 within days of vaccination of residents. While we recognise that these occurrences might, every one of them, have been unfortunate coincidences, we are concerned that there has been and there continues to be inadequate scrutiny of the possible causes of illness or death under these circumstances, and especially so in the absence of post-mortems examinations.

In particular, we question whether cardinal issues regarding the safety of the vaccines were adequately addressed prior to their approval by the European Medicines Agency (EMA).

As a matter of great urgency, we herewith request that the EMA provide us with responses to the following issues:

1. Following intramuscular injection, it must be expected that the gene-based vaccines will reach the bloodstream and disseminate throughout the body [1]. We request evidence that this possibility was excluded in pre-clinical animal models with all three vaccines prior to their approval for use in humans by the EMA.

2. If such evidence is not available, it must be expected that the vaccines will remain entrapped in the circulation and be taken up by endothelial cells. There is reason to assume that this will happen particularly at sites of slow blood flow, i.e. in small vessels and capillaries [2]. We request evidence that this probability was excluded in pre-clinical animal models with all three vaccines prior to their approval for use in humans by the EMA.

3. If such evidence is not available, it must be expected that during expression of the vaccines’ nucleic acids, peptides derived from the spike protein will be presented via the MHC I — pathway at the luminal surface of the cells. Many healthy individuals have CD8-lymphocytes that recognize such peptides, which may be due to prior COVID infection, but also to cross-reactions with other types of Coronavirus [3; 4] [5]. We must assume that these lymphocytes will mount an attack on the respective cells. We request evidence that this probability was excluded in pre-clinical animal models with all three vaccines prior to their approval for use in humans by the EMA.

4. If such evidence is not available, it must be expected that endothelial damage with subsequent triggering of blood coagulation via platelet activation will ensue at countless sites throughout the body. We request evidence that this probability was excluded in pre-clinical animal models with all three vaccines prior to their approval for use in humans by the EMA.

5. If such evidence is not available, it must be expected that this will lead to a drop in platelet counts, appearance of D-dimers in the blood, and to myriad ischaemic lesions throughout the body including in the brain, spinal cord and heart. Bleeding disorders might occur in the wake of this novel type of DIC-syndrome including, amongst other possibilities, profuse bleedings and haemorrhagic stroke. We request evidence that all these possibilities were excluded in pre-clinical animal models with all three vaccines prior to their approval for use in humans by the EMA.

6. The SARS-CoV-2 spike protein binds to the ACE2 receptor on platelets, which results in their activation [6]. Thrombocytopenia has been reported in severe cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection [7]. Thrombocytopenia has also been reported in vaccinated individuals [8]. We request evidence that the potential danger of platelet activation that would also lead to disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) was excluded with all three vaccines prior to their approval for use in humans by the EMA.

7. The sweeping across the globe of SARS-CoV-2 created a pandemic of illness associated with many deaths. However, by the time of consideration for approval of the vaccines, the health systems of most countries were no longer under imminent threat of being overwhelmed because a growing proportion of the world had already been infected and the worst of the pandemic had already abated. Consequently, we demand conclusive evidence that an actual emergency existed at the time of the EMA granting Conditional Marketing Authorisation to the manufacturers of all three vaccines, to justify their approval for use in humans by the EMA, purportedly because of such an emergency.

Should all such evidence not be available, we demand that approval for use of the gene-based vaccines be withdrawn until all the above issues have been properly addressed by the exercise of due diligence by the EMA.

There are serious concerns, including but not confined to those outlined above, that the approval of the COVID-19 vaccines by the EMA was premature and reckless, and that the administration of the vaccines constituted and still does constitute “human experimentation”, which was and still is in violation of the Nuremberg Code.

In view of the urgency of the situation, we request that you reply to this email within seven days and address all our concerns substantively. Should you choose not to comply with this reasonable request, we will make this letter public.

https://doctors4covidethics.medium.com/urgent-open-letter-from-doctors-and-scientists-to-the-european-medicines-agency-regarding-covid-19-f6e17c311595

Doctors and the COVID-19 jab.

The NHS has published an agreement to enable general practices to start delivering a covid-19 vaccine from as early as next month.

A new directed enhanced service (DES), published 10 November, says practices will be expected to coordinate and deliver covid-19 vaccinations collaboratively and at scale in primary care networks.

The draft deal, agreed between NHS England and the BMA’s GP committee, says practices will initially need collectively to nominate a single site per network to deliver vaccinations, with additional sites possible as supply increases. Designated sites will be expected to deliver vaccines seven days a week between 8 am and 8 pm if supply allows.

Practices will be paid £12.58 (€14.15; $16.69) per vaccination. This is 25% more than the current £10.06 practices receive for an influenza vaccination, in recognition of the need for extra training, post-vaccine observation, and other associated costs. Practices will need to provide most of the required staff from their own workforce.

https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4354

The NHS will pay GPs an additional £10 for every COVID vaccination they deliver to someone who is housebound as part of the drive to protect the most vulnerable people as swiftly as possible

GPs receive funding boost to vaccinate housebound in NHS drive to protect most vulnerable.

https://www.england.nhs.uk/2021/02/funding-boost-to-vaccinate-housebound/

NIAID Statement on AstraZeneca Vaccine

Late Monday, the Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) notified NIAID, BARDA, and AstraZeneca that it was concerned by information released by AstraZeneca on initial data from its COVID-19 vaccine clinical trial. The DSMB expressed concern that AstraZeneca may have included outdated information from that trial, which may have provided an incomplete view of the efficacy data. We urge the company to work with the DSMB to review the efficacy data and ensure the most accurate, up-to-date efficacy data be made public as quickly as possible.

https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/niaid-statement-astrazeneca-vaccine#.YFmlYuQmOug.twitter