COVID-19 RNA Based Vaccines and the Risk of Prion Disease

Published on April 28, 2021Written by J. Bart Classen, MD

Vaccines have been found to cause a host of chronic, late developing adverse events. Some adverse events like type 1 diabetes may not occur until 3-4 years after a vaccine is administered [1]. In the example of type 1 diabetes the frequency of cases of adverse events may surpass the frequency of cases of severe infectious disease the vaccine was designed to prevent.

Given that type 1 diabetes is only one of many immune mediated diseases potentially caused by vaccines, chronic late occurring adverse events are a serious public health issue. The advent of new vaccine technology creates new potential mechanisms of vaccine adverse events. For example, the firstkilled polio vaccine actually caused polio in recipients because the up scaled manufacturing process did not effectively kill the polio virus before it was injected into patients. RNA basedvaccines offers special risks of inducing specific adverse events.
One such potential adverse event is prion based diseases caused by activation of intrinsic proteins to form prions. A wealth of knowledge has been published on a class of RNA binding proteins shown to participating in causing a number of neurological diseases including Alzheimer’s disease and ALS. TDP-43 and FUS are among the best studied of these proteins [2].
The Pfizer RNA based COVID-19 vaccine was approved by the US FDA under an emergency use authorization without long term safety data. Because of concerns about the safety of this vaccine astudy was performed to determine if the vaccine could potentially induce prion based disease.

Discussion
There is an old saying in medicine that “the cure may be worse than the disease.” The phrase can be applied to vaccines. In the current paper the concern is raised that the RNA based COVID vaccines have the potential to cause more disease than the epidemic of COVID-19.
This paper focuses on a novel potential adverse event mechanism causing prion disease which could be even more common and debilitating than the viral infection the vaccine is designed to prevent. While this paper focuses on one potential adverse event there are multiple other potential fatal adverse events as discussed below.
Over the last two decades there has been a concern among certain scientists that prions could be used as bioweapons. More recently there has been a concern that ubiquitous intracellular molecules could be activated to cause prion disease including Alzheimer’s disease, ALS and other neurodegenerative diseases.
This concern originates due to potential for misuse of research data on the mechanisms by which certain RNA binding proteins like TDP-43, FUS and others can be activated to form disease causing prions. The fact that this research, which could be used for bioweapons development, is funded by private organizations including the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and Ellison Medical Foundation [2] without national/international oversight is also a concern.
In the past, for example, there were prohibitions for publishing information pertaining to construction of nuclear bombs.
Published data has shown that there are several different factors that can contribute to the conversion of certain RNA binding proteins including TDP-43, FUS and related molecules to their pathologic states. These RNA binding proteins have many functions and are found in both the nucleus and the cytoplasm.
These binding proteins have amino acid regions, binding motifs that bind specific RNA sequences. Binding to certain RNA sequences when the proteins are in the cytoplasm is believed to causes the molecules to fold in certain ways leading to pathologic aggregation and prion formation in the cytoplasm [2]. The current analysis indicates Pfizer’s RNA based COVID-19 vaccine contains many of these RNA sequences that have been shown to have high affinity for TDP-43 or FUS and have the potential to induce chronic degenerative neurological diseases.
Zinc binding to the RNA recognition motif of TDP-43 is another mechanism leading to formation of amyloid like aggregations [9]. The viral spike protein, coded by the vaccine RNA sequence, binds ACE2 an enzyme containing zinc molecules [8]. This interaction has the potential to increase intracellular zinc levels leading to prion disease. The initial binding could be between spike proteins on the surface of the cell transfected by the vaccine and ACE2 on the surface of an adjacent cell. The resulting complex may become internalized.
Alternatively, the interaction could initially take place in the cytoplasm of a cell that makes ACE2 and has been transfected with the vaccine RNA coding for the spike protein. The interaction is quite concerning given the belief that the virus causing COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, is a bioweapon [10,11] and it is possible that the viral spike protein may have been designed to cause prion disease. Another related concern is that the Pfizer vaccine uses a unique RNA nucleoside 1-methyl-3′-pseudouridylyl (Ψ). According to FDA briefing documents, this nucleoside was chosen to reduce activation of the innate immune system [12].
RNA molecules containing this nucleoside will undoubtedly have altered binding [13]. Unfortunately, the effect on TDP-43, FUS and other RNA binding proteins is not published. The use of this nucleoside in a vaccine can potentially enhance the binding affinity of RNA sequences capable of causing TDP-43 and FUS to assume toxic configurations. There are many other potential adverse events that can be induced by the novel RNA based vaccines against COVID-19. The vaccine places a novel molecule, spike protein, in/on the surface of host cells.
This spike protein is a potential receptor for another possibly novel infectious agent. If those who argue that the COVID-19 is actually a bioweapon are correct, then a second potentially more dangerous virus may be released that binds spike protein found on the host cells of vaccine recipients.
Download the full paper at www.nutritruth.org
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. 

 

Trackback from your site.

PROOF: Trump Sympathizers Know How GOP Election Traitors Got PAID BACK!

It will make you use your brain!
When Trump was in office, he had to deal with lying, scheming Dems, but that wasn’t all, and he had to struggle with the traitors on his side.
Join The True Defender Telegram Chanel Here: https://t.me/TheTrueDefender
We are all aware that the people close to us can cause the most incredible damage! It was the same case with Trump!
When everything surfaced, the Dems couldn’t escape from all they did without GOP’s help.GOP is the place where the most traitors are! Part of them realized who there were, and others couldn’t realize it until the end!
Now we know who they are. Those are the people that accomplished their mission and betrayed TRUMP!
The final three were Pence, who refused to support Trump. Barr, who didn’t want to investigate the 2020 fraud, and Amy Coney Barrett didn’t want to take the case.
I want to know what the price for this betrayal was.
What did they receive as a payout for the shame they did?

This item sells for $39.95 on Amazon. Today’s special promotion is offering a massive discount on this item. President Trump 2020 Coin (Gold & Silver Plated) – Claim 1 Free OR Claim a Discount + Free Shipping This coin is a symbol of President Trump’s victory and success. Get Coin HERE Or Click on the image below.

One Trump supporter thinks that he revealed the truth.
BOOK DEALS!
He tweeted.

Mike Pence – million dollar book deal.
Amy Coney Barrett – million dollar book deal.
Bill Barr – million dollar book deal.
Who’s next up on the payoff list?
— John D ● (@RedWingGrips) April 26, 2021

If you think twice, this makes sense.
How the politicians and DC swampers have so much money? Of course, it is illegal, but how do they cover it? Maybe with those million-dollar book deals?
“You do this for us, and we’ll pay you with a huge book deal.”
Then, the publishing house offers them a million-plus dollars for a book that we haven’t hear about and we won’t hear about in the future ever again.

Pfizer vaccine may cause heart inflammation in people under 30, leaked study suggests

Details leaked from an Israeli Health Ministry report have raised concerns among experts about a possible link between the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine and myocarditis, according to The Times of Israel and other news outlets. Article by Megan Redshaw from Children’s Health Defense. The preliminary report by a committee tasked with monitoring vaccine side effects found 62 cases of myocarditis, […]
The post Pfizer vaccine may cause heart inflammation in people under 30, leaked study suggests appeared first on NOQ Report – Conservative Christian News, Opinions, and Quotes.

Pfizer Vaccine has THREE TIMES MORE DEATHS than AstraZeneca

Published on April 27, 2021Written by investmentwatchblog.com

Image: World Trademark Review
Here he have an analysis of the adverse effects of Covid-19 vaccines carried out between January 1 and April 6, 2021 from the official site linked to the European Commission ADReports.eu.

It shows:

a very high proportion of serious effects linked to Covid-19 vaccines compared to the classic influenza vaccine (inactivated virus) over the year 2020
a very worrying proportion of sudden deaths  and the fact that these sudden deaths occur in less than 24 hours post-vaccination  and affect all age groups.

To remember

The assumed fatality rate due to the Covid-19 vaccine for 18-44 year olds is identical to the death rate due to the Covid-19 disease for the Pfizer and Astrazeneca vaccines, or even higher (Table 1) by a factor of 7 for the Moderna vaccine.
There are 60 times more suspicious deaths after vaccination with the Pfizer and AstaZeneca vaccines than after vaccination with the influenza vaccine.
There are 400 times more suspicious deaths after vaccination with the Moderna vaccine than after vaccination with the influenza vaccine.
The risk of sudden death is 20 to 60 times higher after vaccination against Covid-19 compared to vaccination against influenza.

Analysis of the adverse effects of Covid-19 vaccines from January 01, 2021 to April 06, 2021
Transparent information on the new generation of mRNA vaccines, disruptive technologies etc., is a fundamental right. We are talking about intramuscular injection of highly bioactive substances, and the concern is therefore legitimate; seeking pharmacovigilance data is part of a process of personal and civic responsibility.
The concern is based in particular on the use of genetic engineering involving for the first time in the history of medicine, and directly for mass planetary use, messenger RNA (Pfizer and Moderna) and GMO ( Genetically Modified Organisms) in an adenoviral vector (AstraZeneca and Janssen) according to the European classification.
For the details of the composition and regulatory context of Covid-19 vaccines, we refer you to read the vaccine sheets in particular on the ReinfoCovid site [ 1 , 2 ].
Regarding the monitoring of the adverse effects of these vaccines at the level of the European Union, the official website linked to the European Commission entitled ADRreports.eu (‘Adverse Events Reports’) provides raw data from hospitals and clinics.
The summary table below (Table 1), corresponding to the extraction of 2021 data, patient by patient, between January 01 and April 06, highlights:

a very high proportion of serious effects linked to Covid-19 vaccines compared to the classic influenza vaccine (inactivated virus) over the year 2020
a very worrying proportion of sudden deaths due to vaccinations and the fact that these sudden deaths occur in less than 24 hours post-vaccination and affect all age groups.

The famous benefit / risk ratio for those under 75 without comorbidities must then be looked at very closely, since with the vaccine there appears a risk of sudden death for the patient, who is absent from the risks associated with Covid-19, including deaths which are always the result of a more or less long stay in the intensive care unit.
According to the website of the European Commission [ 3 ], Europe administered 80.5 million doses by April 7, 2021. And according to Watson Rory “Covid-19: EU looks to speed up vaccine rollout. »(2021) [ 4 ], 65-75% of the doses are Pfizer, 17-30% AstraZeneca, and 6-8% Moderna. We use these averaged numbers in the table below.
The data relating to the various influenza vaccines, administered intramuscularly (inactivated virus), are concatenated in the table below. The live attenuated intranasal vaccine Fluenz Tetra [ 5 ] was excluded from the analysis because it was not directly comparable.
The influenza vaccination coverage of people over 65 being 44.3% in Europe in 2017 [ 6 ] and the number of people over 65 in Europe being 90 million in 2019 [ 7 ], we can estimate the number of people vaccinated against influenza in 2020 to about 40 million people.
Table 1. Summary table of side effects of messenger RNA and GMO vaccines compared to the classic influenza vaccine (data as of April 6, 2021)

There is thus a factor of 60 concerning the number of suspicious deaths between the flu vaccine and the Pfizer and AstaZeneca vaccines and a factor of 400 to the detriment of Moderna.
The major risk of sudden death being multiplied by a factor between 22 and 64 to the detriment of Covid-19 vaccines compared with the flu vaccine.
Finally, the ratio of serious effects compared to the number of vaccinated gives a factor of 25 against the Moderna vaccine compared to the flu vaccine, a factor of 10 against Pfizer and a factor of 110 against AstraZeneca.
The ratio of adverse reactions, all classes combined, being higher by a multiplying factor ranging from 14 (Moderna) to 50 (AstraZeneca) to the detriment of Covid-19 vaccines.
We therefore have risks induced by the current Covid vaccines multiplied by factors between 10 and 400 compared, depending on the category observed, to those of the flu vaccine, including sudden deaths affecting the 18-65 year old segment.
18-44 year olds with a mortality rate due to Covid-19 of approximately 0.0014% (i.e. 1.4 / 100,000 people) and 45-64 year olds with a mortality rate due to Covid-19 of 0.010 About% (i.e. 10 / 100,000 people) (67.06 million inhabitants in 2019, 8% of the 96,650 official deaths from Covid-19 in France are under 18-64 years old [ 8 ]).
It can therefore be seen that the fatality rate assumed due to the Covid-19 vaccine for 18-44 year olds is identical to the mortality rate due to the Covid-19 disease for the Pfizer and Astrazeneca vaccines, or even higher (Table 1) of a factor of 7 for the Moderna vaccine. Without confusing mortality and lethality, however, the use of Covid vaccines for this age group in view of the other potential serious side effects is difficult to justify.
The temporary or permanent withdrawal of AstraZeneca from certain countries [ 9 ] for causes of thrombosis clearly reflects these data; the informed citizen will choose in conscience to be vaccinated or not, unless this is imposed directly or indirectly via a “health pass”.
See more here: investmentwatchblog.com
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Expose The Lies About COVID19
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. 

Trackback from your site.

French CTIAP demands removal of four widely used COVID vaccines

Published on April 27, 2021Written by lifesitenews.com

According to the CTIAP, all of the vaccines were put on the market and actively used on human beings before ‘proof of quality for the active substance and the finished product’ was produced.

A regional independent drug assessment center, the CTIAP (Centre territorial d’Information indépendante et d’Avis pharmaceutiques), which is linked to the Cholet public hospital in the west of France, recently published a report showing that the vaccines used against COVID were not only submitted to insufficient clinical testing, but that the quality of the active substances, their “excipients, some of which are new,” and the manufacturing processes are problematic.
“These new excipients should be considered as new active substances,” the Cholet hospital team stated, in a study that according to them raises issues that have not been commented to date.
The team led by Dr. Catherine Frade, a pharmacist, worked on public data released by the EMA with relation to the Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca and Janssen (Johnson & Johnson) shots, and its first caveat was that all these products only have temporary marketing authorizations. They are all subject to further studies that reach as far as 2024 and even beyond, and these will be almost impossible to be completed because of the way the vaccines are now being distributed, said the CTIAP report.
These studies even include the stability and comparability of the vaccine batches put on the market and the quality and safety of excipients — substances formulated alongside the active ingredient of a medication to facilitate or enhance their absorption.
According to the CTIAP, all of the vaccines were put on the market and actively used on human beings before “proof of quality for the active substance and the finished product” was produced: all the manufacturing labs obtained future deadlines to submit their studies in this regard.
The authors of the report consider that the “variabilities, which impact the very core of the product, could even invalidate any clinical trials conducted” in the coming months and years.
They go so far as to state: “Prudence would even dictate that, in all countries where these vaccines against COVID-19 have been marketed, all the batches thus ‘released’ should be withdrawn immediately; and that these MAs that have been granted should be suspended, or even canceled, as a matter of urgency until further notice.”
Here below is LifeSite’s full working translation of the CTIAP’s April 2 report:
Can we imagine launching a car manufacturing line and putting vehicles on the road, despite the uncertainties noted in the official documents published? These uncertainties are related to the quality of the parts making up the engine and the various other parts, including those related to safety, the manufacturing process, the reproducibility of the batches that are being marketed, etc.
In the field of medicines (including vaccines), the pharmaceutical act of “release” of the finished product (an authorized product intended for sale) constitutes the final stage of control that precedes the release of these products to the population. This key step of “release” is under the pharmaceutical responsibility of the manufacturers.
Following its previous analyses, the CTIAP of the Cholet Hospital Center has once again revealed to the public, and probably in an unprecedented and exclusive way, new vital information concerning the following four vaccines against COVID-19: the one from the BioNTech/Pfizer laboratory; the one from the Moderna laboratory; the one from the Astra Zeneca laboratory; the one from the Janssen laboratory.
This work was made possible thanks to the valuable contribution of Dr. Catherine Frade, pharmacist and former director of international regulatory affairs in the pharmaceutical industry. She graciously provided us with a documented, written alert. In this document, she sheds light on data extracted, on March 22, 2021, from the MA (marketing authorization) itself; an MA qualified as “conditional.” She has extracted “source data that is difficult to identify by someone who does not work in the field.”
This data is therefore public and verifiable. First of all, it should be noted that the author of this document no longer works in the pharmaceutical industry; she states: “First of all, I would like to make it clear that I have no conflict of interest with the pharmaceutical industry.” It is therefore with her agreement that CTIAP intends to make available to the public, health professionals, decision-makers … an analysis of some of these data that all should read carefully.
This reflection first presents what a “conditional” MA is (I). Then, it recalls that the studies for these vaccines are not complete, as they run from “2021 to at least 2024” (II). Then, it reveals, in an unprecedented and exclusive way, that the official documents, published by the European Medicines Agency (EMA), underline the insufficiency of the evidence concerning also the “quality” of the “active substance” and of the “excipients,” of the “manufacturing process,” of the “reproducibility of the batches” that are being commercialized, etc. (III). Finally, this analysis proposes a conclusion.
I — First of all, it is important to understand what a “conditional” MA is
An MA is to a drug what a car registration document is to a car. MA is granted when a drug has proven its quality, efficacy, and safety; with a positive benefit/risk ratio: that is, it presents more benefits than risks. Obtaining this MA is the essential condition for a pharmaceutical laboratory to sell any drug, including vaccines.
Here, in the case of these vaccines against COVID-19, the four MAs issued are so-called “conditional” MAs. They are temporary. They are valid for no more than one year, because they were obtained on the basis of “incomplete data.” To obtain a standard 5-year MA, the laboratories concerned must provide dossiers completed with “studies in progress and studies planned for the coming years.” Throughout “this development,” close and coordinated monitoring between the manufacturing laboratories and the health authorities is organized through regular discussions. The “conditional” MA is “re-evaluated each year” according to the contribution and critical analysis of additional data provided and collected during a full year.
This “conditional” MA is a European MA. It was obtained through the centralized accelerated procedure. It allows simultaneous marketing in the following 30 countries (European Union and European Free Trade Association): Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden.
The studies concerning these four vaccines are therefore still in progress.
II — Secondly, the planned studies are still in progress and are spread over a period ranging from “2021 to at least 2024”
All of the studies submitted during the MA application are summarized in the EPAR (European Public Assessment Report). This report is published on the European Medicines Agency (EMA) website. The planned studies, not yet completed, are also included.
This schedule, which “extends from 2021 to at least 2024,” depending on which COVID-19 vaccine is involved, is defined in the “annexes” of the conditional marketing authorization and in the published EPARs.
As an example, the BioNTech/Pfizer vaccine received this European conditional MA on December 21, 2020. And the deadline for filing “confirmation” of efficacy, safety, and tolerability of this vaccine is “December 2023.”
The Moderna vaccine was granted marketing authorization on January 6, 2021. The deadline for filing “confirmation” of efficacy, safety, and tolerability of the vaccine is “December 2022” at the earliest.
AstraZeneca’s vaccine was granted marketing authorization on January 29, 2021. The deadline for filing “confirmation” of efficacy, safety, and tolerability of the vaccine is “March 2024.”
The Janssen vaccine was granted conditional European marketing authorization on March 11, 2021. The deadline for submitting “confirmation” of the vaccine’s efficacy, safety and tolerance is “December 2023.”
However, to date — and this is undoubtedly where the unprecedented and exclusive revelation of this study lies — another deadline has been set for these four vaccines. This deadline no longer concerns only the ongoing clinical trials, but also the “proof of quality for the active substance and the finished product” itself: that is, the intrinsic quality (the heart) of the product sold and administered to millions of people.
III — Thirdly, and this seems to be unprecedented, the published official documents also underline the incompleteness of the evidence concerning the “quality” of the “active substance” and “excipients,” the “manufacturing process,” the ”reproducibility of the batches” marketed, etc.
The deadline for submitting additional evidence on the “quality” of the “active substance” and the “finished product” (i.e., the vaccine that is authorized and sold) is set for:

“July 2021” for BioNTech/Pfizer;
“June 2021” for Moderna;
“June 2022” for Astra Zeneca;
“August 2021” for Janssen.

Indeed, for these 4 vaccines, paragraph E, “Specific obligation regarding post-authorization measures for the conditional marketing authorization,” taken from Annex II of the MA, clearly states the following:
For the BioNTech/Pfizer vaccine (pages 18-19)
By “March 2021,” the laboratory must provide “additional validation data” to “confirm the reproducibility of the finished product manufacturing process.”
By “July 2021,” the laboratory must provide missing information to:

“complete the characterization of the active substance and the finished product;”
“strengthen the control strategy, including the specifications of the active substance and the finished product” in order to “ensure the constant quality of the product;”
“provide additional information regarding its synthesis process and control strategy” in order to “confirm the purity profile of the excipient ALC-0315” and “to ensure quality control and batch-to-batch reproducibility throughout the life cycle of the finished product;”
and by “December 2023,” and “in order to confirm the efficacy and safety” of this vaccine, the company “shall submit the final clinical study report for the randomized, placebo-controlled, blind observer study (Study C4591001).

For the Moderna vaccine (page 15)
The laboratory should provide the missing information to:

“complete the characterization of the manufacturing processes of the active substance and the finished product” (deadline “January 2021”);
confirm the reproducibility of the manufacturing process of the active substance and the finished product (initial and final batch sizes) (deadline “April 2021”);
“provide additional information on the stability of the active substance and the finished product and review the specifications of the active substance and the finished product after longer industrial practice” with the aim of “ensuring consistent product quality” (deadline “June 2021”);
“submit the final study report for the randomized, placebo-controlled, blinded clinical trial for the mRNA-1273-P301 observer” to “confirm the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccine Moderna” (by December 2022).

For the Astra Zeneca vaccine (pages 14-15)
The laboratory must submit the missing information in order to:

“provide additional validation and comparability data, and initiate further testing” with the aim of “confirming the reproducibility of the manufacturing processes of the active substance and the finished product” (by “December 2021”);
“Provide the main analysis (based on the December 7 data cut-off (post database lock) and the final analysis of the combined pivotal studies” to “confirm the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca” (deadline “March 5, 2021” (for the main analysis) and “May 31, 2022” (for the combined analysis);
“submit final reports of the randomized controlled clinical studies COV001, COV002, COV003 and COV005” to “confirm the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca” (due “May 31, 2022”);
“provide additional data regarding the stability of the active substance and the finished product and revise the specifications of the finished product after extensive industrial practice” in order to “ensure consistent product quality” (deadline “June 2022”);
“submit the synthesis and summaries of the primary analysis and the final clinical study report for study D8110C00001” to “confirm the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccine AstraZeneca in the elderly and in subjects with underlying disease” — due “April 30, 2021” (for the primary analysis) and “March 31, 2024” (for the final study report).

For the Janssen vaccine (page 18)
The laboratory should submit the missing information to:

“provide additional comparability and validation data” to “confirm the reproducibility of the manufacturing process of the finished product” (deadline “August 15, 2021”);
submit the final report of the VAC31518COV3001 randomized, placebo-controlled, single-blind clinical study to “confirm the efficacy and safety of the COVID-19 Ad26.COV2.S vaccine” by December 31, 2023.

These facts allow us to offer a conclusion.
Conclusion
For these reasons, which are not exhaustive, it has proved useful to look for and read the content of the paragraph E: “Specific obligation relating to post-authorization measures concerning the conditional marketing authorization,” extracted from Annex II of the MA, corresponding to each of these 4 vaccines against COVID-19.
The inadequacy of the evaluation does not only concern the clinical trials (studies conducted in humans (women and men)), but also the quality of the active substance, the excipients, some of which are new, the manufacturing process, and the batches released and administered to humans in several countries around the world.
Moreover, these new excipients must be considered as new active ingredients, and thus be the subject of a complete evaluation file similar to that required for a new active ingredient.
Changing the commercial name of one of these vaccines, as was recently announced for the AstraZeneca vaccine in particular, can only be considered as a cosmetic arrangement of the product’s image for marketing purposes (winning new public confidence, boosting sales). It would not answer the questions raised concerning the quality, efficacy and safety of the product. This is one of the usual techniques used to put make-up on (dissimulate) certain undesirable characteristics of the product concerned.
It is a technique that has been used to present other drugs in the best possible light.
As already mentioned, in the field of medicines (including vaccines), the “release” of the finished product (intended for sale) is the final stage of control (of quality and therefore of safety) before making these products available to the population.
This key stage of “release” of batches is the pharmaceutical responsibility of the manufacturers. However, the responsibility of the users (institutions and health professionals in particular) may also be involved.
In our opinion, these clinical studies should never have begun before the intrinsic quality of the finished product and its manufacturing process had been fully mastered; before the formulas of these vaccines had been stabilized.
Read the rest here: lifesitenews.com
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Expose The Lies About COVID19
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. 

Trackback from your site.

Losing the fight against transgenderism before it started

Fights for “transgender rights” are ratcheting up across the nation, met with opposition by those who say our sexuality is a biological reality that can’t be changed with a scalpel.  The problem is this war against transgenderism has already been settled.  The definition of human sexual identity was already changed — by our society’s acceptance of the […]
The post Losing the fight against transgenderism before it started appeared first on NOQ Report – Conservative Christian News, Opinions, and Quotes.

BLM, Hollywood fail: 70% of Black Americans believe their local police are doing a good job

In a clear case of the mainstream narrative failing to translate into real-world perspectives, a strong majority of Black Americans believe their local police are doing a good job. This information comes from a recent CBS News/YouGov poll following the guilty verdict against former police officer Derek Chauvin. According to the poll, 17% of Black […]
The post BLM, Hollywood fail: 70% of Black Americans believe their local police are doing a good job appeared first on NOQ Report – Conservative Christian News, Opinions, and Quotes.

>