Compulsory Vaccine articles

[rachel]

CAUGHT ON CAMERA: TOP W.H.O. SCIENTISTS QUESTION SAFETY OF VACCINES


https://web.archive.org/web/20200122092 ... 2IujhTdCLE

Footage from inside The W.H.O. Global Vaccine Safety Summit on Dec. 2&3 2019.
https://www.who.int/news-room/events/de ... ety-summit

[xileffilex]

^^^ the interesting contributor to that meeting, rachel, is Heidi Larson an "Anthropologist" Hmmmm
• Her research unit receives unrestricted research funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation for a vaccine confidence project

Where is she based? LONDON School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine.
https://www.lshtm.ac.uk/aboutus/people/larson.heidi

Larson, who for many years worked on immunization at UNICEF and later chaired the advocacy program for the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization initiative launched by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation some 15 years ago, agrees the media narrative in the U.S. seems to have changed.

But changing public perception and attitudes toward vaccination require much deeper social, cultural and political changes to really take root. She and a team of experts have been studying the ‘confidence gap’ in vaccines worldwide. What they have discovered, and are still discovering, shows that this is a very nuanced and complex issue that will likely require more than either just fear-based or evidence-based arguments to resolve.

4

source - Feb 2015
http://www.humanosphere.org/podcasts/20 ... dence-gap/

I wonder if she's one of the silent people on the UK Government's SAGE committee.

Larson's job seems to be to direct people to "Trusted sites" for Covid information
https://london.ac.uk/news-opinion/londo ... e-qa-lshtm

Dr Larson’s research focuses on the analysis of social and political factors that can affect uptake of health interventions and influence policies. Her particular interest is on risk and rumour management from clinical trials to delivery – and building public trust. She served on the FDA Medical Countermeasure (MCM) Emergency Communication Expert Working Group, and is Principle Investigator of the EU-funded (EBODAC) project on the deployment, acceptance and compliance of an Ebola vaccine trial in Sierra Leone.

In her final summing up, Professor Larson commented on the importance of using reliable sources for information about COVID-19:

“I would urge people to be really careful about believing what they read until it has some basis to it. There are a lot of things circulating that are not true – or are possibilities – that we have to be careful about. Please read them with caution. WHO, CDC, National Health institutes – look at institutional sites that have confirmed scientific evidence.”

video =March 25 2020
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9Upb8T-1F8

Watch for further outings in the media for Larson as the Covid vaccine is promoted as the escape route from "lockdown".

An influencer.

[xileffilex]

Archived link to Larson's funding [removed from the web]
https://web.archive.org/web/20200606185 ... _apr12/en/

[xileffilex]

The LSH&TM video from March 25 2020 is interesting for two reasons:
1. The selected questions, which may indeed by planted questions with fake names attached, include one about a SECOND WAVE. The "first" wave hasn't even peaked at that time! What did they know?
2. The other 'expert' Professor Jimmy Whitworth reckoned that face masks were somewhat pointless.....

[not relating to compulsory vaccine, although the first speaker's expertise is in moulding public opinion to acccept vaccination, which will probably be 'mandatory' to escape into the noonormal]

[xileffilex]

This is a danger warning which someone dropped on a youtube video comment....

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultat ... 19-and-flu

Just as government around the world relaxed rules relating to the filling out of death certificates, to produced the fake coronavirus pandemic death spike, now we have vaccination procedure-light, introduced through yet another statutory instrument. This will go nowhere near discussion with those who actually make and pass laws.

Open consultation
Distributing vaccines and treatments for COVID-19 and flu
Published 28 August 2020

Consultation description
The UK government, with the Minister of Health in Northern Ireland, is seeking views on proposed changes to the Human Medicine Regulations 2012.

The consultation covers:

authorising temporary supply of an unlicensed product
civil liability and immunity
expanding the workforce eligible to administer vaccinations ***
promoting vaccines
making provisions for wholesale dealing of vaccines

"coming into force October 2020 " [yes they know that, after being "laid before" the supine parliament full of wasters]
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultat ... 9-vaccines

A temporary authorisation of the supply of an unlicensed vaccine could be given by the UK’s licensing authority under regulation 174 of the Human Medicines Regulations (see below). A COVID-19 vaccine would only be authorised in this way if the UK’s licensing authority was satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate the safety, quality and efficacy of the vaccine. ‘Unlicensed’ does not mean ‘untested’....

However, even after the consultation has finished and amendments have been made, the UK government will remain open to the possibility of making further changes – very rapidly, if need be.

i.e agile governance again.

providing in this document less detail than the general reader might like – but a level of detail that is proportionate to the exercise.

And behind all the above it is to

support the upscaling of flu vaccination and providing [color="red"in the future for the mass distribution of treatments for pandemic diseases.[/color]

Quite some big pharma rip-off. Note this key passage -***

Make short-term provisions for wholesale dealing of COVID-19 and flu vaccines, and treatments for pandemic diseases, in the case that the vaccine/treatment needs to be moved under NHS or armed services’

*** It will be the military carrying out the mass ?enforced? vaccination programmes, for which the document provides immunity, along with the suppliers of these unlicensed vaccines.

COVID-19 is the biggest threat this country has faced in peacetime history

Suuuuuuure, a "virus" allegedly killing off a small number of people whose age is even above the median age for death.

[xileffilex]

The WEF also uses its platform to push compulsory vaccination and to counter anti-vaccination stances
Anti-vax: how to counter the myths in time for a COVID vaccine - this week's World Vs Virus podcast
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/09/ ... -vaccines/
Sept 17 2020
by the WEF digital editor Robin Pomeroy

Ipsos poll found 27% of people globally would not want a COVID vaccine.
Opposition to vaccines is a broad spectrum, from nervous parents to extreme conspiracy theorists.
Vaccine experts Paul Offit and Heidi Larson feature on World Vs Virus podcast.

Go to get that 27 per cent down. worrying that 52 percent of GB citizens can't wait to get it despite now knowing what's in it or what the side effects or even long term effects are, and only 7 percent don't want it.

Larson heads the Vaccine Confidence Project at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine - an organisation that tracks rumours and misinformation about vaccines and helps counter them.....

a kind of fact checking unit..

Larson heads the Vaccine Confidence Project at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine - an organisation that tracks rumours and misinformation about vaccines and helps counter them. She says we have to start improving people's confidence now - well before a COVID-19 vaccine is available - to ensure populations around the world want to take it.....
"The mothers **who came to me and said: 'We are not flat-Earthers' - these are not what I would call anti-vaxxers

** Larsen, PhD Anthropology, Berkeley, worked with the "Ebola outbreak" in Africa, which had a lot of fakery surrounded it. Always good to bring up flat earth...

https://www.linkedin.com/in/heidi-larson-07b535119
an EU-funded (EBODAC) project on the deployment, acceptance and compliance of an Ebola vaccine trial in Sierra Leone; and a global study on Public Sentiments and Emotions Around Current and Potential Measures to Contain and Treat COVID-19.
Who's funding this 'global' Covid study?

bypass the parents, appeal to the immature:

Larson calls herself a "patient optimist" and has high hopes for the younger generation.

"Children of parents who have refused vaccination[//b], interestingly are starting to stand up and say: 'Wait a minute, that was your decision. I go to school, I've read about vaccines, I know the science, I want my vaccine. I'm not going to make that mistake for my children.'" she says.

So one can guess schools are being targeted by Larsen's nudging unit.

Appendix
The Vaccine Confidence Project
https://www.vaccineconfidence.org/covid-19
https://www.vaccineconfidence.org/partners-funders

Funders
European Commission
European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA)
Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI)
GlaxoSmithKline
Merck
University College London

so, no conflicts of interest there....

[xileffilex]

There's no mention of mandation...but the WEF is cheerfully and optimistically lookig forward to the rapid arrival of safe, tested vaccines....
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/10/ ... -explains/

How and when will we know that a COVID-19 vaccine is safe and effective?

Around the world, people are hoping for a vaccine to be made that will end the pandemic and return life to a state of normality.

William Petri, a professor medicine from University of Virginia explains.

it is likely that not just one but several of the competing COVID-19 vaccines will be shown to be safe and effective by the end of 2020.

Studies in animal models of COVID-19 provide convincing evidence that vaccination with the spike glycoprotein will protect from COVID-19. Experiments have show that when the immune system is shown the spike protein – which alone cannot trigger disease – the immune system will generate an antibody response that protects from infection with SARS-CoV-2.

In studies in hamsters an adenovirus viral vector – the approach used by Oxford/AstraZeneca, for example – was used to immunize with the Spike glycoprotein. When the hamsters were infected with SARS-CoV-2 they were protected from pneumonia, weight loss and death.

Yes, the "vaccine" protects hamster against "SARS-Cov-2" The word SAFE doesn't appear in the text of the peer-reviewed paper

Syrian golden hamsters (10–12 weeks old; male and female; n = 20) were infected with 5 × 104 TCID50 (low-dose; n = 4) or 5 × 105 TCID50 (high-dose; n = 16) of SARS-CoV-2 ** by the intranasal route

** just like that! Whence did this ?purified? Covid 19 agent come ?

source - Nature Medicine Sept 3 2020
Ad26 vaccine protects against SARS-CoV-2 severe clinical disease in hamsters
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-1070-6
Are we reassured? "protected from death". Sounds good! LOL! Let's roll it out on Homo sapiens.

However we are not going back to normality, Professor Petri dishes out the warning

It may not be life back to normal next year, but all signs point to a healthier 2021.

Oh noes! Thank you government for making life healthier for me though.


CEPI [still funded by the US] says...
October 2 2020
320 COVID-19 vaccines are being developed worldwide
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/10/ ... entralised
This is insane.

[xileffilex]

A very informative history of vaccines and vaccinations upto 2007 from Doctor for Disaster Preparedness , Tucson Arizona.
https://www.ddponline.org/epidemics.pdf

An interesting section from the second half of the 19th century relating to compulsory vaccination against smallpox, with financial penalties, in the UK

[rachel]

Just caught this from another forum:

https://www.facebook.com/72089341137810 ... 105909151/

BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL: WILL COVID-19 VACCINE SAVE LIVES? CURRENT TRIALS AREN’T DESIGNED TO TELL US

“The world has bet the farm on vaccines as the solution to the pandemic, but the trials are not focused on answering the questions many might assume they are.

As phase III trials of Covid-19 vaccines reach their target enrolments, officials have been trying to project calm. US’ Dr. Anthony Fauci and the Food and Drug Administration leadership have offered public assurances that established procedures will be followed. Only a ‘safe and effective’ vaccine will be approved, they say, and nine vaccine manufacturers issued a rare joint statement pledging not to prematurely seek regulatory review. But what will it mean exactly when a vaccine is declared ‘effective’? To the public this seems fairly obvious. ‘The primary goal of a covid-19 vaccine is to keep people from getting very sick and dying,’ a National Public Radio broadcast said bluntly.

Peter Hotez, dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, said, ‘Ideally, you want an antiviral vaccine to do two things . . . first, reduce the likelihood you will get severely ill and go to the hospital, and two, prevent infection and therefore interrupt disease transmission.’

Yet the current phase III trials are not actually set up to prove either. None of the trials currently under way are designed to detect a reduction in any serious outcome such as hospital admissions, use of intensive care, or deaths. Nor are the vaccines being studied to determine whether they can interrupt transmission of the virus.

Evaluating mild, not severe, disease
In a September interview Medscape editor in chief Eric Topol pondered what counts as a recorded ‘event’ in the vaccine trials. ‘We’re not talking about just a PCR [polymerase chain reaction test]-positive mild infection. It has to be moderate to severe illness to qualify as an event, correct?’ he asked.

‘That’s right,’ concurred his guest, Paul Offit, a vaccinologist who sits on the FDA advisory committee that may ultimately recommend the vaccines for licence or emergency use authorisation.

But that’s not right. In all the ongoing phase III trials for which details have been released, laboratory confirmed infections even with only mild symptoms qualify as meeting the primary endpoint definition. In Pfizer and Moderna’s trials, for example, people with only a cough and positive laboratory test would bring those trials one event closer to their completion. (If AstraZeneca’s ongoing UK trial is designed similarly to its ‘paused’ US trial for which the company has released details, a cough and fever with positive PCR test would suffice.)

Part of the reason may be numbers. Severe illness requiring hospital admission, which happens in only a small fraction of symptomatic covid-19 cases, would be unlikely to occur in significant numbers in trials. Data published by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in late April reported a symptomatic case hospitalisation ratio of 3.4% overall, varying from 1.7% in 0-49 year olds and 4.5% in 50-64 year olds to 7.4% in those 65 and over. Because most people with symptomatic covid-19 experience only mild symptoms, even trials involving 30,000 or more patients would turn up relatively few cases of severe disease. In the trials, final efficacy analyses are planned after just 150 to 160 ‘events,’—that is, a positive indication of symptomatic covid-19, regardless of severity of the illness.

Yet until vaccine manufacturers began to release their study protocols in mid-September, trial registries and other publicly released information did little to dispel the notion that it was severe covid-19 that the trials were assessing. Moderna, for example, called hospital admissions a ‘key secondary endpoint’ in statements to the media. And a press release from the US National Institutes of Health reinforced this impression, stating that Moderna’s trial ‘aims to study whether the vaccine can prevent severe covid-19’ and ‘seeks to answer if the vaccine can prevent death caused by covid-19.’

But Tal Zaks, chief medical officer at Moderna, told The British Medical Journal (BMJ) that the company’s trial lacks adequate statistical power to assess those outcomes. ‘The trial is precluded from judging [hospital admissions], based on what is a reasonable size and duration to serve the public good here,’ he said.

Hospital admissions and deaths from covid-19 are simply too uncommon in the population being studied for an effective vaccine to demonstrate statistically significant differences in a trial of 30,000 people. The same is true of its ability to save lives or prevent transmission: the trials are not designed to find out.

Stopping transmission
What about Hotez’s second criterion, interrupting virus transmission, which some experts have argued should be the most important test in phase III studies?

‘Our trial will not demonstrate prevention of transmission,’ Zaks said, ‘because in order to do that you have to swab people twice a week for very long periods, and that becomes operationally untenable.’ He repeatedly emphasised these ‘operational realities’ of running a vaccine trial. ‘Every trial design, especially phase III, is always a balancing act between different needs,’ he said. ‘If you wanted to have an answer on an endpoint that happens at a frequency of one 10th or one fifth the frequency of the primary endpoint, you would need a trial that is either 5 or 10 times larger or you’d need a trial that is 5 or 10 times longer to collect those events. Neither of these, I think, are acceptable in the current public need for knowing expeditiously that a vaccine works.’ Zaks added.

Debating endpoints
Still, it’s fair to say that most of the general public assumes that the whole point of the current trials, besides testing safety, is to see whether the vaccine can prevent bad outcomes. ‘How do you reconcile that?’ The BMJ asked Zaks.

Safety and side effects
History shows many examples of serious adverse events from vaccines brought to market in periods of enormous pressure and expectation. There were contaminated polio vaccines in 1955, cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome in recipients of flu vaccines in 1976, and narcolepsy linked to one brand of influenza vaccine in 2009. ‘Finding severe rare adverse events will require the study of tens of thousands of patients, but this requirement will not be met by early adoption of a product that has not completed its full trial evaluation,’ Harvard drug policy researchers Jerry Avorn and Aaron Kesselheim recently wrote in JAMA.

Covid-19 vaccine trials are currently designed to tabulate final efficacy results once 150 to 160 trial participants develop symptomatic covid-19—and most trials have specified at least one interim analysis allowing for the trials to end with even fewer data accrued. Medscape’s Eric Topol has been a vocal critic of the trials’ many interim analyses. ‘These numbers seem totally out of line with what would be considered stopping rules,’ he says. ‘I mean, you’re talking about giving a vaccine with any of these programmes to tens of millions of people. And you’re going to base that on 100 events?’

‘Very simply,” Moderna’s Tal Zaks told The BMJ. ‘Number one, we have a bad outcome as our endpoint. It’s covid-19 disease.”Moderna, like Pfizer and Janssen, has designed its study to detect a relative risk reduction of at least 30% in participants developing laboratory confirmed covid-19, consistent with FDA and international guidance. Number two, Zaks pointed to influenza vaccines, saying they protect against severe disease better than mild disease. To Moderna, it’s the same for covid-19: if its vaccine is shown to reduce symptomatic covid-19, it will be confident it also protects against serious outcomes.

But the truth is that the science remains far from clear cut, even for influenza vaccines that have been used for decades. Although randomised trials have shown an effect in reducing the risk of symptomatic influenza, such trials have never been conducted in elderly people living in the community to see whether they save lives.

Only two placebo controlled trials in this population have ever been conducted, and neither was designed to detect any difference in hospital admissions or deaths. Moreover, dramatic increases in use of influenza vaccines has not been associated with a decline in mortality.”

—Dr. Peter Joshi, Associate-Editor of the British Medical Journal and Assistant-Professor of pharmaceutical health services research at the University of Maryland

[xileffilex]

*^^^ it seems awfully convoluted.
As I have posited and only yesterday, Nov 9 2020, Jeff C has come out with the same idea - the "vaccine" may merely be a placebo. Since the RT-PCR test can be rigged, you can administer the placebo to the whole population [recommendation of Mr Gates] and by massaging the "test" results, hey presto, the "vaccine" has cured the pandemic. But oh dear, "cases" are on the rise again [because testing testing testing will be the norm] as per more PCR massaging - the virus has 'mutated' or the immunity has worn off. Verdict - more vaccines. In a nutshell, the 'virus' won't go away as predicted. Total control. Brilliant.