The COVID-19 Vaccine Requires Careful Vetting

The currently reported COVID-19 "surge" arrived just in time for many to use it as an excuse for emergency authorization of vaccines.  The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently issued an emergency use authorization for a COVID-19 vaccine in the United States.  (An important point that cannot be elaborated in this article is that "emergency use authorization" is very different from, and much more dangerous than, the normal FDA approval process).  The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has recommended that millions of doses of the vaccine be given to health care professionals first.  Health care professionals and Americans in general need to know what follows.

Numerous previous articles described the dishonesty of public health officials, including the CDC, regarding the definition of "COVID-19 death" and COVID-19 data in general.  It was mentioned that if misleading language was used to describe COVID-19 death data, then one may reasonably question whether public health officials and influential collaborators in the pharmaceutical industry would be misleading when describing future COVID-19 vaccine safety and efficacy data.  It appears as though such misleading language is being used to describe the safety and the efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccine recently authorized for emergency use in the U.S.

Other commentaries have discussed the dangers of COVID-19 vaccines and the fact that a COVID-19 vaccine may be unnecessary; this article will not go completely into specifics on the topic.  Generally speaking, it would be an outright lie or negligent for public health officials or pharmaceutical representatives to say that the long-acting COVID-19 vaccine is "safe" if the vaccine has not been studied in humans (or non-humans for that matter) for more than two months.

If one pays close attention to the wording used by public health and pharmaceutical officials, one will observe some cunning language.  Such persons may state something like "no safety concerns" have been discovered yet with the COVID-19 vaccine.  This may make the average American think public health officials and vaccine-makers are claiming that the vaccine is "safe"; that would not be true.  Such a statement cannot possibly be made because, again, long-term dangers of the long-acting substance are unknown.  Notably, serious adverse events have indeed been reported with the COVID-19 vaccine (page 41).

With emergency use authorization, the COVID-19 vaccine clinical trial may quickly become one of the largest human guinea pig trials in the history of the world with many people likely thinking it has been shown to be safe.  It has not.  Typically, animals — including guinea pigs — are used to test the safety of substances with long-acting effects on the human body.  The recently authorized COVID-19 vaccine was apparently tested on animals to determine immune response, not safetySafety results from animal studies were either kept quiet or not conducted.  In this case, human beings become the guinea pigs.

The statement that the COVID-19 vaccine is "95% effective" is also misleading.  When one hears the statement that a clinical trial concluded that a COVID-19 vaccine is "95% effective," one may think every person who received the COVID-19 vaccine was exposed to SARS-CoV-2 and then 95% of those persons did not test positive or experience symptoms.  That is not what is meant when (whether wittingly or unwittingly) public health and pharmaceutical officials misleadingly state that the vaccine is "95% effective" or has "95% efficacy."

The COVID-19 vaccine is undergoing a clinical trial in which it is apparently not known (or at least not published) how many clinical trial participants have been exposed to SARS-CoV-2.  The clinical trial is being conducted in the U.S., Turkey, South Africa, Argentina, and Germany and is a conventional clinical trial, which "vaccinates people and then waits ... to see if they get infected anyway while they go about their normal lives."  (The remainder of the previously quoted article is not endorsed.)

One may notice a significant problem: a person could have received two doses of the COVID-19 vaccine and then "go about his life" by being locked down in his house with little or no interaction with others for a significant amount of time.  If such a person did not eventually experience symptoms of COVID-19, then the vaccine would apparently be considered "highly effective" in that person (page 46).

That is not all.  The COVID-19 vaccine authorized for emergency use requires two doses.  And the clinical trial that claims that the vaccine is "95% effective" may have included some participants in the "95% efficacy" data only seven days after receiving the second dose of the vaccine (pages 13-32, 46).  The FDA summarizes its conclusions on the COVID-19 vaccine in this way:

The protocol-specified 2-dose vaccination regimen was highly effective in preventing PCR-confirmed COVID-19 occurring at least 7 days after completion of the vaccination regimen. (page 46)

It is an absurd conclusion; it is not science. If a clinical trial participant received the second dose of the COVID-19 vaccine, was locked down in his home for seven days without any human interactions, was never exposed to SARS-CoV-2, and then did not experience symptoms of COVID-19 after seven days, it appears as though the pharmaceutical company and the FDA would include that participant in the category in which the vaccine was said to have been "highly effective".

Indeed, the language used to describe the "safety and efficacy" of the recently authorized COVID-19 vaccine is misleading.

One may consider the following questions: if those involved with the authorization of the COVID-19 vaccine in the pharmaceutical industry, FDA, CDC, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), etc., could be held liable and either sued or punished in other ways for damages that show up after two months, would they authorize it so quickly?

Or, if the pharmaceutical industry, the CDC, the FDA, and other public health officials use such misleading language to describe COVID-19 data in general and the safety and efficacy of the recently authorized COVID-19 vaccine, can they, and the COVID-19 vaccine they authorize, really be trusted? 

Graphic credit: Pixabay

If you experience technical problems, please write to