Why a COVID Vaccine is Unlikely

Posted by Ed 8 mths ago
It would be hard to overstate the importance of developing a vaccine to Sars-CoV-2 – it’s seen as the fast track to a return to normal life. That’s why the health secretary, Matt Hancock, said the UK was “throwing everything at it”.

But while trials have been launched and manufacturing deals already signed – Oxford University is now recruiting 10,000 volunteers for the next phase of its research – ministers and their advisers have become noticeably more cautious in recent days.

This is why.
Earlier this week, England’s deputy chief medical officer Jonathan Van-Tam said the words nobody wanted to hear: “We can’t be sure we will get a vaccine.”
But he was right to be circumspect.
Vaccines are simple in principle but complex in practice. The ideal vaccine protects against infection, prevents its spread, and does so safely. But none of this is easily achieved, as vaccine timelines show.
More than 30 years after scientists isolated HIV, the virus that causes Aids, we have no vaccine. The dengue fever virus was identified in 1943, but the first vaccine was approved only last year, and even then amid concerns it made the infection worse in some people. The fastest vaccine ever developed was for mumps. It took four years.
Scientists have worked on coronavirus vaccines before, so are not starting from scratch. Two coronaviruses have caused lethal outbreaks before, namely Sars and Mers, and vaccine research went ahead for both. But none have been licensed, partly because Sars fizzled out and Mers is regional to the Middle East.
The lessons learned will help scientists create a vaccine for Sars-CoV-2, but there is still an awful lot to learn about the virus.
A chief concern is that coronaviruses do not tend to trigger long-lasting immunity. About a quarter of common colds are caused by human coronaviruses, but the immune response fades so rapidly that people can become reinfected the next year.
Researchers at Oxford University recently analysed blood from recovered Covid-19 patients and found that levels of IgG antibodies – those responsible for longer-lasting immunity – rose steeply in the first month of infection but then began to fall again.

Please support our advertisers:
Ed 8 mths ago
Why are vaccines against many human viral diseases still unavailable; an historic perspective?
The number of new and improved human viral vaccines licensed in recent years contrasts sharply with what could be termed the golden era (1955‐1990) when vaccines against polio‐, measles, mumps, rubella, and hepatitis B viruses first became available.
Here, we attempt to explain why vaccines, mainly against viruses other than human immunodeficiency virus and hepatitis C virus, are still unavailable.
They include human herpesviruses other than varicella‐zoster virus, respiratory syncytial and most other respiratory, enteric and arthropod‐borne viruses. Improved oral poliovirus vaccines are also urgently required. Their unavailability is attributable to regulatory/economic factors and the properties of individual viruses, but also to an absence of relevant animal models and ethical problems for the conduct of clinical of trials in pediatric and other critical populations.
All are portents of likely difficulties for the licensing of effective vaccines against emerging pathogens, such as avian influenza, Ebola, and Zika viruses.
Over the past 40 years the rate of development of newly licensed human viral vaccines, compared with veterinary vaccines, has been disappointingly slow. Viral vaccines licensed for human immunization and distribution in the United States and other countries in 2019  are mainly used for the prevention of pediatric diseases.  
Despite much early optimism throughout the 1980s, benefits from the use of molecular recombinant DNA (rDNA) technologies in human viral vaccine development were perceived in 1991 to be underwhelming.1
The single exception was the then recently approved HBV vaccine, prepared from virus‐like particles (VLPs) after expression in yeast. Fast‐forward to 2019, traditional approaches have, in the meantime, resulted in several new and improved vaccines.
However, after 28 years, human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines, also prepared as VLPs in yeast, 2 and an influenza vaccine consisting of baculovirus‐expressed hemagglutinin (Flublok)3 are the only other examples of newly licensed human vaccines that were developed entirely by the use of rDNA technologies 
Reasons, why vaccines against human immunodeficiency viruses (HIV) are unavailable, are complex and have been comprehensively dealt with elsewhere.8 However, despite monumental efforts over 30 years, vaccines for the prevention and/or prophylaxis of infection by HIV still appear to be some years away.

Please support our advertisers:
Ed 6 mths ago
We've never made a successful vaccine for a coronavirus before. This is why it's so difficult

Please support our advertisers:
Ed 6 mths ago
Things that make you go hmmm....
On Monday, Pfizer shares soared 16% following a bullish statement on the company's experimental COVID-19 vaccine showed 90% effectiveness in preliminary results. Then on Tuesday, according to a Securities and Exchange Commission filing, Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla sold 62% of his stock. 

Please support our advertisers:
Ed 6 mths ago
Ah-ha!!!    Selling shares makes complete sense if you are the CEO and aware that 1.  the vaccine has not yet past trials and 2.  even if it does:
The Pfizer vaccine is unusually difficult to ship and store: It is administered in two doses given 28 days apart, has to be stored at temperatures of about minus 100 degrees Fahrenheit and will be delivered in dry ice-packed boxes holding 1,000 to 5,000 doses.
These cartons can stay cold enough to keep the doses viable for up to 10 days, according to details provided by the company. The ice can be replenished up to three times. Once opened, the packages can keep the vaccine for five days but can’t be opened more than twice a day. The vaccine can also survive in a refrigerator for five days but can’t be refrozen if unused.

Please support our advertisers:
Ed 6 mths ago
Who needs the Pfizer vaccine.  We've got a second new-improved miracle within a week of the first as Moderna has a vaccine that is 95% effective.
I've bought a whole case of Champagne to celebrate as more vaccines are announced.    Should I inject all of them or do I need to decide on one?   

Please support our advertisers:
Ed 6 mths ago
And here's another one!  
 Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine results expected by Christmas

Please support our advertisers:
Ed 5 mths ago
5 Burning Questions About the New Covid Vaccine

The United Kingdom government has today announced its approval of the first Covid19 vaccine for general use. 800,000 doses are slated to be released for general use by the end of the week, and has already signed a contract for 40 million more doses (to go along with over 300 million doses of as-yet-unreleased vaccines from other companies).

With the newest phase in the Covid19 roll-out set to begin, it’s time we addressed the five biggest questions about this vaccine, its effectiveness, its safety and whether or not we’ll be forced to use it.


Clearly, the company claims it does, and the UK government seems to believe them. The Guardian, in their coverage of the vaccine, claim it has a 95% efficacy rating, but does not provide a source for this or any kind of data at all.

Fortunately, better journalists and researchers are writing for the British Medical Journal, including this piece from Peter Doshi just last week.

To explain where this “95% effective” claim actually comes from:

The Pfizer vaccine trial included nearly 44,000 people. Half getting their vaccine, half getting a placebo. In total, from the 44,000 people, 170 were later recorded as having become ‘infected with Covid19’. 162 of them were in the placebo group, 8 of them in the vaccine group.

The vaccine is therefore credited with preventing 154 cases of Covid19…or 95%.

You don’t need to be a medical researcher or virologist to see how potentially flawed this reasoning is. The entire trial of 44,000 people is deemed a success based on the potentially multi-variant outcome from less than 4% of those involved.

The details of the trial are hard to come by, so we have yet to find out how these 170 people were even diagnosed with “Covid19”. Was it a clinical diagnosis based on symptoms? Or PCR test? Either method would raise serious questions about accuracy.

In short, the answer to “Does it work?” is “we have no idea.”


Potentially more important than the question of efficacy is the question of safety. No one, not even the vaccines most ardent defenders, is denying that this vaccine process has been rushed – vaccines typically take years and years to produce, whereas this one has been hurried on to the market in less than nine months. Some of them have skipped important stages in testing altogether.

Even supposing the short term trials have not shown any side effects, there has simply been no time to do long-term outcome studies. The potential for complications, months or years down the line, certainly exists.

Further, the vaccine is based on new technology – an mRNA vaccine, which injects viral genetic material to generate an immune response. The technology has been in development for years, but this would be the first mRNA vaccine actually put to use.

So, again, the short answer to “is it safe?” is “we don’t know”.

However, the vaccine pushers and manufacturers clearly have doubts about its safety, since they have gone out of their way guarantee they have total legal indemnity from prosecution or civil suits should something go wrong. Not a confidence booster that.

Ask yourself: if Ford or BMW were releasing a new type of car based on “cutting edge technology”, but before you buy one you have to sign a waiver saying you can’t sue the car manufacturers in the event you explode in a fiery ball of death…would you drive that car?


This is a simple one. We don’t know, they won’t say. At least not in anything but the vaguest terms.


First on the docket are the elderly and NHS workers. We don’t know who will be excluded. Immunocompromised people were excluded from the efficacy study, so presumably, they’ll also be excluded from taking the vaccine. If not, that’s a potential disaster waiting to happen (although they have legal protection, so I guess that doesn’t matter).

The British military are already busily setting up “mass vaccination centres”. So eventually, of course, almost everyone will be expected to get injected if they want to partake of society in any way at all. Which leads us onto question five…


The question of “mandatory vaccines” has been buzzing around since the earliest stages of the pandemic narrative. The final result will obviously vary country-to-country, but it’s certainly a possibility here in the UK.

A few months ago a group of scholars submitted written evidence to the UK Parliament that mandatory vaccinations would be defensible on a human rights basis, and that there was already legal precedent for this action in UK legislation (specifically, treating mental health patients who may be a danger to themselves).

In the end, and this is purely my speculation, I doubt the vaccine will ever be literally legally mandatory. Parliament will reject the “expert advice” suggesting Covid19 vaccines be forced on people.

This will accomplish two goals at once: a) It will give the government a veneer of “libertarianism”, a thin facade to cover it’s tyrannical nature. And b) It will allow a potential “third wave” of Covid19 to be blamed on “vaccine hesitancy”.

Though it will probably never be literally mandatory, they will certainly make it much easier to function should you get the vaccine.

There’s been much talk of “immunity passports”, meaning digital documents showing your vaccination status which make you exempt from lockdown and social distancing rules.

In the future it’s not hard to see these documents (either physical or digital) being vital to the ability work, socialise, travel, get loans, apply for state benefits or even receive medical treatment.

So, even if not forced to partake of the vaccine, you will likely be bribed, blackmailed or coerced into doing so eventually.


To sum up – we don’t know exactly what’s in the vaccine, it might not work, it may not be safe, and we’re probably all going to end up being forced to use it.

Read More


Please support our advertisers:
Ed 5 mths ago
Influenza vaccines are effective in children. However, less evidence is available for children aged under 2 years.3,4 In healthy adults, influenza vaccines are effective in reducing cases of influenza particularly when the vaccine and circulating virus strains are well matched.3,5
Inactivated influenza vaccine effectiveness is around 60% against laboratory-confirmed-influenza and just below 20% against influenza-like illness.6 Vaccine effectiveness may not be as high in older people.7,8,9,10
However, older people who have been vaccinated but subsequently get influenza are less likely to have severe disease,11,12 complications,11,13,14 including cardiovascular events,13,15 hospitalisation,7,16 increased disability or frailty17,18 or influenza-related death.7,16

Please support our advertisers:
Ed 5 mths ago
Dr Mike Yeadon: Former Chief Scientific Adviser at Pfizer
Dr Yeadon also voiced concerns over the mass roll out of the newly approved Pfizer and BioNTech jab, because it was "too early" to know its the long term safety or effectiveness.
Watch Interview  (this interview has now been removed from Facebook)

Please support our advertisers:
Ed 5 mths ago
“There is absolutely no need for vaccines to extinguish the pandemic… You do not vaccinate people who aren’t at risk from a disease. You also don’t set about planning to vaccinate millions of fit and healthy people with a vaccine that hasn’t been extensively tested on human subjects.” Dr. Mike Yeadon PhD, Pfizer’s former Vice President and Chief Scientist for Allergy & Respiratory Disease
“What we know about coronavirus from 30 years of experience is that a coronavirus vaccine has a unique peculiarity, which is any attempt at making the vaccine has resulted in the creation of a class of antibodies that actually make vaccinated people sicker when they ultimately suffer exposure to the wild virus.” Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Naturally, safety does not factor into the creation of a vaccine that normally requires 10 years to develop but is swiftly slapped together and brought to market in a mere 8 months. By definition, such a vaccine is not safe.

More from NBC:
“In the U.S., both Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna have submitted applications to the FDA for an emergency use authorization..BioNTech CEO Uğur Şahin told NBC News’ Richard Engel that he was “confident that an authorization in the U.S. could also happen within the next two weeks.”..

Meanwhile, the World Health Organization told Reuters that it had received data from the companies and was reviewing it for “possible listing for emergency use” — meaning it could be rolled out quicker in developing countries.” (NBC News)

Why are these turkeys being rushed to market?


Check out this blurb from Dr. Mike Yeadon, Pfizer’s former Vice President and Chief Scientist for Allergy & Respiratory.
Yeadon dismisses the “Second Wave” theory as unscientific nonsense.
Here’s what he says:
“Viruses don’t do waves… I have repeatedly asked to see the trove of scientific papers used to predict a ‘second wave’ and to build a model to compute its likely size and timing. They have never been forthcoming. It’s almost as if there is no such foundational literature… There have been no examples of multiple waves since and the most recent novel coronavirus with any real spread (SARS) performed one wave each in each geographical region affected. Why a model with a ‘second wave’ in it was even built, I cannot guess. …

Despite the absence of any evidence for a ‘second wave’ – and the evidence of absence of waves for this class of respiratory virus – there was an across-the-board, multi-media platform campaign designed to plant the idea of a ‘second wave’ in the minds of everyone. This ran continually for many weeks. It was successful: a poll of GPs showed almost 86% of them stated that they expected a ‘second wave’ this winter.

As research for this piece, I sought the earliest mention of a ‘second wave’. Profs Heneghan and Jefferson, on Apr 30th, noted that we were being warned to expect a ‘second wave’ and that the PM had, on Apr 27th, warned of a ‘second wave’. The Professors cautioned anyone making confident predictions of a ‘second’ and ‘third wave’ that the historical record doesn’t provide support so to do.

I looked for mentions by the BBC of a ‘second wave’.. On Mar 3rd and 6th, there is mention of a single SARS-CoV-2 wave with most (95%) of the impact early on. What looks to be the final document, Mar 29th, still just refers to one wave. This is what history and immunology teaches….

Despite this bothersome oddity about a ‘second wave’ and almost as if there was a plan for one, the PCR (polymerase chain reaction) testing infrastructure in the UK began to be reshaped….the Portuguese high court determined two weeks ago that this PCR test is not a reliable way to determine the health status or infectiousness of citizens…. With the scientific validity of this test under severe challenges, I believe it must immediately be withdrawn from use.” (“The PCR False Positive Pseudo-Epidemic“, Lockdown Skeptics)
No second wave??

Please support our advertisers:

< Back to main category

Login now