Coronavirus: What I learnt in Oxford’s vaccine trial
Richard Fisher | BBC | July 21, 2020

This was one stage during the Oxford work on a COVID-19 vaccine:

There is genetic engineering involved:

First, they took the chimp cold virus and genetically altered it so it is impossible to grow in humans . . .. Next they added genes that make proteins from the Covid-19 virus, called spike glycoprotein

An inert placebo was NOT used:

Half the volunteers will get this vaccine, . . . . The second group will be given an existing licensed vaccine called MenACWY (either Nimenrix or Menveo), which is used to protect against the causes of meningitis or sepsis. This vaccine is a “control” for comparison, and was chosen instead of an inert placebo so that the control group experience the effects (and side-effects) of a real vaccine, preventing them from working out which group they are in. Since 2015, MenACWY has been given routinely to teenagers in the UK, and also as a travel vaccine. . .

So how can safety issues be honestly compared?

How safe is this MenACWY vaccine used since 2015?

The vaccine trial agreement indicates there is a potential for passing on something harmful either through a blood donation or reproductively:

. . I have to agree consent for various study procedures: . . . I will not donate blood; if I am a woman of child-bearing potential I agree to use effective contraception . . .

The participants are warned of potential side-effects:

. . . it’s necessary to ensure participants are fully aware of potential side-effects, from the mild (nausea, headaches and so on) to the rare and severe (Guillain-Barre syndrome, which causes severe weakness and can be fatal).

How “rare” is it? What’s strange is that these are warnings for a trial vaccine, but these side effects happen with approved vaccines as with the H1N1 flu vaccine. Here is an example of a product monograph for a flu vaccine called ‘FLUAD’ (you can access this information from the Government of Canada’s Drug Product Database).

Page 13:

The adverse events described below have been included because: a) they represent reactions that are known to occur following immunizations generally or influenza immunizations specifically; b) they are potentially serious; or c) of the frequency of reporting. The following additional adverse reactions have been the subject of spontaneous reports during post-approval use of FLUAD® since 2003.

 
General disorders and administration site conditions:
Local injection site reactions including redness, swelling, pain at the injection site, ecchymosis, induration. Injection-site cellulitis-like reaction (some cases of swelling, pain, and redness extending more than 10 cm and lasting more than 1 week). Extensive swelling of injected limb lasting more than one week.
 
Immune system disorders:
Allergic reactions in rare cases leading to shock, angioedema.
 
Vascular disorders:
Vasculitis (in rare cases associated with transient renal involvement), exudative erythema multiforme.
 
Blood and lymphatic system disorders:
Thrombocytopenia (including very rare severe cases, < 0.01%, with platelet counts less than 5,000 per mm3), lymphadenopathy.
 
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders:
Muscular weakness
 
Nervous system disorders:
Neuralgia, paraesthesia, convulsion, myelitis (including encephalomy elitis and transverse myelitis), neuritis and Guillain-Barré Syndrome.
 
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders:
Generalized skin reactions including pruritus, urticaria, and non-specific rash

Continuing with the article:

Volunteers were “briefed on ‘theoretical concerns’ that the vaccine could make the effects of coronavirus worse“:

Some studies on animals that received experimental vaccines to protect against Sars (a related virus) have shown worsened lung inflammation when they were infected with Sars. One report had found similar lung inflammation in vaccinated mice infected with Mers.

The writer feels the need:

And just to be absolutely clear, none of these potential reactions should bolster the unfounded claims of anti-vax campaigners

What “unfounded claims” are those? Why is a medicinal product politicized? Is there even going to be any kind of proof of its effectiveness whenever it is approved?

He mentions that the UK “lockdown rules” were about to be “eased” and that “many businesses can finally open again.” The “social distancing guidelines” were to be changed from 2 metres to 1 metre (wow – we didn’t get that here yet).

Five or ten years ago this would just be crazy totalitarian fiction–nobody had the right to close down businesses or isolate healthy people.

Journalists write about these baseless, unscientific and insane authoritarian measures as if they are natural, as if it’s their legitimate job to spend months repeating them without contradiction, in order to breath life into the words, to make them seem like realities of nature.

He refers to the large number of “cases” (governments escalating the number of tests and counting all kinds of symptoms) in some countries and links that to the idea of a “killer” virus because of the sudden clusters of deaths of the elderly in some jurisdictions. Health care rationing policies kicked in in March with COVID and seniors were kept out of hospitals and sent to care homes instead. They were not given proper treatments. That’s what happened actually.

Here is some information to be aware of. This should be part of the education system:

Public health officials will remember well the times that vaccine rollouts went wrong.

Notice the ‘s’ – plural in “rollouts.”

In 1976, fears of a swine flu outbreak [that’s the motivation?] led the US government to accelerate vaccine development and inoculate tens of millions of Americans. The feared pandemic never arrived, but by some estimates, around 30 people died due to adverse vaccine reactions.

Yes, that did affect “trust in public health” because the vaccine companies in America pleaded for and obtained protection from vaccine damage lawsuits (https://childrenshealthdefense.org/video/rfk-jr-talks-with-dr-andy-wakefield-about-his-new-movie-1986-the-act/). [Search “1986, The Act, Wakefield“] For years they have been protected and taxpayers have had to pay out money for injuries they have been poorly informed of.

We can’t have “anti-vax fears” in a “pandemic” he says.

Yes, just keep calling it a “pandemic” forever all summer long, all year long. Remember to call the next flu season a “pandemic” also, please. Lie to us forever.

We will use our own judgment and make our own choices.

There is another strange statement (controlled journalism now is full of bizarre statements now) which is very consistent with how Bill Gates presented the July vaccine trials. He lowers expectations significantly. The whole motivation people might have for rushing to get the vaccine (if they do) and “go back to normal” is trashed in advance:

. . . the initially approved vaccines may also not be the “sterilising” panacea that many imagine, . . . they may not completely clear the virus, but instead mitigate its effects. People could still carry the virus . . . spreading it to the unvaccinated. . . . This virus might always be with us.

This new COVID regime has consistently had this cold and abusive aspect to its messages in my opinion. They know that most people aren’t listening carefully and want to attribute good intentions to these decision-makers (whoever they are).

Yes, cold and flu viruses will always be with us and always have been–but somehow in 2020, therefore we need to accept total domination by a technocratic dictatorship.

Their solutions aren’t even presented as solutions. It is an abusive joke that isn’t funny.

The way I felt when I started listening to these journalists and politicians back in March talk this way about all this baloney and take it so seriously and not listen to questions or objections–I felt isolated. And I think that’s how the public has been supposed to feel all along.

All the doubts and questions are just being disposed of–the concerns about the economic destruction– while we all pretend that these authorities didn’t just introduce death panels while pretending to care about deaths. They cancelled treatments and scared patients away while they pretended to care about health. And we can pretend that cancer isn’t the number one killer every year and all of these realities suddenly count for nothing in mainstream media space while we obsess over swabs, masks and tests. And we’re supposed to go along with this?