Myra, thank you for the comment and the link to the very interesting and very long paper. I quickly scanned it but I need to go back and give it a fair read and perhaps summarise it for our readers.
I do not have any preset views on mmRNA vaccines, if tested properly. If governments persist in secrecy as the EWG series shows and "safe and effective” mantra there will always be a number of people who are freeborn and refuse to be patronised and told what to do. This message does not appear to have got through, don’t you think?
mRNA/LNP is a new technology and therefore should be scrutinised even more than other existing technologies.
When these products were first used, it was clear that no long-term data existed (that was before you, Carl and others highlighted the short-term data from trials were flawed as well), so there was an unknown risk.
At that point using these products on anyone without setting out the unknowns was against medical ethics.
Furthermore coercion, mandates or brandishing people who were reluctant to take this new technology was also not ethical.
We are now several years down the line and some of the side-effect of these products are filtering through.
But there is still a block from the powers that be to investigate the true extent of problems.
The result of this all is a massive distrust in the medical and political establishment amongst a cohort of the population.
And in my view this will remain and likely become worse unless we have some sort of acknowledgement and way forward that stops this from happening again.
Is it any wonder, when Pfizer wanted to hide its data for 75 years there was a problem. However, that did not stop every country filling out their order form. It was those countries health agencies then stuck with an untenable situation. Their country spent billions on product, the world was screaming for a cure, and the health agencies were monkey in the middle. Realising they has been sold a damaged bag of goods, and they were now the fall guy, in their best efforts put lipstick on a pig.
A private company may have done things, and owned up when they received a damaged product. It appears government does not work that way.
"The EWG quality sub-group heard that there had been a last-minute change to the batches relevant for the UK for a potential Regulation 174 opinion as of the evening of Friday 27th November. "
surely this is all about covertly switching from Process 1; that was used for the small trial Sept-Oct 2020;
and what is hidden here: this is about Process 2; go live for billions ...... the big cash bonanza ..
Process 1 for the small-scale study was mmRNA produced by the boutique process of PCR machines
they knew this could never produce enough for industrial-scale production so they were covertly working on Process 2: large bubbling vats of E Coli, with plasmids to generate the massive amounts of DNA; that I think with reverse transcriptase was to produce what they ACTUALLY wanted; mmRNA;
slight problem is: you are left with huge amounts of DNA; the stuff regulators used to frown about and not wanted injected into people; (used to not want injected ..); hence the current discussion of DNA contamination many times in excess of what were previously tolerated levels
so in the sentence at the top; the big switcheroo; from Process 1 to Process 2 is .. ahem ... glossed over .. by facilitators; (all too frightfully embarrassing, don't ya know?)
no studies were done on animals; and none surely on human experimental subjects; to test if the output of Process 2 was ok; .... ok ........... I get it ........ it was dispensed to billions worldwide anyway; results were suppressed .. but still a few concerns ,,,,,,
"This post was written by two old geezers who think it is everyone’s business to understand the properties of an intervention rolled out under duress to millions."
an untried; experimental; thing
that a civil service has the gall to make it all secret;
many thanks for these latest revelations; just terrible; the whole thing out of control; no adults around; June Raine appears as "observer": in a special dress to show her "observer status": all playing silly civil service games; nobody responsible; nobody using that strange word "STOP" ........ STOP. STOP; and that other strange word "THINK" ... think ..... think .....
...... they were actually allowed to stop and think: they didn't know wtat; it is Jethro Tull's "Locomotive Breath": the train it won't stop going, no it won't slow down ........ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4JqvK3Fwn8
"The company further explained that these particles did not alter the concentration of the drug product and they did not think this would have an impact on safety and efficacy of the product. "
.. did not think ..... did not think ........... did not think; yea, that's right; nobody thought ........
As I understand it we have the EWG Quality sub-group consisting of Pfizer people with June Raine CEO MHRA as an observer. And a product promoter also Pfizer presenting the case for the product. I see nothing unusual in that if it was an internal Pfizer meeting, but the presence of June Raine gives it first sight credibility as a MHRA meeting. Has June Raine got the competence to question a new technology ie mRNA?
I assume the findings of the EWG Quality sub-group would be largely rubber stamped by the EWG main body. If so, certainly light regulation, especially when Pfizer has no skin in the compensation recovery due to immunity being granted.
Myra, thank you for the comment and the link to the very interesting and very long paper. I quickly scanned it but I need to go back and give it a fair read and perhaps summarise it for our readers.
I do not have any preset views on mmRNA vaccines, if tested properly. If governments persist in secrecy as the EWG series shows and "safe and effective” mantra there will always be a number of people who are freeborn and refuse to be patronised and told what to do. This message does not appear to have got through, don’t you think?
One old geezer
I fully agree.
mRNA/LNP is a new technology and therefore should be scrutinised even more than other existing technologies.
When these products were first used, it was clear that no long-term data existed (that was before you, Carl and others highlighted the short-term data from trials were flawed as well), so there was an unknown risk.
At that point using these products on anyone without setting out the unknowns was against medical ethics.
Furthermore coercion, mandates or brandishing people who were reluctant to take this new technology was also not ethical.
We are now several years down the line and some of the side-effect of these products are filtering through.
But there is still a block from the powers that be to investigate the true extent of problems.
The result of this all is a massive distrust in the medical and political establishment amongst a cohort of the population.
And in my view this will remain and likely become worse unless we have some sort of acknowledgement and way forward that stops this from happening again.
Will be very interesting to follow where this mRNA/LNP is heading.
They claimed any new vaccine could be produced within 100 days….
So I decided to look at what they are up to with this technology.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9459002/
It appears mainly cancer treatment and some trials (mice) for influenza and rabies vaccines.
Will this technology die a slow death?
Fast forward to 2024......
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/eci.14296
Didn't quite work out as intended.
"Will this technology die a slow death?"
No, just the population.
well said Maurice
Do these people all sleep at night? Did they all take the jab?
so many say and assume that those inflicting it, were too smart to take it;
Is it any wonder, when Pfizer wanted to hide its data for 75 years there was a problem. However, that did not stop every country filling out their order form. It was those countries health agencies then stuck with an untenable situation. Their country spent billions on product, the world was screaming for a cure, and the health agencies were monkey in the middle. Realising they has been sold a damaged bag of goods, and they were now the fall guy, in their best efforts put lipstick on a pig.
A private company may have done things, and owned up when they received a damaged product. It appears government does not work that way.
To put in some financial context ...
National Debt circa £2,800 billion (98% of GDP)
Cost of Covid circa £400 billion
ie 1/7th the National Debt
A saving worth having if Covid had not been over-reacted to.
Need to identify and prevent the parties from over-reacting, for there own self interest.
"The EWG quality sub-group heard that there had been a last-minute change to the batches relevant for the UK for a potential Regulation 174 opinion as of the evening of Friday 27th November. "
surely this is all about covertly switching from Process 1; that was used for the small trial Sept-Oct 2020;
and what is hidden here: this is about Process 2; go live for billions ...... the big cash bonanza ..
Process 1 for the small-scale study was mmRNA produced by the boutique process of PCR machines
they knew this could never produce enough for industrial-scale production so they were covertly working on Process 2: large bubbling vats of E Coli, with plasmids to generate the massive amounts of DNA; that I think with reverse transcriptase was to produce what they ACTUALLY wanted; mmRNA;
slight problem is: you are left with huge amounts of DNA; the stuff regulators used to frown about and not wanted injected into people; (used to not want injected ..); hence the current discussion of DNA contamination many times in excess of what were previously tolerated levels
so in the sentence at the top; the big switcheroo; from Process 1 to Process 2 is .. ahem ... glossed over .. by facilitators; (all too frightfully embarrassing, don't ya know?)
no studies were done on animals; and none surely on human experimental subjects; to test if the output of Process 2 was ok; .... ok ........... I get it ........ it was dispensed to billions worldwide anyway; results were suppressed .. but still a few concerns ,,,,,,
so many thanks for this continuing work
"This post was written by two old geezers who think it is everyone’s business to understand the properties of an intervention rolled out under duress to millions."
an untried; experimental; thing
that a civil service has the gall to make it all secret;
many thanks for these latest revelations; just terrible; the whole thing out of control; no adults around; June Raine appears as "observer": in a special dress to show her "observer status": all playing silly civil service games; nobody responsible; nobody using that strange word "STOP" ........ STOP. STOP; and that other strange word "THINK" ... think ..... think .....
...... they were actually allowed to stop and think: they didn't know wtat; it is Jethro Tull's "Locomotive Breath": the train it won't stop going, no it won't slow down ........ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4JqvK3Fwn8
"The company further explained that these particles did not alter the concentration of the drug product and they did not think this would have an impact on safety and efficacy of the product. "
.. did not think ..... did not think ........... did not think; yea, that's right; nobody thought ........
As I understand it we have the EWG Quality sub-group consisting of Pfizer people with June Raine CEO MHRA as an observer. And a product promoter also Pfizer presenting the case for the product. I see nothing unusual in that if it was an internal Pfizer meeting, but the presence of June Raine gives it first sight credibility as a MHRA meeting. Has June Raine got the competence to question a new technology ie mRNA?
I assume the findings of the EWG Quality sub-group would be largely rubber stamped by the EWG main body. If so, certainly light regulation, especially when Pfizer has no skin in the compensation recovery due to immunity being granted.