A Cure Worse than the Disease?

The risk of antibody‐dependent enhancement in COVID-19 vaccines is non-theoretical and compelling. Why aren't patients being fully informed?

A Cure Worse than the Disease?
Photo by Braňo / Unsplash

The more one looks in to the coronavirus vaccine, the more concerned you should be.

It doesn't take long to identify the risks attached to what governments around the world are asking us to do - basically inject an experiment into our bodies in the hope that it doesn't do more harm than good.

I'll explain what the potential pitfalls are in a moment but it is important that the potential motivations are also understood.

Here is the major motivation in a single word: MONEY!

The pharmaceutical industry has tens of billions of dollars in sales and billions in taxpayer subsidies riding on this. The latter was to fast track development of a vaccine and the former is through the rollout of billions of doses. It's the greatest motivation of big-pharma in decades.

It also explains why they have invested so much money in the PR war against Hydroxychloroquine with zinc dosage and Ivermectin tablets. Repeated studies show these treatments are equally (or even more) effective in reducing the severity of COVID-19 symptoms as the vaccines and only cost cents per dose.

They are being used internationally but for some odd reason they are not used in Australia.

Those that dare refer to the many studies supporting their use  (like courageous MP Craig Kelly) are ridiculed, dismissed as cranks and cancelled. As I have noted before, the critics resort to personal abuse rather than data because they don't actually know the facts.

It is a pity that media and political leaders alike have been reduced to mere parrots rather than doing their job as thinking, rational human beings.

I wonder how they'll respond if one of their 'authoritative bodies' ( like the WHO) come out in support of Ivermectin? Don't expect an apology, just more spin and self justification. Watch this space!

However there is another space you need to watch very carefully.

It's the risk of Antibody- Dependent Enhancement (ADE) as a result of the Covid vaccine. It has the potential to make virus infection much, much worse - with potentially fatal consequences.

For more information I quote from the International Journal of Clinical Practice (28 October 2020).

Aims of the study

The aim of the study was to determine if sufficient literature exists to require clinicians to disclose the specific risk that COVID‐19 vaccines could worsen disease upon exposure to challenge or circulating virus.

Results of the study

COVID‐19 vaccines designed to elicit neutralising antibodies may sensitise vaccine recipients to more severe disease than if they were not vaccinated. Vaccines for SARS, MERS and RSV have never been approved, and the data generated in the development and testing of these vaccines suggest a serious mechanistic concern...

...This risk is sufficiently obscured in clinical trial protocols and consent forms for ongoing COVID‐19 vaccine trials that adequate patient comprehension of this risk is unlikely to occur, obviating truly informed consent by subjects in these trials.

Conclusions drawn from the study and clinical implications

The specific and significant COVID‐19 risk of ADE should have been and should be prominently and independently disclosed to research subjects currently in vaccine trials, as well as those being recruited for the trials and future patients after vaccine approval, in order to meet the medical ethics standard of patient comprehension for informed consent.

In essence, the study found that the reason no vaccine has ever been approved to deal with SARS or MERS viruses previously ,is because the vaccine prompted a "harmful, inflammatory immune response" when a vaccinated individual encounters a circulating virus.

In layman's terms, if you are vaccinated against a SARS type virus ( which Coronavirus is), should you be hit with another virus ( like influenza) the immune response will be much more severe than otherwise likely. This could make the flu ( or any other virus) much more deadly than would otherwise be the case.

The study admitted that there is limited data available on the current vaccines but referenced previous SARS research. They also point out that the limited data is a result of the truncated research and testing protocols. This means that the research testing was not as comprehensive as with previous SARS vaccines....which led to none of them being approved.

Consider that for a moment. Previous, comprehensive testing of SARS vaccines saw an unacceptable risk (due to ADE) but the new COVID-19 vaccines underwent a less thorough testing protocol and have enjoyed a rushed approval.

It hardly instills confidence by this writer.

In addition, the study finds deficiencies in the informed consent of patients and test recipients of COVID-19 vaccine studies of the risks involved.

All three protocols mention the risk of disease enhancement by the vaccine, but all three list this risk last or next to last in the list of risks...

In all, the evidence from the Pfizer, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson protocols for their COVID‐19 vaccine trials and the sample consent forms, when contrasted with the evidence for antibody‐dependent enhancement of disease presented by this report and widely available to any skilled practitioner in the field, establishes that patient comprehension of the specific risk that receiving the COVID‐19 vaccine could convert a subject from someone who experiences mild disease to someone who experiences severe disease, lasting morbidity or even death is unlikely to be achieved by the informed consent procedures planned for these clinical trials.

This basically says that test patients were not sufficiently informed that the vaccine could make COVID-19 (and other virus) symptoms worse rather than better.

The study concludes:

Given the strong evidence that ADE is a non‐theoretical and compelling risk for COVID‐19 vaccines and the “laundry list” nature of informed consents, disclosure of the specific risk of worsened COVID‐19 disease from vaccination calls for a specific, separate, informed consent form and demonstration of patient comprehension in order to meet medical ethics standards.

The informed consent process for ongoing COVID‐19 vaccine trials does not appear to meet this standard. While the COVID‐19 global health emergency justifies accelerated vaccine trials of candidates with known liabilities, such an acceleration is not inconsistent with additional attention paid to heightened informed consent procedures specific to COVID‐19 vaccine risks.

The authors consider the accelerated vaccine trials justified by the global health emergency but are concerned that patients are not properly informed of the risks and hence do not know the real health risk with the vaccine. They find no rationale why this should be the case.

We can now jump forward several months as these vaccines are being rolled out globally. I have heard next to nothing about the proven ( or in medical parlance 'non-theoretical') risk of ADE associated with all SARS virus vaccines.

There has been talk of headache or muscle pains. We have had reports of some deaths in vulnerable patients but scant mention that what you put in your body today can make the symptoms of your next viral infection much worse and increase the potential for morbidity.

Here's the question that only every individual can satisfy for themselves.

If the test subjects weren't adequately informed of the non-theoretical risk of ADE with the COVID-19 vaccine, do you think the general public is being adequately informed now?

I suspect not.

In my mind, that won't be known for at least 18 months when we have been through at least one cycle of the global influenza season. As always, do your research and assess the risk/reward status for yourself.

This writer won't be getting any COVID-19 shot until I am satisfied the cure isn't worse than the disease.

Informed consent disclosure to vaccine trial subjects of risk of COVID‐19 vaccines worsening clinical disease
Aims of the studyPatient comprehension is a critical part of meeting medical ethics standards of informed consent in study designs. The aim of the study was to determine if sufficient literature ex...
Access the original report here.

Great! You’ve successfully signed up.

Welcome back! You've successfully signed in.

You've successfully subscribed to Confidential Daily.

Success! Check your email for magic link to sign-in.

Success! Your billing info has been updated.

Your billing was not updated.