ER Editor: Just to remind readers, the AstraZeneca vaccine is still of the ‘genetic’ type. The second article below distinguishes between the AZ vaccine and the mRNA vaccines (Pfizer/BioNTech & Moderna) without stating the precise difference. This is what the New York Times has to say about the difference:
The Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine is based on the virus’s genetic instructions for building the spike protein. But unlike the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines, which store the instructions in single-stranded RNA, the Oxford vaccine uses double-stranded DNA.
DNA Inside an Adenovirus
The researchers added the gene for the coronavirus spike protein to another virus called an adenovirus. Adenoviruses are common viruses that typically cause colds or flu-like symptoms. The Oxford-AstraZeneca team used a modified version of a chimpanzee adenovirus, known as ChAdOx1. It can enter cells, but it can’t replicate inside them.
The Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine for Covid-19 is more rugged than the mRNA vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna. DNA is not as fragile as RNA, and the adenovirus’s tough protein coat helps protect the genetic material inside. As a result, the Oxford vaccine doesn’t have to stay frozen. The vaccine is expected to last for at least six months when refrigerated at 38–46°F (2–8°C).
As the article below by Jacob J. points out, by recommending a different booster (2nd) vaccine to the first AstraZeneca one, all trial protocols – which are still ongoing through to at least 2023 for all vaccines – are being broken. This cannot be called ‘science’.
The EudraVigilance site is difficult to navigate. The data presented in the article below is only showing adverse events and deaths up to mid-March. We are including links here to EudraVigilance for updated stats. There are a lot of individual pages to click for each one – the information isn’t easy to compile:
The media have hung AstraZeneca out to dry, while conveniently NOT mentioning adverse effects and deaths of the other vaccines. Pfizer had a pretty clear, two-month run between December and February, when many adverse events and deaths, especially in care homes, were being reported, but nothing leaked out into the MSM. And no other vaccines were being given to our knowledge. Meanwhile on social media, informed people were wondering what the game was by targeting AZ.
All we can do is wonder if this some sort of psyop being played on us. As if to say “we, the government, have your backs and are protecting you by alerting you to this bad vaccine”. More trust is built while people think they are choosing the ‘better’ vaccine from Pfizer. We’ve actually seen conversations on FB where the question is posed, which vaccine did you get? Answer: Pfizer. Ah, you got the best one.
Are EU Governments “Dumping” the AstraZeneca Vaccine in Favor of Pfizer and Moderna Inc?
PROF. MICHEL CHOSSUDOVSKY & JACOB J.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version)
Is there “competition” between Big Pharma giants?
An IBT report (see below), points to governmental vaccine guidelines in France and Germany which consist de facto in “dumping” AstraZeneca in favour of Pfizer and Moderna.
According to the European Medicines Agency (EMA), there is “a possible link between the AstraZeneca vaccine and the rare cases of blood clots in people who had received the shot”.
In Germany, health authorities have “instructed people below the age of 60 who got the AstraZeneca shot to opt for a different vaccine as the booster dose.”
Health authorities in France have adopted similar measures in favour of Pfizer and Moderna.
Does this mean that the Pfizer and Moderna Inc vaccines are “safe” in comparison to those of Astrazeneca?
While AstraZeneca has been the object of suspension, the vaccine-related deaths and injuries are significantly larger in regards to the Pfizer vaccine. Over 100,000 injuries and 64% of the deaths (relating to the Pfizer vaccine) (See data below).
How is it that AstraZeneca has been the object of restrictions by 18 European governments while no limitations have been considered with regard to Pfizer and Moderna Inc? The deaths and injuries related to the Pfizer vaccine have not made the headlines.
Are these Big Pharma vaccine companies competing with one another?
Is the EMA in conflict of interest?
According to EMA’s executive director Emer Cooke: “The risk of mortality from COVID is much greater than the risk of mortality from these rare side effects.”
Emer Cooke was appointed to head the EMA in mid-November 2020 coinciding with the launching of the mRNA vaccine. She previously worked for The European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) which represents the major pharmaceutical companies.
Deaths and Injuries – EU Data Base
Below is the EudraVigilance data on vaccine deaths and injuries for the period December 27, 2020 to March 13, 2021 pertaining respectively to AstraZeneca, Pfizer BioNTech and Moderna Inc.
The deaths and injuries associated with the Pfizer vaccine are significantly larger:
2,540 deaths and 102,100 injuries
Moreover, the number of deaths recorded in relation to the Moderna vaccine is more than double that of AstraZeneca:
973 deaths and 5,939 injuries
Here is the Breakdown:
Total reactions for the experimental vaccine AZD1222 (CHADOX1 NCOV-19) from Oxford/ AstraZeneca: 451 deaths and 54,571 injuries to 13/03/2021
Total reactions for the experimental mRNA vaccine Tozinameran (code BNT162b2, Comirnaty) from BioNTech/ Pfizer: 2,540 deaths and 102,100 injuries to 13/03/2021
Total reactions for the experimental mRNA vaccine mRNA-1273 (CX-024414) from Moderna: 973 deaths and 5,939 injuries to 13/03/2021
EudraVigilance states with regard to the data: “Only a detailed evaluation and scientific assessment of all available data allows for robust conclusions to be drawn on the benefits and risks of a medicine.”
“Robust conclusions” were not taken by the EMA in regards to the deaths and injuries resulting from the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna Inc mRNA vaccines.
See excerpts of the IBT report below.
Michel Chossudovsky Global Research, April 9, 2021
AstraZeneca Woes: France to Give Pfizer or Moderna Vaccines as Second Dose, Says Report
by Jacob J.
International Business Times
April 9, 2021
Amid uncertainty over the use of AstraZeneca vaccine in many regions including Europe, the top health body in France said people who got the first dose of AstraZeneca vaccine should receive a messenger-RNA vaccine as the second dose.
The Haute Autorité de la Santé (HAS), which is tasked with deciding how vaccines can be rolled out in France, was considering this option, Reuters reported.
Earlier this week, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) said found a possible link between AstraZeneca vaccine and the rare cases of blood clots in people who had received the shot.
Citing sources; the agency reported that HAS is going ahead with the use of two mRNA vaccines — Pfizer-BioNTech and from Moderna — for those aged below 55.
Meanwhile, Germany had also instructed that people below the age of 60 who got the AstraZeneca shot must opt for a different vaccine as the booster dose.
This is an interesting development as the procedure to give a different vaccine as the second dose was not tested during any human trials so far.
Reuters cited an expert saying that all these vaccines are complementary as all of them target the same “spike” protein of the coronavirus.
Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.