The Missing COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Data - and What Joe Rogan Taught Sanjay Gupta

Reliance on Confusion that Results from Massive Holes in Safety Data Drives Questions

If you check back over the headlines and compare the date of specific claims made or promoted by mainstream media, COVID-19 vaccines were touted as safe and effective by the media before any credible evidence on safety had been published.

If you have paid attention to the details, you’ll note that almost all of the policy on COVID-19 vaccines was premature set in place prior to sufficient data on safety. This includes CDC’s EUA, the expansion of use from the elderly now down to 12-year-olds, CDC’s passive recommendation for use in pregnant women prior to any safety data, the agenda to expand its use in children from 5-12 years old, and soon thereafter, the push to vaccinate newborns to five year olds.

Resistance to COVID-19 vaccination includes a massive number of healthcare professionals - including nurses and doctors. Vaccine stakeholders who have cut corners and skirted the issues act as though each and every safety valve has been checked and re-checked - and they play fast and loose with the probability on risks. Vaccine proponents act the same way. For example, Dr. Sanjay Gupta recently told Joe Rogan (podcast link below) that he told his air conditioning service man that the risk of clotting from the disease was 80 times greater than the risk from injection, but never mentioned that treatment protocols now offer protection against clotting for either group of patients.

People with a history of blood clotting or a family risk of clotting, such as families with Factor V Leiden risk, are not excluded from the vaccine. They should be. Gupta had an opportunity to educate millions - and prevent deaths due to clotting among those who are infected and those who are injected - and he also failed to mention the risk of clotting in those who are infected after they have been injected. Any physician that mentions clotting risk without specifically mentioning the clinical protection available against clotting does a disservice to the public by keeping the full scope of reality close to their chest.

Gupta - who also tried to argue that myocarditis risk is reported to be higher in teens who are infected than who have received the vaccine - persisted in pushing vaccination as the solution in the face of data that Rogan had showing that 86% of boys with vaccine-related myocarditis were hospitalized Male teens have a 4 to 6 times higher risk of hospitalization from myocarditis from vaccination than hospitalization from COVID-19 . Gupta is arguing for mass vaccination - mass exposure to the spike protein - via vaccination. Rogan is understanding that the mass vaccination of teens will cause more harm to that population than the infection, because the risk of exposure becomes 1.0, while the risk of infection is low, the risk of symptoms is low, and myocarditis in COVID-19 is not likely without sufficiently high viremia (“These kids will breeze through this thing”). Gupta tried to argue that there is an 8 times reduced risk of being infected if vaccinated (a dubious claim of current vaccines against current variants). “The same logic can be applied to young people… then why would you want to vaccinate young people?” Gupta then tried to argue that vaccination of young people would help stop the spread - the herd immunity argument - after already conceding that the vaccinated can also spread the virus.

He even said “If we’re serious about bringing this pandemic to an end”… when public health has already conceded that herd immunity is not possible via vaccination.

What’s going on in that segment is that Gupta fell back on autopilot, it seems, to change the topic from safety concerns to efficacy - a specific tactic developed to counter vaccine hesitancy. Gupta cited the early 95% efficacy result (shown to be exaggerated due to exclusion of people who got COVID-19 before the second dose) - knowing that real-world data shows that efficacy is a lot lower in the general population. This tells me that his approach to Rogan to appear on his show was disingenuous, or that he, like most people in medicine, is misinformed on vaccine safety.

There is a list of bona fide clinical concerns about COVID-19 vaccine safety that Dr. Gupta and the public are entitled to understand.

Contrary to so-called “Fact-Checking” opinion blogs, when the mRNA or adenoviral DNAs induce production of the SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein, they introduce a cellular and physiologic dynamic that involves a cytotoxic protein. Studies have shown cell, tissue, and organ endothelial damage, and it is reckless for “Fact-checkers” to misrepresent the science on this important fact.

For example, the spike protein insinuates itself between heart cells, breaking the integrity of the cellular membrane. This will cause heart cells to die, and the immune system to kick in to clear out cellular debris. Dying heart cells put out signals to elicit that immune response to the site of the injury. Gupta did admit to Rogan that the long-term risk of vaccine-induced myocarditis is “unknown”, so we can presume that he would admit that the long-term outcomes of myocarditis from the vaccine (or from the infection) are unknown. Gupta mentioned that young people might get long-haul COVID, again, without referencing any of the physicians that have found that long-haul COVID can be relieved by the same treatments that have been effective in reducing mortality from SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Also counter to the claims of “Fact Check” websites, a study published in a Nature journal shows that the SARS-Cov-2/COVID-19 spike protein (SP) damages hematopoietic stem/progenitor cells - that is, the cells that produce blood cells. Individuals are reporting cancers of the blood following vaccination - Steve Kirsch’s report on The Darkhorse Podcast presaged these reports (link to segment below).

The public is also entitled to know the basic fact that spike protein circulates around the body; it does not, counter to earlier claims, stay at the site of injection. Why biodistribution was represented as a non-possibility early on is still unclear; a study of the circulation of vaccine particles in mice using the same technology, using mRNA encoding an influenza viral protein, showed that the vaccine particles could be found throughout the body, including the brain, albeit in small amounts. Kirsch brought forward data (verified by Dr. Robert Malone) on Bret Weinstein’s podcast showing Pfizer vaccine particle accumulation in the bones and ovaries. Why does this information come to the public on podcasts, and not at press conferences held by the CDC or FDA?

Biodistribution of the vaccine spike protein means that individuals who are susceptible to pathogenic priming due to similarities between their proteins and parts of the vaccine spike protein are at risk the next time they see the spike protein. The vaccination program involves second doses and boosters, so repeated exposure is required. The data clearly show that adverse events and deaths is increased in those people who get the second dose - and those data exclude a ton of people - people who got COVID-19 before the second dose, people who had serious adverse events from the first dose and dropped from studies, and people who died from first dose. The response from the COVID-19 vaccine enthusiasts is to ignore the bias introduced by these factors and to deny that anyone has died from COVID-19 vaccination.

The denial of vaccine-associated death and injury breeds distrust, and deservedly so. The argument of the vaccine risk denialist (that one does not know that the event was caused by the vaccine) is best countered with the argument that the denialist does not know it was NOT caused by the vaccine. Vaccine injury and death denial itself is an unwarranted knowledge claim, and makes the rest of the argument of COVID-19 vaccine enthusiasts suspect by association. In light of the extremely strong safety signal from vaccine adverse databases, the denial of causality comes across as a massive distortion to thinking individuals. The tendency of vaccine risk and injury denialists to attack people, and to respond to risk preferences that differ from their own by stripping people of their right to bodily autonomy, engender mistrust.

There is a list of important unknowns that the public and the medical community are entitled to know. The possibility of circulation of COVID-19 vaccine particles between people (body fluids, donated blood) is unknown. There have been no genotoxicity, teratogenicity, or oncogenicity studies. There is a concerning study of the Moderna vaccine showing the potential for reduced fertility study (Moderna, EMA).

One issue that bothers many ethical medical physicians, including Dr. Peter McCullough, is that there has been insufficient independent oversight of the vaccine safety studies. Early on there was no External Advisory Committee, and the VRBAC committee’s input was not sought on the FDA’s approval of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine. There has been no independent data safety monitoring board (DSMB), and no involvement of a Human Ethics Committee.

Another issue that bothers ethical physicians and scientists is that when people have been excluded from studies, the vaccine proponents act as though the safety information on the selected group of patients studied is relevant to the excluded groups. I call this “translational failure”. The FDA issues no restriction on the use of vaccines in groups that have been properly excluded from randomized clinical trials. This included people with co-morbidities and autoimmunity, pregnant women, women of childbearing potential, COVID-19 survivors, and, in some cases, the previously immune.

Clinically we know who is at highest risk of severe COVID-19. The biomarkers include current or past history of autoimmunity (78% in severe COVID-19 vs. 7% in mild COVID), Th-2 skew, and, with clinical progression, D-dimers. Yet there has been no effort to restrict vaccination according to risk for COVID-19 hospitalization and death - a clear failure of the FDA to act in a manner that objectively and accurately communicates risks of vaccination to the healthcare community and mitigates risks to the public.

Finally, there is the issue of a longer delay in serious adverse event reporting in the HHS’ Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System. In a very clever analysis, Dr. Jessica Rose (also from IPAK) showed that in the weeks and months coming up to important regulatory decisions by FDA (Pfizer vaccine approval, boosters), those managing VAERS held back data on serious adverse events (SAEs). In comparing SAE reporting lag times to a control mild adverse event, Dr. Rose found that

“A lag time between onset of AEs and entry of AEs into the VAERS public database was discovered, and it appears to depend on the AE type. For example, in the case of COVID-19 breakthrough cases, approximately mid-May, 4100 (38% of total) reports were retroactively added approximately 8.5 weeks following the original onset date.”

This is her Figure 8 (link downloads the study).

These missing data would have influenced the VRBAC discussion and could have prevented the approval of any boosters at all. The fact the boosters increase antibodies is expected and unimpressive; their durability is likely to be short, and they will not likely target the current variant. All we can do is hope that those getting boosters do not suffer needlessly.


Image below Courtesy Dr. Peter McCullough. Links to paper.