Fallout from the "pause" that was placed on the J&J Covid medication is continuing. As we know, the concerns about the J&J shot center on blood clotting. Today at LifeSite there's an extensive article on that subject:
The Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca COVID vaccines are under the microscope for their potential to cause blood clots, but scientists warn Pfizer and Moderna vaccines pose similar risks.
A lot of the content of the article derives from scientists associated with the anti-vaxxing movement. I say that not to disparage them, but simply in the interests of full disclosure for anyone who follows the link. These same scientists also cite medical establishment studies. I'm not qualified to pass judgment in any strictly scientific way--but you knew that already, right? My primary interest is in the bigger agenda of the people who have been dispensing disinformation about both the virus itself as well as the proper response to it--masking, lockdowns, school closures, etc.
At the same time, when qualified individuals cite reasonable grounds for questioning the establishment narrative that is being used to deprive us of our freedoms, a certain amount of attention to medical and scientific issues is unavoidable. Yesterday I presented the views of a number of individuals, including two scientists who are actually active in the field of vaccine development. They both argued strongly that hesitancy to be vaxxed is, in fact, reasonable in the circumstances.
They also presented theoretical arguments for caution. Their concerns focused on the distinct possibility that the "spike protein" may be the cause of the vascular related side effects that are being seen in organs remote from the actual Covid infection. Since all of the mRNA medications involve stimulating the body to produce and react to the spike protein, the reason for their concern should be clear enough.
Another area of concern, but one which didn't come out as clearly, was that persons who had already been exposed to the virus would be vaxxed, and that this could lead to adverse reactions. This is a major issue, as the determination has been made by our rulers that everyone should participate in this huge experiment, despite a lack of testing. This is certainly the case with those who were previously infected--no attempt is being made to sort these people out. It's also the case with pregnant women, despite increasing reports of serious adverse reactions.
At the article linked above there is a Tucker Carlson interview with a doctor and scientist in which the entire focus is on whether those with natural immunity or previous exposure to the virus should be vaxxed:
On April 13, Dr. Hooman Noorchashm, a physician-scientist and advocate for ethics who specializes in cardiothoracic surgery, joined Tucker Carlson on his show to discuss blood clots and vaccines.
Noorchashm explained that although it’s a good sign the FDA is taking blood clot complications with J&J seriously, it is missing similar thrombotic complications with Pfizer and Moderna.
I've done a transcript of the relevant portion of the interview:
TC: There are three vaccines. Give us the overview. Are they safe? What do you make of the Johnson and Johnson vaccine? What do you think is going on?
HN: This is actually a really good sign. Up to this moment these vaccines have been the epitome of safety and efficacy, and here we are pulling the Johnson and Johnson vaccine off the market because of a safety concern. So clearly there's a communications disaster at the FDA and CDC where folks are not really putting safety and efficacy on the same par, and this is why confidence in the vaccine has eroded. So I actually think it's a really good sign that the FDA has taken these complications seriously. I don't think they're going to be isolated and I frankly think that they are missing similar thrombotic complications ... Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. I don't know why it is this cluster affected J&J. There certainly are other examples of problem thrombotic events in Pfizer and Moderna that have been entered into the VAERS system.
TC: We had a fascinating conversation ... in which you made the point, These vaccines are great but they're not necessarily for everyone. If you have high levels of antibodies from previous infections ... maybe you shouldn't take them. Is the government taking that warning seriously now?
HN: Well, I haven't seen any evidence that they're taking it seriously, frankly. And ... I want to reiterate as I did before: the most unprecedented thing that we're doing with this vaccine campaign is we're deploying it indiscriminately into folks who have been recently or previously infected. We shouldn't underestimate what the effect of a vaccine ... immune response is on the tissues in individuals who have been previously infected, ... an antigenic footprint of the virus persists in the tissues of the previously infected. And so it's not a far stretch to imagine that those tissues--such as the inner lining of the blood vessel--would be targeted by the vaccine immune response.
And, no, I have not yet seen any evidence, frankly, of the FDA or CDC taking this seriously. And, in fact, this is actually a very easy thing, Tucker, to evaluate for. The immune response of the naturally infected actually mounts a response against something called the nucleic acid protein of the virus. And, in fact, these six young women, unfortunately, who had these severe adverse reactions--I would really challenge the FDA and CDC to inform the American people as to whether or not these individuals had anti-nucleic acid antibodies in their blood, because if they did they were naturally infected and that association is going to be very critical.
I think it's a major mistake to assume you can put this vaccine into people who have been recently or currently infected and expect that no complications will result. So we can stick our head in the sand on this thing if we want to, but clearly here we are: one of the major manufacturers has now halted [distribution?] of the vaccine. The question is whether these six people were people who were previously or recently infected.
TC: Really quickly. ... You're making a science based, sensible argument that we don't typically give vaccines to people who have already been infected with the illness the vaccine protects them from. We're doing it now. It would be very simple to test people for antibodies before they get vaccinated, but we're not doing that. Why?
HN: I think the concern is for not slowing down the vaccination process, which may or may not be true, but common sense and immunological science tells us that if we put a vaccine into individuals who have had a recent infection we may actually create an adverse reaction. In fact, this is the data being published out of the UK.
Noorchashm has been very active in particular in contacting universities that have been pushing the vaxxes indiscriminately on students. At his web page can see a sample of the letters he's written to various institutions. This is and excerpt from one of his letters:
In short, it is my opinion as a physician, immunologist and public health advocate that vaccinating persons who are recently infected and naturally immune to SARS-CoV-2 poses a risk of harm in two distinct ways — the first is a material risk and the second is a highly likely, but scientifically prognosticated, risk:
1) because vaccination of naturally immune persons is an unnecessary medical procedure, all persons so treated are unreasonably exposed to the general risks associated with that procedure/treatment. In the case of vaccines, these include allergic reactions, anaphylaxis and Guillain Barre Syndrome, (and in the case of the COVID-19 vaccine, blood clots) all of which do pose a risk of severe morbidity or mortality — no matter if this risk is to a “minority subset” of those vaccinated, it is unreasonable because the treatment is unnecessary. Certainly, because we do not know who exactly is at risk of harm, the risk exposure is to everyone treated. Therefore, it is absolutely critical to only treat persons in whom the vaccination is a necessary medical treatment: That is, those who are not already immune to the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
2) recently, or asymptomatically, infected persons are very highly likely to be at risk of an exacerbated and dangerous hyper-inflammatory immune responses when indiscriminately vaccinated — several cases of this complication in the recently infected and vaccinated have emerged over the past few weeks across the nation, including the deaths of Dr. J. Barton Williams of Memphis, TN and Mr. Christopher Sarmiento of Las Cruces, NM. These men were both young and healthy, and their vaccine triggered complications are unlikely to be isolated ones. It is a near certainty that at least some members of your community at Fordham with recent infections will be at a similar risk of serious or life-threatening complications following indiscriminate vaccination.
He has also written A Public Clarification of My Position on COVID-19 Vaccination in which he sets out a four point set of principles.