J&J Vaccine Safety?
The basis of the safety of all these different COVID vaccines is how well they stay where they should in your deltoid muscle versus entering your bloodstream. IMO, there’s enough data on Pfizer’s vaccine to be cause for concern on that front. We’ve seen the lab animal biodistribution study submitted to the Japanese government. I’ve also seen discussion (wish I saved the source) regarding the makeup of Pfizer’s liquid nanoparticle (LNP), which allows it to both avoid being targeted by the immune system (ligands on the LNP) and also transverse blood vessel cell walls (unintended side effect?).
I imagine for many here, we’ve learned enough about the Pfizer vaccine to have established an informed opinion on it. But what about the J&J vaccine? Early on we saw some reports of blood clotting, which turned into a big fuss that put its safety into question. But we saw the same thing happen with the Pfizer vaccines earlier to little fanfare. For all we know, those J&J blood clotting issues may have been inadvertent intravenous injections.
The J&J vaccine also is mRNA based, but delivered through an adenovirus. But what about this would be the mechanism of action for it to get into the bloodstream (assuming proper injection)? We have a hypothesis for the Pfizer LNP’s mechanism of action for that and supporting data. But I haven’t seen anything similar for the J&J, especially since it doesn’t get much study (and has the lowest uptake in the world of all the vaccines).
Anyone have data or hypotheses to share? For those being forced to vaccinate to keep their jobs, this needs further examination to determine if the J&J may be the least worst out of the available options.
A 37-year-old woman
– 7 days after 1st dose of the #CovidVaccine (Johnson & Johnson): headache, myalgia & fever. 3 days later: persistent headaches & onset of left leg pain. 2 days later: vomiting episodes
⇒ Superior sagittal sinus thrombosis
– She diedhttps://t.co/2dTtmXhcFQ pic.twitter.com/7VmSXIE19Z
— Dr John B. (@DrJohnB2) October 15, 2021
A case of vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT) in a young man diagnosed 13 days after #COVIDVaccination (Johnson & Johnson/Janssen): https://t.co/DM5fFmAjGY pic.twitter.com/phTwb9XV7b
— Dr John B. (@DrJohnB2) October 8, 2021
Just citing instances feeds into the official narrative that serious adverse events are rare.
With Pfizer, that doesn’t hold up well since we know that it gets into the bloodstream. In which case, all bets are off on what may happen.
With J&J, I haven’t not seen any proposals of how the adenovirus-based vector gets into the bloodstream. This is a key point that determines whether these are potential one-offs (from perhaps inadvertent injection into a vein in the arm) rather than a systemic issue based on how the vector’s properties.
These spreadsheets are compiled by the anon MD who goes by AMM. You can scroll down the page and open any spreadsheet.. wherever there is a “J” in the column instead of a 1, or a 2, that means the death was associated with JnJ.
That was a good exercise. That page also links to medalerts.org which allows pulling and parsing VAERS data.
I pulled all “serious” adverse events by vaccine type (Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, Janssen/J&J). To account for the fact that some are used more than others, I also calculated the serious AE rate. I used CDC data to estimate total people administered by vaccine type.
Unexpected results. Note that these numbers are raw numbers. These do not account for VAERS underreporting.
The biggest surprise is that Moderna is half that of Pfizer, which is unexpected considering a number of Nordic countries are restricting use of Moderna over safety concerns. Also unexpected considering Moderna has a higher dosage (0.5mL/shot vs. 0.3ml/shot for Pfizer).
The second surprise is J&J being not much better in rates compared to Pfizer. Is J&J’s adenovirus-based delivery mechanism getting into the bloodstream just as easily as Pfizer’s liquid nanoparticle? I would like to get a hypothesis for why this is the case.
Viral vector vaccines
The viral vector vaccines (whether JJ or AZ) have, from very early on, copped more heat than the pure mRNA vaccines (P,M), probably because clotting issues have been more immediate, lethal and expected and so more easily tied to them.
They (the more traditional viral vector mNRA vaccines) nonetheless tend to be favoured by the more informed because they allow a greater scope for interdicting the vaccine itself and may have, for this reason and others, less long terms side effects (which are going to be more unknown and more difficult to tie to any of the vaccines). The clotting risks are also, it seems, rather relative to both age and gender.
Pure mRNA vaccines
The pure mRNA vaccines (P,M), by contrast, seem very effective at evading both the body’s own defenses and attempts to interdict them. So, perhaps not surprisingly, they also seem to have very long lasting effects.
On interdicting the vaccines, particularly see Adam Gaertner’s protocol (there are many discussions and summaries of this protocol on this forum, if you search for them – an external search engine might also be more successful though).
Many others have noted the greater lethality of Moderna (eg. McCullough).
We do know Moderna is worse than Pfizer based on VAERS death rates and the 3.33x higher vaccine dose with Moderna than Pfizer. Most interestingly, you can see that the US has all but curtailed administration of Moderna since around May based on this graph.
To not mince words, it seems they realized it’s killing people significantly more than Pfizer. So I think it’s very easy to rule out Moderna.
Best of luck with your investigations. I’m increasingly inclined to just sit out all mRNA vaccines until more traditional (non-mRNA) vaccines arrive (eg. Novavax, Covax), if they ever arrive. There are also criticisms of these vaccines, although they seem far less damning. People are very pessimistic about their approval in the US and the Australian creator of Covax has recently discussed the difficulties in gain approval from corrupt government agencies (eg. TGA) in Australia. I might try to post about the latter, when I get time.
Thanks. I was comparing “serious” adverse events in VAERS which showed Moderna had half the rates as Pfizer when normalizing for how many people have taken each. I will have to check if I can pull specific outcomes such as death.
Is that video specific to the mRNA vaccines (Pfizer, Moderna) or does it apply to the adenovirus-based ones too? It’s a rather long video so would like to know if it’s applicable before committing to it.
I am also not wanting to try out these mRNA vaccines as I think they pose greater risk, especially to those with specific health conditions. But I’m in a situation like some others of being forced to either get vaccinated or lose my job.
Yes, its a difficult and long video which I why I suggested looking for summaries. One is also advised to turn the captions on. It is also getting a bit old and there are other protocols but he definitely does make remarks about the two types of vaccines and why the pure mRNA are more difficult (one gets the impression impossible) to defeat.
This is one summary but there are others:
Unfortunately the mechanics of this forum are rather terrible and threads get lost very quickly so I would recommend using an external search engine.
There are lots of threads and so protocols on these sort of topics. This is probably just the most famous since it came out early and was accompanied by a video which has its pros and cons, particularly since notes were mentioned but all one tends to see are transcriptions and summaries of what is said. The others tend to be written and less discursive.
Yes. When I faced the threat of a mandate (a word that often appears in the title of these threads), I was tending to favour the viral vector route myself. I now face another mandate (end Jan 2022) so perhaps I will have to revisit that decision.
Thanks for the thread. I’d probably skip the cyclosporine since that sounds like a big question mark on safety. And seems more like a safety net in the protocol.
But the fact IVM is part of the protocol… that is going to be hard to get.
I can’t post. Perhaps because I used the “I” word. I’ll try again a bit later.