Americans and Their Trust in Doctors and Hospitals

A paper from August 2024 in the Journal of the American Medical Association examined the results of a survey taken of Americans over the period from April 2020 (at the beginning of the COVID pandemic) through to January 31, 2024.  The paper by Dr. Roy Perlis et al attempts to answer the following question:

 

"How did trust in physicians and hospitals change during the COVID-19 pandemic?"

 

The 24 wave survey was conducted among 443,455 unique respondents residing in the United States aged 18 and older and consisted of 582,634 responses.  The mean age of the respondents was 43.3 years with 65 percent being female and 71.1 percent being White.  The study was undertaken to determine whether trust in physicians and hospitals had changed over the course of the pandemic

  

Throughout modern history, physicians have been highly regarded for their trustworthiness with a 2022 survey reporting that American adults had greater trust in physicians and nurses than any other institution or occupation.  A Gallup poll found that in 2019, medical doctors were trusted to be either very highly or highly honest and ethical by 65 percent of Americans (third highest among all professions) and nurses were trusted to be either very highly or highly honest and ethical by 85 percent of Americans (highest among all professions).

 

Let's go back to the study.  The authors of the JAMA study entitled "Trust in Physicians and Hospitals During the COVID-19 Pandemic in a 50-State Survey of US Adults" found the following:

1.) the proportion of adults that reported a lot of trust for hospitals and physicians decreased from 71.5 percent in April 2020 to 40.1 percent in January 2024.  Decreased trust was associated with certain demographics including those aged 25 to 64 years of age, female gender, lower educational level, Black race and living in a rural area.  Surprisingly, self-reported political affiliation did not have a meaningful impact on trust levels.

 

Here is a graphic showing the decline in trust in hospitals and physicians over the nearly four year period by gender, race and ethnicity and age:

 

2.) Higher levels of trust in hospitals and physicians was associated with a greater likelihood of being vaccinated for COVID-19.

 

3.) Higher levels of trust in hospitals and physicians was associated with a greater likelihood of being vaccine boosted for COVID-19.

 

Here is a summary graphic showing the association between various demographic features of respondents and how these demographics either do not favour trust or favour trust:

 

Note the following:

1.) respondents between the ages of 25 and 34 tend to trust hospitals and physicians less than their older counterparts.

 

2.) female respondents tend to trust hospitals and physicians less than their male counterparts.

 

3.) respondents with lower educational levels tend to trust hospitals and physicians less than their more educated counterparts.

 

4.) black respondents tend to trust hospitals and physicians less than other races and ethnicities.

 

5.) rural respondents tend to trust hospitals and physicians less than suburban and urban counterparts.

 

Despite the decreased trust in physicians over the pandemic, other studies have discovered that the general public still found physicians and hospitals to be more trustworthy when it came to receiving health care information than all other United States institutions (i.e. government).

Here is a closing quote with my bolds:

 

"Our results cannot establish causation, but in the context of prior studies documenting associations between physician trust and more positive health outcomes, they raise the possibility that the decrease in trust during the pandemic could have long-lasting public health implications. If so, effective interventions aimed at restoring trust could have benefits, not only for future pandemics, but for health in the US more generally, at least in terms of vaccination. In examining reasons for low trust, financial conflicts of interest, a longstanding area of academic investigation in medicine, remain a major factor associated with mistrust, concerns that may have been amplified during the pandemic."

 

From the results of this study, it would appear that the medical profession has a long way to go to regain the trust of the American public after its shameful behaviour during the COVID-19 pandemic.  A significant and growing proportion of Americans no longer trust the health care system to look after their best interests, suggesting that governments will have their work cut out for them if they hope to get the public to buy into a wide scale vaccination rollout in the future as they did during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

COVID-19 Vaccines - The Undeclared Contents

With much of the Western world being coerced by their governments into accepting the "safe and effective" COVID 19 vaccines, recent research that appeared in the International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research is rather, to put it mildly, eye-opening particularly given that many of the vaccines use technologies contained in the mRNA and recombinant DNA products which had never been used in humans prior to the pandemic.

 

Here is the article: 

The researchers analyzed the contents of vials from COVID-19 vaccines from different lots of AstraZeneca/Oxford, CanSino Biologics, Pfizer/BioNTech, Sinopharm, Moderna and Sputnik V using Scanning Electron Microscopy coupled with Energy-Dispersive X-Ray Spectroscopy located at the National University of Cordoba in Cordoba, Argentina.

 

The authors open with this:

 

"What can possibly be causing the long list of symptoms and clinical morbidities of extreme diversity that have followed the worldwide distribution of the COVID-19 injectable products? The list includes fulminant cancers, autoimmune disorders, bilateral pneumonias, arrhythmias, hepatitis flare ups, kidney failures, aggressive forms of arthritis, thrombosis, thrombocytopenia, heart disease, strokes, paralysis of various sorts, spontaneous abortions, perinatal deaths, infertility reported on a wide scale, neurodegenerative diseases, and many other debilitating and life-threatening conditions...

 

Strikingly, the symptoms often involve comorbidities that had never been seen until after the administration of COVID-19 vaccines."

 

They also note that there was a near total lack of quality control over the production the vaccines during the manufacturing processing that the most basic safety protocols were dangerously circumvented.

 

The researchers go on to list a history of contents that were discovered in some of the COVID-19 vaccines including graphene oxide, metallic contaminants, flocs of whitish material and various chemical elements including but not limited to carbon, oxygen, fluorine, sodium, magnesium, potassium, calcium, 

antimony, lead, titanium, vanadium, iron, copper, and silicon.

 

The authors of the study analyzed thirteen vials of COVID-19 vaccines from different lots in duplicate as shown on this listing:

 

This table shows the components that were declared publicly by each manufacturer:

 

For brevity's sake, let's look at what was found in three of the most commonly administered vaccines with the declared components marked with a † symbol for each lot of the vaccines noting that the different lots of the same vaccine contained different components which may be due to the time lapse between the drawing of the samples due to the changing structure of the self-assembling entities in the vaccines:

 

1.) AstraZeneca/Oxford: one lot contained 21 chemical elements with 20 being undeclared

 

2.) Pfizer/BioNTech: one lot contained 26 chemical elements with 23 being undeclared

 

3.) Moderna: one lot contained 21 chemical elements with 29 being undeclared

Here is a quote from the paper outlining the elemental composition of the components:

 

"Many heavy metals was detected in the analyzed samples and all of those metals are associated toxic effects on human health. The European Union recognizes eleven toxic elements as heavy metals; arsenic, cadmium, cobalt, chromium, copper, mercury, manganese, nickel, lead, tin, and thallium. All these elements were found in the different lots with different frequencies of occurrence in the sampling: chromium (100%), arsenic (82%) and nickel (59%), followed by 40% cobalt and copper; with 35% tin, with 18% cadmium, lead and manganese; and finally 6% of the samples contain mercury.

 

The samples contain 11 of the 15 lanthanides of the periodic table of chemical elements. The percentage of the frequency with which they were found is shown in Table 9: lanthanum (35%), cerium (76%), neodymium (18% ), samarium (18%), europium (18%), gadolinium (35%), terbium (29%), dysprosium (24%), holmium (18%), erbium (29%), and ytterbium (18%). These elements have luminescent and magnetic properties (Echeverry & Parra, 2019); until now, their safety for use in the human body has not been demonstrated. In fact, the ICH Q3D guide (ICH, 2022) does not mention lanthanides among elemental impurities. It should be noted that this guide does not cover biological products, such as vaccines. Lanthanides are frequently used in the electronics industry and in no case as part of biosensors due to their cytotoxic effects."

Here is a screen capture of Table 9 which shows the frequency with which the various aforementioned chemical elements appeared in the vaccines sampled:

 

Here is a table which breaks down the chemical elements by vaccine manufacturer:

 

 

Finally, here are the authors' conclusions with my bold:

 

"Based on the identification and ranges of the quantities of the chemical elements discovered, and on the physical and chemical characteristics of the content of the vaccines studied, it is of utmost importance to highlight the great similarity that exists between the products of the different brands.  The observed differences in chemical elements found in the different brands, we believe, are due to the time lapse between drawing of samples on account of the changing structure of the self-assembling entities in the fluids contained in the vials. We do not believe the observed differences are because of manufacturing processes specific to any given brand or to differences between lots because of stochastic variations in the production processes. Despite the small size and few samples analyzed in this exploratory study, we believe that analysis of a larger number of samples and lots will confirm the trends we have pointed out. We believe that the various and diverse pathologies in the inoculated population are not due to fortuitous problems in manufacturing or distribution, but rather to the technology that seems to be common to all these products which appear to be universally harmful to humans."

 

COVID-19 vaccines would appear to be like Cracker Jacks with their toy surprise in every box except in this case there's a chemical element surprise in every vial!

  vials from different lots of the brands AstraZeneca/Oxford,

CanSino Biologics, Pfizer/BioNTech, Sinopharm, Moderna and Sputnik V were analyzed.

The Growth in America's Disabled Workforce - Causation or Correlation?

In this brief posting, I will provide you with two graphics; one showing the growth in the number of disabled Americans over the age of 16 who are in the civilian labour force and the cumulative number of COVID-19 vaccines that have been administered in the United States during the pandemic.

 

First, a graph from FRED showing the significant growth in the number of disabled Americans in the civilian labour force:

 

In March 2020, there were 6.418 million disabled American workers, a number which rapidly began to rise from 5.846 million in January 2021.  Note that the number of disabled American workers actually declined during the first phase of the pandemic when only natural immunity was available to fight the SARS-CoV-2 virus.  After hitting a recent peak of 8.477 million in August 2023, by December 2023, this had retreated to 8.293 million, an increase of  2.477 million or 41.86 percent since January 2021.  This is an unprecedented increase in the number of disabled workers going back to mid-2008.

 

Now, from Our World In Data, here is a graph showing the number of COVID-19 vaccines administered in the United States since the mRNA vaccines were first rolled out in December 2020:

 

While one cannot say for certain that the COVID-19 vaccines have led to an increase in the number of disabled American workers, at the very least, it is interesting to observe that just as the vaccines were rolling out in early 2021, the number of disabled workers started to climb significantly and continued to do so until August 2023 when the number seems to have stabilized shortly after the number of vaccines administered levelled off.

  

I will let you draw your own conclusions from the data that I have presented in this posting.  Is it causation or just correlation?  Perhaps there is a link between long COVID and the growing number of disabled American workers, however, this too is difficult to prove since long COVID is a relatively unexplained and incompletely documented phenomenon.

Antony Fauci and the Evolving Truth About the COVID-19 Pandemic

While the transcript from his testimony has not yet been released to the public, recent postings on the website of Brad Wenstrup (R-Ohio), Chairman of the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic should be an eye-opener for those who pointed the accusatory finger at the "conspiracy coven" who were convinced that not everything that Dr. Anthony Fauci said was true.  Here are some of the key takeaways from the two days of testimony:

  

1.) Day 1:

 

1.) Dr. Fauci claimed he “did not recall” pertinent COVID-19 information or conversations more than 100 times.

2.) Dr. Fauci profusely defended his previous Congressional testimony where he stated NIH does not fund gain-of-function research in Wuhan.

3.) He repeatedly played semantics with the definition of gain-of-function in an attempt to avoid conceding that NIH funded potentially dangerous research in China.

4.) Dr. Fauci testified that he signed off on every foreign and domestic NIAID grant without reviewing the proposals.

5.) A 2020 email, previously released by the Select Subcommittee, proved Dr. Fauci was aware of dangerous gain-of-function research occurring in Wuhan, China. Today, he backtracked by arguing he should not have stated that as “fact.”

6.) Dr. Fauci was unable to confirm if NIAID has ANY mechanisms to conduct oversight of the foreign laboratories they fund.

2.) Day 2:

 

1.) Dr. Fauci claimed that the “6 feet apart” social distancing recommendation promoted by federal health officials was likely not based on any data. He characterized the development of the guidance by stating “it sort of just appeared.”

2.) Dr. Fauci acknowledged that the lab leak hypothesis is not a conspiracy theory. This comes nearly four years after prompting the publication of the now infamous “Proximal Origin” paper that attempted to vilify and disprove the lab leak hypothesis.

3.) Dr. Fauci admitted that America’s vaccine mandates during the COVID-19 pandemic could increase vaccine hesitancy in the future. Previously, Dr. Fauci advocated “that when you make it difficult for people in their lives, they lose their ideological bullshit, and they get vaccinated.”

4.) When American universities approached Dr. Fauci, he advised them to impose vaccine mandates on their students.

5.) Dr. Fauci denies allegations that he visited the CIA during the pandemic or influenced the CIA’s investigation into the origins of COVID-19.

6.) Dr. Fauci played semantics with the definition of a “lab-leak” in an attempt to cover-up the inaccurate conclusions of “Proximal Origin.” It is impossible for Dr. Fauci to defend the conclusion of this publication while simultaneously acknowledging that a lab-leak is possible.

The first takeaway from Day 2 should not be surprising given that various jurisdictions had various rules regarding social distancing ranging from 3 feet (1 metre) to 4.5 feet (1.5 metres) to 6 feet (2 metres).  Just think of the money that was spent by businesses and governments who put those stupid stickers on pavement and flooring to remind the sheeple that they needed to maintain a distance from each other when there was no scientific basis for the reommendation.  I also found this interesting:

 

"Dr. Fauci admitted that America’s vaccine mandates during the COVID-19 pandemic could increase vaccine hesitancy in the future."

 

Given the very low uptake rates for the COVID-19 boosters, particularly the most recent booster for 2023/2024, I would say that most people have reached the point of vaccine exhaustion.

 

Those who were paying attention over the past four years have sensed that all was not right with Fauci's constantly evolving narrative when it came to masking and vaccines during the COVID-19 pandemic.  It now looks like the small percentage of the population that actually took the time to think about what was being said by Anthony Fauci and other public health officials are now being proven correct in their suspicions that we were all being gaslit.

Apparently, the truth about the COVID-19 pandemic really is evolving.

Vaccinating the World - The Link Between the Idiocracy and the Never-dying COVID-19 Pandemic Narrative

According to CNA formerly known as Channel NewsAsia, a leading Singapore-based news channel which is owned by the nation's national public broadcaster Mediacorp, the Senior Minister of the Republic of Singapore Tharman Shanmugaratnam made the following comments at a joint press conference held with World Health Organization's Director-General Tedros Ghebreyesus on August 25, 2023:

 

"We have to move away from thinking about funding for global health security in terms of foreign aid, towards thinking about it as a strategic investment that all nations must make, not only for the good of the global community but because it is in each nation’s self-interest."

 

To that end, he added this in light of the supposed ongoing COVID-19 pandemic:

 

"The first and most urgent priority is to implement the action plan set out by the WHO, IMF and their multilateral partners to vaccinate at least 60 per cent of every country’s population over the next year....

 

The resources that need to be mobilised are larger than nations have collectively been willing to commit in the past. But they are very small investments compared to the costs of prolonging the current pandemic, and tiny compared to the costs of the future pandemics that we can avoid."

  

Now, you may think that, outside of Singapore, one of the world's smallest and least influential nations, Mr. Shanmugaratnam would have no influence.  You would be wrong in making that assumption given this:

 

 

...and this:

 

So, the man who wishes to see 60 percent of every nation in the world vaccinated against COVID-19 over the next year is a World Economic Forum insider and just happens to be the Co-Chair of the G20's panel Financing the Global Commons for Pandemic Preparedness and Response which was established in January 2021 as shown here:

 

 

The panel that he heads has made the following recommendations:

 

https://pandemic-financing.org/report/high-level-summary/

 

1.) nations must commit to a new base of multilateral funding for global health security based on pre-agreed and equitable contribution shares by advanced and developing countries. This will ensure more reliable and continuous financing, so the world can act proactively to avert future pandemics, and not merely respond at great cost each time a new pandemic strikes. 

 

This must include a fundamentally new way of financing a reformed and strengthened WHO, so that it receives both enhanced and more predictable resources. The Panel joins the call by the IPPPR for assessed contributions to be increased from one-quarter to two-thirds of the budget for the WHO’s base program, which will effectively mean an addition of about US$1 billion per year in such contributions.

 

2.) global public goods must be made part of the core mandate of the International Financial Institutions (IFIs) – namely the World Bank and other multilateral development banks (MDBs), and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). They should draw first on their existing financial resources, but shareholders must support timely and appropriately sized replenishments of their concessional windows and capital replenishments over time to ensure that the greater focus on global public goods is not at the expense of poverty reduction and shared prosperity. 

 

3.) a Global Health Threats Fund mobilizing US$10 billion per year should be established, and funded by nations based on pre-agreed contributions. This new Fund, at two-thirds of the minimum of US$15 billion in additional international resources required, brings three necessary features into the financing of global health security. First, together with an enhanced multilateral component of funding for the WHO, it would provide a stronger and more predictable layer of financing. Second, it would enable effective and agile deployment of funds across international and regional institutions and networks, to plug gaps swiftly and meet evolving priorities in pandemic prevention and preparedness. Third, it would also serve to catalyze investments by governments and the private and philanthropic sectors into the broader global health system, for example through matching grants and co-investments. The Fund’s functions should be defined to ensure that it complements rather than substitutes for financing of the MDBs’ concessional windows and the existing global health organizations.

 

4.) multilateral efforts should leverage and tighten coordination with bilateral ODA (Official Development Assistance), and with the private and philanthropic sectors. Better coordination within country and regional platforms will have greater impact in reducing pandemic risks, and enable better integration with ongoing efforts to tackle endemic diseases and develop other critical healthcare capabilities. It will be important to ensure that ODA flows mobilized for pandemic preparedness add to and do not divert resources from other priority development needs. 

  

In addition, the group states the following:

 

"Governments must collectively commit to increasing international financing for pandemic prevention and preparedness by at least US$75 billion over the next five years, or US$15 billion each year, with sustained investments in subsequent years. 

 

The Panel assesses this to be the absolute minimum in new international investments required in the global public goods that are at the core of effective pandemic prevention and preparedness. The estimate excludes other investments that will contribute to resilience against future pandemics while benefiting countries in normal times. These complementary interventions – such as containing antimicrobial resistance, which alone will cost about US$9 billion annually, and building stronger and more inclusive national health and delivery systems – provide continuous value. Furthermore, the estimated minimum international investments are based on conservative assumptions on the scale of vaccine manufacturing capacity required in advance of a pandemic. Larger public investments to enable enhanced manufacturing capacity will indeed yield much higher returns. 

 

The minimum additional US$15 billion per year in international financing for pandemic preparedness is still a significant increase. It is a critical reset to a dangerously underfunded system. "

 

So there you have it.  The G20 affiliated group which is charged with dealing with pandemics is headed by a man who plays a leadership key role at the World Economic Forum.  He is only too willing to spend your tax dollars to ensure that the response to the next pandemic follows the recommendations of the World Health Organization and the G20 panel for Financing the Global Commons for Pandemic Preparedness and Response.  This man is recommending that over the next year, 60 percent of the world should be vaccinated against COVID-19.  Given that only 32.5 percent of people in low-income nations have received at least one dose of the vaccines which have proven to be only marginally effective and that daily new confirmed COVID-19 cases have done this:

 

....the 60 percent vaccination target for all nations in the world is a tall and likely ineffective/unncessary order but one that the global ruling class wishes to impose on the rest of us. After all, the globalists including those affiliated with the World Economic Forum just can't let the COVID-19 narrative die a much-deserved death.

The global idiocracy is alive and well.

mRNA Therapeutics - Should They Be Classified as Gene Therapy or Vaccines?

A recent paper entitled "mRNA: Vaccine or Gene Therapy?  The Safety Regulatory Issues" that appeared in the International Journal of Molecular Sciences on June 22, 2023:

...examines the issue of whether or not the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines should be classified as gene therapy and whether they were sufficiently scrutinized by government regulators, one of the key questions that has been shuffled off to the "conspiracy theory hinterland" by the mainstream media, fact checkers and government health officials.

  

Let's start by defining a gene therapy product (GTP): 

  

1.) According to the United States Food and Drug Administration, gene therapy is a medical intervention based on the modification of the genetic material of living cells. Cells may be altered in vivo by gene therapy given directly to the subject.

 

2.) According to the European Medicines Agency (EMA) (2009), a GTP: 

 

(a) contains an active substance which contains or consists of a recombinant nucleic acid used in or administered to human beings with a view to regulating, repairing, replacing, adding or deleting a genetic sequence; and 

 

(b) in its therapeutic, prophylactic or diagnostic effects, relates directly to the recombinant nucleic acid sequence it contains, or to the product of the genetic expression of this sequence.

  

Now, let's look at the definition of a vaccine:

 

1.) According to the United States CDC, a vaccine is "a preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases."  This definition was changed in September 2021 and previously read "a product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease."

 

2.) According to European regulations, vaccines are products capable of producing active immunity and contain antigens capable of inducing active immunity against an infectious agent. 

 

Keep in mind that according to the EMA, the active substance in the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines is mRNA, not an antigen which means that mRNA products should not be considered to be vaccines.

 

The paper by Helene Banoun, an independent French researcher with a lengthy publishing record that you can see here opens with this:

 

"COVID-19 vaccines were developed and approved rapidly in response to the urgency created by the pandemic. No specific regulations existed at the time they were marketed. The regulatory agencies therefore adapted them as a matter of urgency. Now that the pandemic emergency has passed, it is time to consider the safety issues associated with this rapid approval....

 

Some of the tests they have undergone as vaccines have produced non-compliant results in terms of purity, quality and batch homogeneity. The wide and persistent biodistribution of mRNAs and their protein products, incompletely studied due to their classification as vaccines, raises safety issues. Post-marketing studies have shown that mRNA passes into breast milk and could have adverse effects on breast-fed babies. Long-term expression, integration into the genome, transmission to the germline, passage into sperm, embryo/fetal and perinatal toxicity, genotoxicity and tumorigenicity should be studied in light of the adverse events reported in pharmacovigilance databases. The potential horizontal transmission (i.e., shedding) should also have been assessed. In-depth vaccinovigilance should be carried out. We would expect these controls to be required for future mRNA vaccines developed outside the context of a pandemic."

 

As we should all be aware, the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines were the first mRNA vaccines marketed to the public and, as a new class of vaccines, should be subject to additional scrutiny given that they are based on new technologies.  That said, mRNA vaccines against an infectious disease have been excluded from gene therapy product (GTP) regulations by regulations in both the United States and the European Union, largely because mRNA therapeutics are not mentioned in the current guidelines.  

 

In this study, the author compared the controls required by GTP regulations with those that were actually applied to the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. and found that because the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines were not classified as gene therapy, tests normally required for gene therapy products were not following including the following (among others):

 

1.) Long-term expression

 

2.) Integration into the genome 

 

3.) Transmission to the germline (i.e. semen, gonads, gametes)

 

4.) Passage into embryo/fetal and perinatal toxicity, 

 

5.) Genotoxicity 

 

6.) Tumorigenicity

 

7.) Shedding studies/transmission to a third party

 

 8.) Excretion in the environment

 

The COVID-19 mRNA vaccines were rushed into production and distribution in response to the perception of a global health emergency in a matter of months with rolling reviews where data is submitted to and reviewed by government health bodies as they become available, prior to the full data package is available to regulators and the general public.  The final trial phases were not and still have not been completed until months or years after the mRNA products were injected into the arms of billions of humans.

  

According to the FDA, a long-term follow-up of adverse events associated with GTPs must be performed for at least five years for new clinical conditions including new malignancy(ies), new incidence or exacerbation of a pre-existing neurologic disorders, new incidence or exacerbation of a prior rheumatologic or other autoimmune disorder, new incidence of a hematologic disorder and new incidence of infection (potentially product- related).

 

The application of stringent guidelines to mRNA therapeutics is of critical importance given that Big Pharma, particularly Moderna, is planning to release mRNA influenza "vaccines" as well as anti-cancer "vaccines" as shown on this graphic which shows that several of these vaccines are already in Phase 2 trials:

 

 

What is of even greater concern is that Big Pharma is planning to replace traditional vaccines with mRNA vaccines.

 

Let's close with some additional quotes and the conclusion from the paper by Helene Banoun with my bolds:

 

"The long-term safety monitoring of GTPs is required over several years whereas, for vaccines, it is generally only carried out over a few weeks. This should not be acceptable, given the persistence of the drug product and the expressed protein. The known results of anti-cancer therapies and mRNA vaccines could lead us to anticipate problems of safety and efficacy. In the case of anti-cancer mRNAs, the vast majority of open-label clinical trials have been carried out on very small numbers of patients, with either unpublished or negative results. Randomized studies also showed negative results, reporting more frequent adverse events in the treatment group...

 

From a public health point of view, and knowing that anti-COVID-19 mRNAs considered as vaccines have not undergone all the strict controls required for GTPs, one could object that a product intended for the majority of the world’s healthy population should be subject to more stringent regulation than a GTP intended for a few rare people suffering from a rare disease or cancer...

 

The role of regulatory agencies is to ensure the safety and efficacy of medicines. The COVID-19 pandemic emergency has accelerated the timetable for the production and clinical use of COVID-19 vaccines; it is, therefore, possible that certain safety aspects have not been fully addressed. It is, therefore, important to take these aspects into account in the future, so as not to undermine public confidence in vaccines in general....

 

In the future, it should be discussed whether all mRNA-based products should be subject to the same regulations and controls, whether or not they are considered vaccines. It is not justifiable to subject therapeutic mRNAs to strict controls when they are intended for patients representing a small proportion of the human population, and to exclude from these controls mRNA vaccines intended for the majority of the healthy human population."