Michael Westhead | The Daily Knight
The following letter of exemption is nothing of the sort. It is a resistance, an indictment, and a categorical rejection of the dictates of the ruling class. It is not an exemption because we claim no exemption. As Saint Augustine of Hippo famously stated: unjust laws are no laws at all. To play into this hand would be the gravest of errors which is sure to perpetuate the gradualist agenda, which, by the smallest acceptable increments, comes to engulf all. Furthermore, to claim exemption to a law is to acknowledge its legitimacy as law. Otherwise, what are you exempt from? Rather, we should demonstrate in the clearest possible terms the unscientific and inhumane basis for the vaccine mandates which violate even their own standards. The letter below aims towards that just end.
Resistance is the only solution- resistance that is stern, valiant, and uncompromising to their face! You have the love of Christ in you and for His sake do not back down. Assert your rights in true Christian dignity and character with humble deference and charity. As Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke once said in regard to the contemporary Christian struggle, “It’s what it means to be a sign of contradiction. We just have to accept that and we have to remain tranquil in proclaiming the truth with charity, but insisting on the truth.” Resist now while it is still relatively easy, and with the truth. Do not wear the mask, do not get vaccinated, do not get exemptions, and do not give ground. “Be instant in season, out of season: reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine.” (2 Tim. 4:2) Make those employers who have so emboldened themselves play their hand and when they say you work for them, correct them. You work for the King of Angels. And He is coming.
The words of the great Father Alban Butler may do us well here:
How noble is it to see integrity and virtue triumphing over interest, passion, racks, and death, and setting the whole world at defiance! To see a great man preferring the least duty of justice, truth, or religion, to the favor or menace of princes; readily quitting estate, friends, country, and life, rather than consent to anything against his conscience; and at the same time meek, humble, and modest in his sufferings; forgiving from his heart and tenderly loving his most unjust and treacherous enemies and persecutors! Passion and revenge often make men furious; and the lust of power, worldly honor, applause, or wealth, may prompt them to brave dangers; but these passions leave them weak and dastardly in other cases, and are themselves the basest slavery, and most grievous crimes and misery. Religion is the only basis on which true magnanimity and courage can stand. It so enlightens the mind as to set a man above all human events, and to preserve him in all changes and trials steady and calm in himself; it secures him against the errors, the injustices, and frowns of the world, is by its powerful motives the strongest spur to all generous actions, and under afflictions and sufferings a source of unalterable peace and overflowing joy, which spring from an assured confidence that God’s will is always most just and holy, and that he will be its protector and rewarder. Does religion exert this powerful influence in us? Does it appear in our hearts, in our actions and conduct? It is not enough to encounter dangers with resolution; we must with equal courage and constancy vanquish pleasure and the softer passions, or we possess not the virtue of true fortitude.1
1. The Lives of the Saints. Fr. Alban Butler 1903. 22 September, Feast of Saint Eustachius and Companions.
Vaccine Mandate Refutation Letter
To Whom It May Concern:
There exists sound moral, ethical, and above all, scientific reasons to refrain from vaccination at this moment, and these reasons should be respected along with the autonomy and free choice of the individual. As outlined in the United Nations Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights:
"Human dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms are to be fully respected... The interests and welfare of the individual should have priority over the sole interest of science or society."1*
What we outline are prudential and reasonable judgements that stand firmly upon a robust scientific and ethical approach, but which are above all matters of human rights essential to the flourishing individual. Thus, the U.N. proclaims: "the importance of cultural diversity and pluralism should be given due regard. However, such considerations are not to be invoked to infringe upon human dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms, nor upon the principles set out in this Declaration, nor to limit their scope."1
Furthermore, the novel mRNA vaccine, it’s delivery and development, and many additional considerations fall subject to the sound demands that, "The impact of life sciences on future generations, including on their genetic constitution, should be given due regard."1 You may not, for any reason, coerce individuals into accepting novel treatments which transgress the boundary of their person thereby altering their interior environment, nor infringe upon their ability to set the course of their own destiny insofar as such is the manifestation of the sum total of their actions, choices, beliefs, responses, and social interactions.
It would appear that the precepts of this Declaration, unanimously ratified by 191 countries, have either been violated or ignored, usurping the rights of persons to bodily autonomy and the freedom of conscience that dwells in the heart of liberty. Furthermore, the full spectrum of current information demands that priority be given to sagacious examination over the haste and coercion of the popular mindset in our efforts to secure the continued proliferation of humanity.
We find the hyperbaric atmosphere of conformity reminiscent of historical trials too baleful to recount. We find the enumeration of logical fallacies by those in positions of institutional power to be the sad portends that accompany a lack of intellectual discrimination and are the natural result of litigiously-minded sophistry. And, lastly, we identify these harbingers to be in contradistinction to the general welfare of persons and the good of mankind.
It is an incontrovertible fact that SARS and MERS viruses are notoriously difficult to immunize against. Since early 2012, modern medicine, citing historical and contemporary failures, advised the utmost, “Caution in proceeding to application of a SARS-CoV vaccine in humans.”2
Additional researchers have noted this challenge, writing in the Journal of Infectious Diseases this past December: “It has proved difficult to achieve robust vaccine protection against avian, bovine, porcine, canine, and feline coronaviruses, failures sometimes attributed to antibody-dependent enhancement.”3 Thus, they partly attribute the ubiquitous failures of this field to the well-documented case whereby vaccine-generated anti-bodies actually promote disease later in the animal’s life. This is known as antibody dependent enhancement.
Early in the COVID-19 scenario, Dr. Peter Hotez, of Baylor College of Medicine, testified before Congress about the dangers of accelerating coronavirus vaccine development, saying
“(The) unique safety problem of coronavirus vaccines” was discovered 50 years ago while developing the Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) vaccine.” During that experiment with coronavirus vaccination, “80% of RSV vaccinees needed hospitalization.”16 He went on to register that this “‘paradoxical immune enhancement phenomenon’ means vaccinated people may still develop the disease, get sicker, and die.”4
Although the aforementioned researchers note that this might be unlikely to occur in the contemporary situation, another scenario is much less favourable:
“Several different SARS and MERS vaccines have been shown to elicit a post-challenge [vaccine hypersensitivity reactions] in laboratory animals. Ominously, when SARS-CoV-1–immune monkeys were challenged with homologous virus most animals had evidence of lung inflammation”3
Crucially, this study presented the characterization of a vaccine initiated Th2-Type immunopathology that results in chronic autoimmune disease. This immunopathology is particularly concerning because it will not manifest until later viral infections.
Additionally, this development can be fatal, as noted by scientists in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences from April 2020. “In previous studies of SARS [vaccines], aged mice were found to have particularly high risks of life-threatening Th2 immunopathology”.5 While some may object that these mRNA vaccines appear safe, this cannot be known for certain in regard to vaccine hypersensitivity and immunopathology which only develop over longer intervals and by secondary exposures. According to researchers at the Department of Microbiology and Immunology at The University of Texas Medical Branch and Baylor College of Medicine, “the evidence for safety is for a short period of observation. The concern arising from [our research] is for an immunopathologic reaction occurring among vaccinated individuals on exposure to infectious SARS-CoV, the basis for developing a vaccine for SARS.” 2 In short, experimental evidence demonstrated that SARS-CoV vaccines caused life-threatening autoimmune disease in mice upon reencountering the virus and it’s relatives.
This is not without precedence. Autoimmune disease did spike following mass vaccination for H1N1 (also a member of the Orthornavirae), and others, and this is well-documented in the scientific literature. 12,13, 14, 15
Developmental challenges aside, the current candidates include adjuvants and other components of concern, such as polyethylene glycol, which encases the lipid membrane used in mRNA delivery. Polyethylene Glycol has been shown to induce systemic allergic reactions (anaphylaxis) which, in at least one known instance, resulted in cardiac arrest. This can affect even very young people such as,
“a 29-years-old woman who developed several local and systemic type I hypersensitivity reactions including a severe anaphylactic reaction to different pharmacologic and cosmetic products whose excipients included [polyethylene glycol]”.7, 43
Over the last ten years, many scientists have begun objecting to the use of this petroleum derivative in pharmacological - especially injectable - research and product development because it is triggering widespread, but poorly characterized and potentially devastating, immune response. “In contrast to the accepted general assumption that polyethylene glycol (PEG) is non-immunogenic and non-antigenic, animal studies clearly showed that uricase, ovalbumin and some other PEGylated agents can elicit antibody formation against PEG (anti-PEG).”8 The prevalence of polyethylene glycol antibodies (anti-PEG) is growing, dangerous, and it’s incorporation into pharmaceuticals (PEGylation) is negatively impacting drug delivery:
“[T]he accumulating evidence documenting the detrimental effects of PEG on drug delivery make it imperative that scientists in this field break their dependence on PEGylation.”10
“numerous studies over the past decade have demonstrated that PEGylation causes significant reductions in drug delivery, including enhanced serum protein binding, reduced uptake by target cells, and the elicitation of an immune response that facilitates clearance in vivo.”10
“Of major importance is the recent finding of a 22 - 25% occurrence of anti-PEG in healthy blood donors, compared with a very low 0.2% occurrence two decades earlier.”8
“A 2016 study in Analytical Chemistry reported detectable and sometimes high levels of anti-PEG antibodies (including first-line-of-defense IgM antibodies and later stage IgG antibodies) in approximately 72% of contemporary human samples and about 56% of historical specimens from the 1970s through the 1990s. Of the 72% with PEG IgG antibodies, 8% had anti-PEG IgG antibodies > 500ng/ml., which is considered extremely elevated”9
“The widespread prevalence of pre-existing anti-PEG Ab, coupled with high Ab levels in a subset of the population, underscores the potential importance of screening patients for anti-PEG Ab levels prior to administration of therapeutics containing PEG”11
This raises the prescient question as to whether anyone receiving these vaccines has been screened for anti-PEG Ab levels prior to their injection. We sincerely doubt that screening of any kind has been performed in the vastly-overwhelming majority of cases.
For these reasons, as well as others, STAT news reported that, “mRNA is a tricky technology. Several major pharmaceutical companies have tried and abandoned the idea, struggling to get mRNA into cells without triggering nasty side effects.”17 In fact, it was so difficult to develop an efficacious and safe vaccine for SARS-CoV-2 that the pharmaceutical giant, Merck, withdrew efforts to develop a viable candidate. Instead, they invested in therapeutics which would only aid recovery from an existing infection.6
It should therefore come as no surprise that a large number of side effects and adverse events have been reported in unprecedented numbers. According to the FDA’s own EUA report:
“The vaccine has been shown to elicit increased local and systemic adverse reactions as compared to those in the placebo arm, usually lasting a few days. The most common solicited adverse reactions were injection site reactions (84.1%), fatigue (62.9%), headache (55.1%), muscle pain (38.3%), chills (31.9%), joint pain (23.6%), fever (14.2%).”18
Also noted were: Bell’s Palsy, appendicitis, shoulder injury, ventricular arrhythmia, and lymphadenopathy. “Among all vaccine recipients asked to complete diaries of their symptoms during the 7 days after vaccination, 77.4% reported at least one systemic reaction”44 The investigating scientists themselves considered all of these directly linked to the vaccine, although, as is to be expected, this was denied by Pfizer.18
Candidate vaccines also contain double-stranded mRNA (dsRNA), even if in small doses. Researchers from the Departments of Pathology, Genetics, Pediatrics, and Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine and Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Medical Center have released the mRNA sequence used in the Moderna, Pfizer, and BioNTech Covid-19 vaccines. They state that, “RNA preparations lacking dsRNA are desirable in generating vaccine formulations as these will minimize an otherwise dramatic biological (and nonspecific) response that vertebrates have to double stranded character in RNA”.19 Nevertheless, their research offers preliminary evidence that these vaccines do indeed contain dsRNA thereby making such treatments undesirable per their own account.
A landmark review in the journal Nature highlights the serious dangers presented by dsRNA:
“As a mimic of viral genomes and replication intermediates, dsRNA is a potent pathogen-associated molecular pattern (PAMP) that is sensed by pattern recognition receptors in multiple cellular compartments (Fig. 1). Recognition of IVT mRNA contaminated with dsRNA results in robust type I interferon production, which upregulates the expression and activation of protein kinase R (PKR; also known as EIF2AK2) and 2′-5′-oligoadenylate synthetase (OAS), leading to the inhibition of translation and the degradation of cellular mRNA and ribosomal RNA, respectively.”20, 21, 22, 23
For the uninitiated, translation is the biological mechanism by which all components of the living organism become a material reality from the genetic abstraction in DNA. Without this mechanism there can be no manufacture of proteins essential to life. Molecular biologists of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology explain that, “Protein synthesis is regulated in response to environmental stimuli by covalent modification, primarily phosphorylation, of components of the translational machinery. Phosphorylation of the alpha subunit of eIF-2 is one of the best-characterized mechanisms for down-regulating protein synthesis in higher eukaryotes in response to various stress conditions.” And, “The phosphorylation of eIF-2alpha results in the shutdown of protein synthesis.”21 Furthermore, “recent studies suggest a role for eIF-2alpha phosphorylation in the control of cell growth and differentiation”21
By way of explanation, this means that the components of all the available Covid-19 vaccines contain elements which can disrupt the production of living cells and tissue, their growth, and their differentiation into new cells and tissues. Products with the potential to strike at such fundamental biological processes are inherently dangerous, require the utmost scientific scrutiny, and an unparalleled consumer vigilance. A non-FDA approved injection simply does not fit the bill.
Even if the dsRNA were to be sufficiently scrubbed from the doses there would still be the problem of the single-stranded mRNA itself, of which the Nature authors note: “Besides dsRNA contaminants, single-stranded mRNA molecules are themselves a PAMP when delivered to cells exogenously.” A pathogen-associated molecular pattern (PAMP) is a conserved molecular structure recognized as an inflammatory danger signal by various innate immune receptors in humans.20 By exogenously delivering these PEGylated lipid nanoparticles with mRNA intramuscularly, risk of producing an inflammatory response is immediately incurred. It is precisely this scenario which is cautioned against in the above study. And, even when targeted appropriately, mRNA can escape into intracellular spaces, however, “The mechanisms of mRNA escape into the cytoplasm are incompletely understood.”20
All of this is described by favorable proponents who, in fact, are, “named on patents that describe the use of nucleoside-modified mRNA as a platform to deliver therapeutic proteins and vaccines.” i.e. they serve to gain financially from the dissemination and positive reception of mRNA vaccines.20 But to their credit, they have not obfuscated the risks.
One expert who recognizes this danger is Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche, DMV, Ph.D. After his career in Academia, Geert joined several vaccine companies to serve various roles in vaccine research and development. He then joined the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s Global Health Discovery team as Senior Program Officer and the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI) in Geneva as Senior Ebola Program Manager. After working for GAVI, Geert joined the German Center for Infection Research in Cologne as Head of the Vaccine Development Office.25
In an open letter to WHO and in a follow-up video interview, Dr. Bossche stated that by vaccinating everyone with a vaccine that doesn’t prevent transmission, we are harming people’s immune systems, and setting the stage for a global health disaster. “We are currently turning vaccinees into asymptomatic carriers shedding infectious variants.”24 His solemn warning was clear: “please use the right vaccine at the right place. And don’t use it in the heat of a pandemic on millions of millions of people.”24,26
The push to vaccinate is more difficult to understand when considering the Center for Disease Control statistics which report that 99.8% of infected individuals between the ages of 0-64 will survive.27 Additionally, researchers from the La Jolla Institute of Immunology have discovered that protective immunity against SARS-Cov-2 remains much longer than previously thought following an infection. “The findings, based on analyses of blood samples from 188 COVID-19 patients, suggest that responses to the novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, from all major players in the 'adaptive' immune system, which learns to fight specific pathogens, can last for at least eight months after the onset of symptoms from the initial infection.”28, 29
A discovery made in partnership between the Center for Infectious Disease and Vaccine Research at La Jolla Institute for Immunology and the Institute for Immunology and Infectious Diseases at Murdoch University was even more promising and indicated that a large percentage of the population is already protected in some measure against SARS-CoV-2. As reported in Science, “SARS-CoV-2–reactive CD4+ T cells have been reported in unexposed individuals, suggesting preexisting cross-reactive T cell memory in 20 to 50% of people.”30
As a result, these vaccines remained unapproved while simultaneously serving as a continuous source of data for clinical investigation. The FDA could not be more clear about the unapproved nature of these vaccines. “Even though the FDA granted emergency use authorizations for the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines in December 2020, the clinical trials the FDA will rely upon to ultimately decide whether to license these vaccines are still underway and are designed to last for approximately two years to collect adequate data to establish if these vaccines are safe and effective enough for the FDA to license.”31, 32, 33
“Given the uncertainty about the two vaccines, their EUAs are explicit that each is ‘an investigational vaccine not licensed for any indication’ and require that all ‘promotional material relating to the Covid-19 Vaccine clearly and conspicuously … state that this product has not been approved or licensed by the FDA, but has been authorized for emergency use by FDA’”31, 32, 33
The fact remains that, “the average vaccine, taken from the preclinical phase, requires a development timeline of 10.71 years and has a market entry probability of 6%.”35 And, according to the National Institutes of Health: “Approximately 30% of drugs have failed in human clinical trials due to adverse reactions despite promising pre-clinical studies, and another 60% fail due to lack of efficacy.”34 These are jarring numbers, however they explain why the US Government, which has paid out $4.4 billion in vaccine injury compensation since 1988, is hesitant to approve. 36
Furthermore, we should have no illusions about the ability of new technologies or emerging companies to offset these statistics in production, development, or efficacy. Using the biotechnology company Moderna as a case study, we find that:
“Moderna has not sold any products to generate revenue. It has relied upon collaboration revenue from other companies and grants to fund its research. These are perfectly fine ways to generate revenue, but at some point in time the company needs to successfully develop products that can be sold. The company has 23 mRNA development candidates in its portfolio with 13 in clinical studies.”37
This did not change with the advent of Covid-19, since, “as of May 2020, none of its products have reached the final phase of a clinical trial, received approval by the FDA or been sold on the market”39 A year later their product remains unapproved by the FDA.
In a highly critical article entitled Research not Fit to Print written by the editors of Nature, they state that “Moderna's scientists have yet to publish a single paper describing its therapeutic platform.”38 Their entire approach raises serious questions since Moderna, “doesn’t publish on its work in scientific journals. What is known has been disclosed through press releases. That’s not enough to generate confidence within the scientific community.”40 This is also the only source of information regarding animal testing prior to the issuance of the EUA which is highly unorthodox. Peter Doshi, editor of the British Medical Journal, criticized Moderna and Pfizer for not disclosing their data and then recalculated the actual efficacy of their vaccines:
“Even after removing cases occurring within 7 days of vaccination (409 on Pfizer’s vaccine vs. 287 on placebo), which should include the majority of symptoms due to short-term vaccine reactogenicity, vaccine efficacy remains low: 29%”41
These leading experts have been clear: “without complete data transparency, they will not endorse covid-19 products as being based on science”42 We should heed their advice in restraining our desire for a proximate end to these unfortunate events in exchange for the correct solution, in time.
Upon examination of these facts, it becomes impossible to advocate for mandatory vaccination requirements, or even to offer casual endorsements and passive suggestions. To favor such a policy is to spurn reason. The considerations of this statement serve as an expansion of, and an appeal for, greater understanding. In light of these scientific developments we must demand an end to any further developments of a mandatory vaccine policy or framework in perpetuity. We likewise demand an end to pressure exerted over individuals to conform to the perceived norms in this area. This is the solemn declaration of those interested in bolstering a flourishing community that honors free choice, informed consent, knowledge and honor.
Yours in circumspection,
(Name or Organization)
1. UNESCO (2005) Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights. Paris, France: UNESCO.http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.phpURL_ID=31058&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html
2. Immunization with SARS Coronavirus Vaccines Leads to Pulmonary Immunopathology on Challenge with the SARS Virus. PLOS ONE 7(8): 10.1371/annotation/2965cfae-b77d-4014-8b7b-236e01a35492.
3. Scott B Halstead, Leah Katzelnick, COVID-19 Vaccines: Should We Fear ADE?, The Journal of Infectious Diseases, Volume 222, Issue 12, 15 December 2020, Pages 1946–1950, https://doi.org/10.1093/infdis/jiaa518
5. News Feature: Avoiding pitfalls in the pursuit of a COVID-19 vaccine. Lynne Peeples. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Apr 2020, 117 (15) 8218-8221; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2005456117
7. Jover Cerdá V, Rodríguez Pacheco R, Doménech Witek J, Marco de la Calle FM, de la Sen Fernández ML. Immediate hypersensitivity to polyethylene glycols in unrelated products: when standardization in the nomenclature of the components of drugs, cosmetics, and food becomes necessary. Allergy Asthma Clin Immunol. 2019 Feb 19;15:9. doi: 10.1186/s13223-019-0327-4. PMID: 30820197; PMCID: PMC6381633.
8. Garay RP, El-Gewely R, Armstrong JK, Garratty G, Richette P. Antibodies against polyethylene glycol in healthy subjects and in patients treated with PEG-conjugated agents. Expert Opin Drug Deliv. 2012 Nov;9(11):1319-23. doi: 10.1517/17425247.2012.720969. Epub 2012 Aug 30. PMID: 22931049.
10. Verhoef, J. J., & Anchordoquy, T. J. (2013). Questioning the Use of PEGylation for Drug Delivery. Drug delivery and translational research, 3(6), 499–503. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13346-013-0176-5
11. Yang Q, Jacobs TM, McCallen JD, Moore DT, Huckaby JT, Edelstein JN, Lai SK. Analysis of Pre-existing IgG and IgM Antibodies against Polyethylene Glycol (PEG) in the General Population. Anal Chem. 2016 Dec 6;88(23):11804-11812. doi: 10.1021/acs.analchem.6b03437. Epub 2016 Nov 16. PMID: 27804292; PMCID: PMC6512330.
12. Shoenfeld Y, Aron-Maor A. Vaccination and autoimmunity-'vaccinosis': a dangerous liaison? J Autoimmun. 2000 Feb;14(1):1-10. doi: 10.1006/jaut.1999.0346. PMID: 10648110.
13. Toussirot É, Bereau M. Vaccination and Induction of Autoimmune Diseases. Inflamm Allergy Drug Targets. 2015;14(2):94-8. doi: 10.2174/1871528114666160105113046. PMID: 26728772.
14. Orbach H, Agmon-Levin N, Zandman-Goddard G. Vaccines and autoimmune diseases of the adult. Discov Med. 2010 Feb;9(45):90-7. PMID: 20193633.
15. Shin MS, Kim SJ, Kim SH, Kwak YG, Park HJ. New Onset Guttate Psoriasis Following Pandemic H1N1 Influenza Vaccination. Ann Dermatol. 2013 Nov;25(4):489-92. doi: 10.5021/ad.2013.25.4.489. Epub 2013 Nov 30. PMID: 24371399; PMCID: PMC3870220.
16. Immune Responses and Disease Enhancement during Respiratory Syncytial Virus Infection. Peter J. M. Openshaw, John S. Tregoning. Clinical Microbiology Reviews Jul 2005, 18 (3) 541-555; DOI: 10.1128/CMR.18.3.541-555.2005
18. Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for an Unapproved Product Review Memorandum. 20 November 2020. https://www.fda.gov/media/144416/download
19. Jeong, Dae Eun et al. Assemblies of putative SARS-CoV2-spike-encoding mRNA sequences for vaccines BNT-162b2 and mRNA-1273. https://github.com/NAalytics/Assemblies-of-putative-SARS-CoV2-spike-encoding-mRNA-sequences-for-vaccines-BNT-162b2-and-mRNA-1273/blob/main/Assemblies%20of%20putative%20SARS-CoV2-spike-encoding%20mRNA%20sequences%20for%20vaccines%20BNT-162b2%20and%20mRNA-1273.docx.pdf
20. Pardi, N., Hogan, M., Porter, F. et al. mRNA vaccines — a new era in vaccinology. Nat Rev Drug Discov 17, 261–279 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd.2017.243
21. de Haro C, Méndez R, Santoyo J. The eIF-2alpha kinases and the control of protein synthesis. FASEB J. 1996 Oct;10(12):1378-87. doi: 10.1096/fasebj.10.12.8903508. PMID: 8903508.
22. Kariko, K., Muramatsu, H., Ludwig, J. & Weissman, D. Generating the optimal mRNA for therapy: HPLC purification eliminates immune activation and improves translation of nucleoside-modified, protein-encoding mRNA. Nucleic Acids Res. 39, e142 (2011).
23. Liang, S. L., Quirk, D. & Zhou, A. RNase L: its biological roles and regulation. IUBMB Life 58, 508–514 (2006).
27. COVID-19 Pandemic Planning Scenarios. 19 March 2021. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html?fbclid=IwAR3DvH5umpJxiObUDTKBckeBAfqudrtvzWfQhYiUfHeEhCFeg5UXzalabGg
28. La Jolla Institute for Immunology. "Protective immunity against SARS-CoV-2 could last eight months or more: Why declining antibodies don't spell disaster for long-lasting immunity." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 6 January 2021. www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/01/210106142648.htm
29. Jennifer M. Dan, Jose Mateus, Yu Kato, Kathryn M. Hastie, Esther Dawen Yu, Caterina E. Faliti, Alba Grifoni, Sydney I. Ramirez, Sonya Haupt, April Frazier, Catherine Nakao, Vamseedhar Rayaprolu, Stephen A. Rawlings, Bjoern Peters, Florian Krammer, Viviana Simon, Erica Ollmann Saphire, Davey M. Smith, Daniela Weiskopf, Alessandro Sette, Shane Crotty. Immunological memory to SARS-CoV-2 assessed for up to 8 months after infection. Science, 2021; eabf4063 DOI: 10.1126/science.abf4063
30. Mateus J, Grifoni A, Tarke A, Sidney J, Ramirez SI, Dan JM, et al. Selective and cross-reactive SARS- CoV-2 T cell epitopes in unexposed humans. Science (80-). 2020 Aug;370(6512):89–94.
34. Tagle DA. The NIH microphysiological systems program: developing in vitro tools for safety and efficacy in drug development. Curr Opin Pharmacol. 2019 Oct;48:146-154. doi: 10.1016/j.coph.2019.09.007. Epub 2019 Oct 14. PMID: 31622895.
35. Pronker ES, Weenen TC, Commandeur H, Claassen EH, Osterhaus AD. Risk in vaccine research and development quantified. PLoS One. 2013;8(3):e57755. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0057755. Epub 2013 Mar 20. PMID: 23526951; PMCID: PMC3603987.
36. You can’t sue Pfizer or Moderna if you have severe Covid vaccine side effects. The government likely won’t compensate you for damages either. Sigalos, MacKenzie. 17 December 2020. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/16/covid-vaccine-side-effects-compensation-lawsuit.html
38. Research not fit to print. Nat Biotechnol 34, 115 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.3488
41. Peter Doshi: Pfizer and Moderna’s “95% effective” vaccines—we need more details and the raw data. https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/01/04/peter-doshi-pfizer-and-modernas-95-effective-vaccines-we-need-more-details-and-the-raw-data/
42. Johnson R M, Doshi P, Healy D. Covid-19: Should doctors recommend treatments and vaccines when full data are not publicly available? BMJ 2020; 370 :m3260 doi:10.1136/bmj.m3260
43. Sellaturay P, Nasser S, Ewan P. Polyethylene Glycol-Induced Systemic Allergic Reactions (Anaphylaxis). J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2021 Feb;9(2):670-675. doi: 10.1016/j.jaip.2020.09.029. Epub 2020 Oct 1. PMID: 33011299.
44. Local Reactions, Systemic Reactions, Adverse Events, and Serious Adverse Events: Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine. Center for Disease Control and Prevention. 13 December 2020. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/info-by-product/pfizer/reactogenicity.html
*All emphases added.