“Covid-19 Vaccine” adverse reactions; Part Two: AstraZeneca is not a safe option

Perhaps the great surprise from the Yellow Card reporting data regarding adverse reactions to the AstraZeneca and Pfizer vaccine products, as released recently by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), and incorporating reports from 9th December up to 24th January, is that the traditional jab has generated proportionally more incidence of suspected side effects, and indeed more separate suspected reactions than the one using the experimental mRNA technology.

To state unambiguously the case as it appears: the AstraZeneca “vaccine” is potentially more destructive than its Pfizer equivalent.

The data set under examination comprises reactions from 5.4 million Pfizer first dose jabs, and 1.5 AstraZeneca first dose jabs (the  AstraZeneca analysis print pdf can be downloaded here). The 0.5 million second doses said to have been given by 24th January are not disclosed as being of one or the other jabs, and so they haven’t been included here in calculations for rates of incidence. However, as they are more likely to be doses of the Pfizer product, given that deployment of the AstraZeneca jab began on 4th January, there’s little chance they would make a difference to findings that show the AstraZeneca product having higher rates of reaction incidence.

As bad as it suffers in reputation for being a Frankenstein technology, the Pfizer product didn’t see people suffering death from any cause after their encounter with a needle as much as did the AstraZeneca product. There was one death in every 50,467 Pfizer doses, whereas the AstraZeneca product had a ratio of one in every 44,117. Where a fatality was accounted for by “general death” (see the first part in this series for and explanation of the term, and its significance), for the Pfizer product, each of these occurred in every 101,886 jabs. In contrast, for the AstraZeneca product, each on these occurred in every 75,000 jabs.

As for suspected vaccine damage that was not necessarily death, the Pfizer jab was also proportionally less potent: 0.31% of Pfizer jabs engendered a Yellow Card report, while 0.4% of AstraZeneca jabs did the same. Moreover, while one adverse reaction was (suspected to have been) engendered in every 109 Pfizer jabs (0.9%), the ratio for the AstraZeneca jab was 1 in 71 (1.41%).

Overall, there are 14 categories in the Yellow Card scheme where, either in one or the other, or in both vaccine products, there is a reaction occurrence with a ratio of 1 incidence in every 10,000 jabs or less. In 10 of these categories, the AstraZeneca product has proportionally more adverse reactions than the Pfizer product. The categories where there is an especially (relatively) high rate of occurrence of adverse reactions are:

Gastrointestinal disorders: AstraZeneca, 0.15% (1 in 664 jabs); Pfizer, 0.12% (1 in 846);

Muscle & tissue disorders: AstraZeneca, 0.19% (1 in 529); Pfizer, 0.15% (1 in 667);

Nervous system disorders: AstraZeneca, 0.3% (1 in 334); Pfizer, 0.21% (1 in 488);

General disorders: AstraZeneca, 0.53% (1 in 190); Pfizer, 0.37% (1 in 268);

In the first part in this series, it was noted that the Pfizer product had given people cause to complain of 5 cases of blindness. For the purposes of noting the contrast, the AstraZeneca jab engendered 3 cases. One doesn’t need to do any maths to see that the AstraZeneca product was involved in proportionally more cases of loss of sight than the Pfizer. Indeed, in the category of eye disorders, the AstraZeneca product (suspectedly) engendered 246, versus the 634 by Pfizer. 0.016% versus 0.014%.

And this is going to lead us into the main topic of discussion regarding the AstraZeneca jab.

What might not be readily understood to someone casually considering the Yellow Card data is that an adverse reaction, rather than being a side effect in itself, is all too likely a symptom of a side effect, or a sign of a broader, and newly caused under lying condition. In that respect, blindness may reasonably be a symptom of a neurological problem – that is, one involving the nervous system and the brain –  induced by the injection. Indeed, headache is a very common adverse reaction in the Yellow Card reporting, and the author is constantly amazed at how utterly routinely it is accepted by the practitioners of allopathic medicine as something to be tolerated and without having any significance, understood as having been dealt with advice to take paracetamol, and dismissed  It is astonishing to the author that it is a matter of custom in allopathic medicine not to be concerned when an individual has an headache after as blatant an invasion as a “vaccine”.

After people received the AstraZeneca jab, there were 2589 reports of this (what should be) worrying symptom (compared to 4570 for the Pfizer jab [representing 0.102% of recipients, versus 0.17% of those who received the AstraZeneca product]). In the Yellow Card system, a common or garden headache falls within the nervous system disorder category, which also incorporates “neurological signs and symptoms” and paralysis and the like.  It’s already been noted that recipients of the AstraZeneca jab experienced reactions termed nervous system disorders at a greater proportional rate than those who received the Pfizer product. In fact, apart from the “general disorders” category, the nervous system disorders has the greatest reaction incidence rate, meaning that the AstraZeneca jab is the worst offender in the worst specific grouping of disorders.

That we should take an interest in the higher tendency to adverse reactions of the nervous system in recipients of the AstraZeneca injection, and why we should be uneasy about it is down to the fact of how during the AstraZeneca clinical trial, in a famous case, which nevertheless could not be got to the bottom of, a woman appeared to have suffered from Transverse Myelitis (TM), a neurological disorder involving the inflammation of a section of the spinal cord, which can lead to paralysis. The story was a kind of widely known secret, now confirmed as being entirely possible by the fact that a recipient of the AstraZeneca product made a Yellow Card report naming TM as an adverse reaction. Although one case in itself is not headline news of a scandal, it probably represents the usual,  low rate generation of TM cases by vaccine, going back as far as the 1920s, as discussed in the FBEL article, The Oxford-AstraZeneca Trial Illness: One That Only Appears To Have Been Caused By The Vaccine?

Moreover, because the reporting on the Pfizer product engendered its own single case of TM, it can be said that the AstraZeneca jab was three times more likely to produce this most tolerated, it seems, of all vaccine side effects.

Interestingly, the cover literature by the MHRA produced in association with the data doesn’t mention TM, but does mention facial paralysis, specifically Bells Palsy – although this was something particularly related to the Pfizer vaccine during trials (for instance see Four Pfizer vaccine trial volunteers develop Bell’s palsy, by the Daily Mail).

As was discussed in the first part of this series, any mention, actually, of reactions emerging during the clinical trials would be about dealing with strawman by which to claim safety, so of course, in the MRHA’s cover literature, it’s no surprise that there wouldn’t be any attention drawn to what were in fact two, essentially covered-up, TM cases in the UK.

If the reader remembers, as reported in the abovementioned FBEL article,  there were scientists pertinent to vaccine safety in the United States who were concerned that there had been as many as two cases of neurological disease during the clinical trial, about which AstraZeneca and its partner Oxford University  – and UK Government – were being shifty. There was great dissatisfaction about the data supplied to the Federal Drug Administration by which it should contemplate approval of the drug (see  AstraZeneca took a MONTH to turn over coronavirus vaccine trial data to the FDA after a participant’s rare spinal complication triggered a pause, also by the Daily Mail).

There can be no wonder, then, that as this article is being written, the Swiss government still hasn’t approved the AstraZeneca product (again, via the Daily Mail):

The Swissmedic regulatory authority said it had been examining information from the pharmaceutical giant but that was ‘not yet sufficient to permit authorisation’.

‘To obtain more information about safety, efficacy and quality, additional data from new studies are needed,’ it said in a statement.

Of course, while this refusal to approve the AstraZeneca drug in Switzerland is going on, the programme of administration of the AstraZeneca jab in the UK continues through its second month, having racked up more Yellow Card reaction reports in proportion to the doses given than has the Pfizer product, suggesting that there may be new and inventive ways to create vaccine damage, but the old ones are the best. And don’t forget, to top it all, it is the Oxford-AstraZeneca that was hereabouts dubbed “pointless,” and “the ultimate In vaccination for the sake of being vaccinated”.