Daniël Debunkt

Dagelijkse debunks over COVID-19

Andrew Wakefield deceives about RNA vaccines

Gepubliceerd op 23-04-2021 en laatst gewijzigd op 24-04-2021

Andrew Wakefield spreads a lot of half truths and whole lies in a 10 minute video end December 2020

A Twitter thread from 30 December 2020. The video has been pulled from Youtube, but is still available on Bitchute (where else?).

The newest addition in the disinfo campaign against RNA vaccins comes from none other than Andrew Wakefield himself, in a 10 minute video “Dr Wakefield warns: This is not a Vax, it is irreversible genetic modification”.

First a small introduction into the person Wakefield: his fraudulent Lancet article from 1998 about the BMR and autism set the modern antivax movement into a higher gear. The website of Brian Deer, the journalist who uncovered him, and Deer’s book “The doctor who fooled the world” give more details on Wakefield’s fraud.

Another great resource on Wakefield is the three part story Brian Deer wrote in the BMJ in 2011:

  1. The fraud behind the MMR scare
  2. How the case against the MMR vaccine was fixed
  3. How the vaccine crisis was meant to make money
  4. The Lancet’s two days to bury bad news

So, W is a liar, a fraud, a scientific fraud and a criminal who has caused many ill and dead people. It is to be expected that he twists and deceives matters in this video as well, and mixes it with true facts so as to obscure his deception.

And, in fact, W starts the video with a correct explanation about DNA, RNA and protein, and how bacterial or viral proteins cause an immune response. It is sophistry, then, that W claims that RNA vaccins are not vaccins because they don’t cause an immune response directly.

W also explains correctly that an RNA vaccin uses the existing cell mechanisms to produce the spike protein, but he tactically “forgets” some crucial details and then ends up calling it genetic manipulation and ends theatrically with “what could possibly go wrong”.

Genetic manipulation is out of the question. The RNA in a RNA vaccine is so-called “messenger RNA”. It enters the cell and then attaches to the ribosomes to produce protein.

Our genetic material, our DNA, resides in the nucleus of each cell. The nucleus has its own membrane that closes it off from the rest of the cell. This membrane does not allow RNA to enter the cell, so there is no way that an RNA vaccine can alter our genetic material.

Next, W claims that the immune system turns against proteins in your cells — that’s correct, one particular protein, the spike protein — and then calls this an auto-immune disease. That is deceiving. We’re talking here about a temporary condition:

RNA is unstable and degrades after some time — at most days in case of mRNA. So, the mRNA in the RNA vaccines only produces a limited amount of spike protein in that time, and that spike protein is cleared by the immune system.

So, the RNA vaccine only causes a temporary presence of foreign substances (foreign RNA and foreign protein), which are both cleared in due time. With an auto-immune disease, the immune system turns itself against substances that the body produces itself.

Next, W claims that this “could go terribly wrong”. However, he gives no reason why and there simply is no reason to think so. W also claims RNA vaccines have not been tested before. That is untrue: there have been human trials with earlier RNA vaccines.

Then, W complains that these vaccines have been rushed to the market. That claim is also not true. There have been no compromises with safety; but both industry and regulators have simply given absolute priority to COVID vaccine development.

Next, W mentions two cases of anaphylactic shock. That is a rare occurrence with people with severe allergies with nearly any vaccine, and medical personnel and protocols are aware of that.

W also mentions 6 deaths. That is misleading: of the 44,000 people in trial phase 3, 6 died, 2 in the vaccine group and 4 in the placebo group. Such numbers are to be expected from natural causes, nothing to worry about.

Then W pulls the traditional scare of antivaxxers: long-term effects in 1, 2, 5 years. Like with other vaccines, there is no plausible mechanism that may cause long-term effects. As said before, both the RNA and the protein are cleared in a matter of a few weeks and that’s it.

And what is the alternative? These RNA vaccines contain one, synthesized, gene from the SARS-CoV-2-virus. If you’re scared, like W, of long-term effects due to that small piece of RNA, you should really be scared by the whole virus.

Next up, W comes with a ludicrous comparison with Jurassic Park. I repeat: there is no genetic manipulation, the RNA vaccine contains exactly one synthesized gene, and not the gene apparatus for copying the whole virus.

But if molecular biologists would manage to recreate a T. Rex, I would gladly pay money for a movie starring W, Bigtree, RFK Jr, Tenpenny, Humphies and some more of their ilk, on an island together with said T. Rex.

Next up, W spouts some vague innuendo about scientists and their ways and motives. That is some chutzpah from someone who didn’t have the discipline to properly organize a control group, but instead recruited them on his son’s birthday party.

Then he mentions some problem with interaction of genes, without naming the specific incident. In any case, that had nothing to do with the Human Genome Project, which was just about mapping the human genome.

In principle, W is right that we still know relatively little about the interaction of genes, but that is not at issue here. As said, the RNA vaccine contains one viral gene that produces the spike protein, but it doesn’t enter the nucleus and doesn’t interact with our DNA.

The so-called “interviewer” then shows off as a complete sycophant, complete with facial expression, and doesn’t pose a single critical question about all the bullshit claims that W is making.

Next up, W serves the canard that vaccine manufacturers have legal immunity. This is (1) untrue, and (2) only half the truth. First, the legal immunity is not complete. Simply look at the legal code .

Second, the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP) was set up in 1986, and this is paid from a 75 cent surcharge on each vaccine dose. Without this program, the vaccine manufacturers would have increased the price, and probably a lot more than that.

Legal procedures in the NVICP are easier for the claimant than normal civil litigation. The claimant also gets their lawyers’ fees and experts’ fees reimbursed, which is not the case in civil litigation.

In reality, vaccine manufacturers don’t make a lot of profit on vaccines. The NVICP was set up in 1986 to address the concern that there would not be enough manufacturing of even a base vaccine like DTP.

Likewise, the PREP law largely gave vaccine manufacturers legal immunity for COVID vaccines, but again, the law also provides for a government-run compensation program.

And let’s put this in contrast: two years ago, W traded his wife in for Australian super model Elle MacPherson, and he could afford to give his ex-wife his million-dollar villa in the divorce proceedings. Who’s got the big money?

Then, W tries to paint that vaccine manufacturers “put the fear of God” into politicians, because the politicians are not virologists or epidemiologists. As if those latter two groups of professionals don’t acknowledge the catastrophic consequences of a pandemic.

Next he claims this is a free pass to vaccine manufacturers to skip safety studies. That’s another lie: the vaccines are still checked by regulators like the FDA and the EMA like any other vaccine, no study is skipped.

And to put it even stronger: normally, a phase 3 trial for a vaccine entails some 5,000 participants. In this case, Moderna recruited 30,000 people and Pfizer even 40,000. How much better do you want the trials to be?

The sycophantic “interviewer” then asks who is responsible for making the politicians believe we can only go back to normal when a significant part of the population has been vaccinated.

This question is completely bizarre. Herd immunity is a well-known phenomenon, and it is estimated you’d need around 70% immunity for SARS-CoV-2 to ensure that an outbreak doesn’t spread.

The answer W gives is even more bizarre: Bill Gates. Personally, I think that Bill Gates has a better understanding of vaccines and immunity than W. After all, W was only a gastro-intestinal surgeon and not specialized in vaccines.

But you can ask any virologist or epidemiologist and they will give you the same answer: that society can only completely go back to normal when enough people have been vaccinated to create herd immunity.

Next W prophecies that within half a year, the vaccines will be pulled from the market because of adverse events. But really, think for yourself: how bad, and how frequent, can an adverse event be if it hasn’t been found in a trial with 40,000 persons?

But W claims this because of the new movie he’s made. So that’s what this interview is all about: it’s a commercial to promote his new movie.

Now think for yourself: W is the person who, in his infamous 1998 Lancet article, lied about the medical history of his patients. W is also the person who cheated with PCR in his 2002 article to find measles virus that wasn’t there.

W is also the person who, in his first movie “Vaxxed” twisted and lied about his own history and about the non-issue of the “CDC whistleblower”. Are you going to trust this person to, at last, tell the truth in his new movie?

Of course, the answer is a resounding “no”.

Geef een reactie

Het e-mailadres wordt niet gepubliceerd. Vereiste velden zijn gemarkeerd met *