In a major case of CYA (Cover Your Behind in North American bureaucratese, a.k.a. alibism in Europe), two high-ranking European health officials conceded that the anti-Covid vaccine their agency has been pushing on an unsuspecting populace may be a danger to pedestrians and traffic, after all.
The famed AstraZeneca anti-Covid vaccine can be indeed linked to thrombosis. Thus the European Medicines Agency (EMA) chief of vaccination strategies Marco Cavaleri in an interview with the Il Messagero newspaper.
Thrombosis, in plain English, equals blood clots. These can be (and usually are) life-threatening.
Il Messaggero, an Italian newspaper based in that country’s capital, Rome, was founded in December 1878. It has a reputation of a serious publication.
And EMA is European Union’s counterpart of U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), that is, the body that gives its yea or nay to introduction of new medications, and its verdicts are final.
Stand by their boys
The EMA bureaucrats insist that the AstraZeneca shot benefits outweigh the risks. They state that they continue investigating the at least 44 publicly known reports of an originally extremely rare brain clotting ailment known as cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST).
The bureaucrats base their statement on their earlier claim that they are correlating the 44 reports to some 9.2 million people in the European Economic Area who have received the vaccine.
The World Health Organization (WHO) continues backing AstraZeneca, as well.
And the AstraZeneca company itself stands by its previous comments, stating that its own studies have found no higher risk of clots that could be attributed to the use of their product.
If anyone expected anything else from AstraZeneca, they must live in a different universe.
Armando Genazzani, a member of the EMA’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP), joined Cavaleri’s warning. Speaking to Turin-based La Stampa newspaper, he agreed that it was “plausible” that the blood clots were correlated with the AstraZeneca vaccine.
La Stampa is even older than Il Messagero, and age plays an important role in judging European publications. It is also considered one of the most reliable Italian newspapers, politically standing at the centre.
Meanwhile, Cavaleri told Il Messagero that the EMA would say in its review that there is a link. Still, he said, he wouldn’t expect the agency to provide any indication, not this week in any case, regarding the age of individuals to whom the AstraZeneca shot should be given.
For those keen on knowing arcane pharmaceutical details: the AstraZeneca vaccine is based on a modified chimpanzee adenovirus vector, ChAdOx1. It was developed at Oxford University. Virologists describe it as one of several adenovirus-vector Covid-19 vaccines. This is the first time a viral vector vaccine has been used worldwide, with final clinical test results still two years away.
That dangerous fact holds for Pfizer’s vaccine, too: it still has two years to go before its final clinical tests become available to the makers of the product, and never mind those who are supposed to approve it (not to mention those who are to be injected with it).
Meanwhile, several countries, including France, Germany and the Netherlands, have suspended the use of the AstraZeneca vaccine in younger people while they continued probing the claims of its dangerous side effects.
“We don’t know yet what causes the (thrombosis) reaction,” Cavaleri told Il Messagero.
He said most of the cases happened in patients younger than 55 years of age, and most of them have been women.
EMA will offer its evaluation soon, Cavaleri said, but, in his opinion, the agency will not be able to specify age categories in which it wouldn’t recommend the use of AstraZeneca’s product.
The European Union permitted the application of this vaccine on January 29, 2021, saying specifically the authorization covered emergency use only.
How and why any countries’ authorities could interpret this to be a blanket permission to use the vaccine across the board, reaching 9.2 million patients within just a couple of months, remains unclear.
Nobody bothered to ask about, or explain, this strange phenomenon. Not yet, at least.
About half of European Union countries suspended the use of the AstraZeneca vaccine by mid-March, specifically because of an unusual number of blood clots appearing in patients who had received the preparation.
A few days later, the EMA would declare AstraZeneca safe, and most of the countries that had suspended its use, would permit it again.
And now, two experts from that same EMA declare their doubts.
Only time and experience will tell whether the EMA had it right, or whether the agency should have heeded its own specialists’ warnings.
Of course, it would have cost AstraZeneca a pretty penny in stable currency if the agency (and the industry, and the many authorities that exist like an impenetrable wall between them all and the unsuspecting public) acted responsibly.
Too little and too late
Some of the bureaucrats may have noticed the signs of the writing on the wall: the prospect of an international tribunal that would include them among those on the stand, accused of crimes against humanity.
So, they are trying to backtrack, in an effort to state that it’s not really their fault that some health authorities took an emergency approval for an official across-the-board consent.
This, of course, won’t hold too much water: they could have started yelling in alarm, telling the individual countries’ governments and various authorities that there exists some major difference between an emergency and general approval.
Some seem to try use the good old excuse that they acted on orders or that they based their actions (or lack thereof) on laws existing at that moment.
Neither excuse works any longer. Not since the war crimes trials in Nuremberg in the 1940s that outlawed such put-offs once and for all.
It is expected that the future trial against crimes against humanity will also question the fact that the Big Pharma demanded and got exemptions from responsibilities for any damages and ill effects caused by their products.
How can we create anything 100-per-cent safe when there exist no two human bodies that are alike, the Big Pharma justified its request to be granted full lack of responsibility for their product.
We were pushed by governments and health authorities to act in a haste that, we concede, was indecent and irresponsible. But what could we do in those circumstances?
The idea that they could have answered with an unequivocal NO seems to have never crossed their minds.
Off the hook?
Some officials are now suggesting that those to be vaccinated should sign releases: yes, I was told that what I am getting is an experimental product and that it may have some unforeseeable side effects. I absolve those involved. The decision to get jabbed was mine, entirely mine.
If this reminds anybody of the Nazis having Auschwitz extermination camp inmates sign releases saying that yes, we were told and are aware that the Zyklone B to be released in our communal bathrooms may end up killing us, it’s no accident.
No medical product can be tested on anybody, especially not on such a scale, without blind controls and placebo double-checking performed. Doing it is a crime.
That it is also against basic medical ethics seems to have never entered the equation.
How much longer will those two whistleblowing EMA experts be allowed to keep their jobs?