Dr. Romy Quijano on vaccine and IVM (part 2)

 Retired faculty member of UP College of Medicine Dr Romeo "Romy" Quijano wrote a 3-parts papers about the vaccine. Reposting portions of them here.  

(1) Herd Immunity and Vaccines (FAQ Part 1) 
Romeo F. Quijano MD  June 21, 2021 
https://romeoquijanomd.net/2021/06/21/herd-immunity-and-vaccines-faq/ 

… The goal of achieving “herd immunity” through vaccination is practically unattainable mainly because it relies on numerous flawed assumptions such as: homogenous, well-mixing population that is behaving basically in a similar manner, random vaccination with almost perfect efficacy, and uniformity in the population. In reality, many different factors shape patterns of risk and susceptibility to disease, including, among others, age and sex, ethnicity and life circumstances, including stress, lifestyle and naturally resilient immune system. Other problems that make “herd immunity” an unachievable goal through vaccination include: secondary vaccine failure (waning vaccine induced immunity), virus mutation (likely triggered by the vaccine), viral shedding, importation of illness and unexplained recurrent outbreaks.(2)

The human body develops immunity and defends most efficiently against a particular infectious agent as a result of natural graded exposure and re-exposure to the potential pathogen together with natural support factors such as proper nutrition, equitable and just socio-economic condition, adequate and sound health care delivery system, healthy environment, a healthy lifestyle and other health promoting factors. Most microbes, including presumed pathogens, in fact, exist in a beneficial relationship with humans such that they actually strengthen the immune system of their host. Most healthy people carry circulating potential pathogens as commensals. Most of the time, these potential pathogens are being circulated in complete harmony with humans, and nothing problematic happens, other than the body takes note of them and defends against them utilizing innate and natural adaptive immunity. The host usually has no idea that all these human-microbes interactions are happening. When an outbreak of infectious disease do occur, the most rational thing to do is to identify and characterize the pathogen accurately as soon as possible, correctly identify the infected and susceptible individuals or population groups most affected, and institute immediate, rational and comprehensive control measures using a people oriented and human rights based wholistic approach. A narrow, technology and “expert” driven top-down, authoritarian approach focused on a mass vaccination campaign to achieve “herd immunity” imposes unnecessary sufferings and exposes the people, especially the vulnerable population groups (e.g. the elderly and the very young) to significant risks of vaccine-induced adverse effects and makes them more vulnerable to several diseases that were not a threat to them previously.

(2) Lower safety standards and the truth about COVID-19 vaccine ‘efficacy’ (FAQ Part 2)
Romeo F. Quijano MD  July 10, 2021 
https://romeoquijanomd.net/2021/07/10/lower-safety-standards-the-truth-about-covid-19-vaccine-efficacy-faq-part-2/

New drugs, including vaccines (vaccines are also drugs) are normally required to undergo several standard preclinical and clinical studies before being allowed for public use. Preclinical studies are done “in vitro” (ouside the living animal, e.g. in a petri dish) or “in vivo” (in a whole, living animal, e.g. a rat). Clinical studies are those done on actual human subjects. USFDA regulations for preclinical toxicology studies of vaccines require the components (e.g., antigens and adjuvants) to be tested for any adverse effects. These studies should follow good laboratory practice (GLP) guidelines as described in the Code of Federal Regulation. In general, there are five types of toxicology study: 1.Single and/or repeat dose,  2.Reproductive and developmental, 3.Mutagenicity, 4. Carcinogenicity, and 5.Safety pharmacology.(1) However, unlike drugs, vaccines have been allowed to be marketed by regulatory authorities even when most of the vaccine safety studies (e.g., reproductive and developmental, mutagenicity and carcinogenicity), have not been done. Safety pharmacology studies are also inadequate for most vaccines and there are no long-term safety studies done on vaccines. The vaccine studies themselves have often deviated from accepted scientific methods of enquiry, especially regarding use of placebos. Instead of using true placebos (ex. saline solutions or sugar water) or substances that have no significant biological effects,  the researchers usually use another vaccine  or  the vaccine carrier fluid as the control “placebo,” which obscures the results of the study. Additionally, there are hardly any independent study done on vaccines and most of the studies on vaccine safety that get published are designed and funded by the pharmaceutical industry.(2)

… No, the purported benefits of a Covid-19 vaccine do not outweigh the risks in the immunocompromised. There is no evidence, scientific or empirical, to support the recommendation that the immunocompromised should be vaccinated. Even mainstream medicine admits that “current data on COVID19 vaccine efficacy and safety in the ICH (immunocompromised host) is sparse.” In fact, there is practically no data to support the recommendation that the immunocompromised should be vaccinated against Covid-19 since immunocompromised people were not included in the original clinical trials for the COVID-19 vaccines. Historically, vaccination is commonly regarded as much less effective, hazardous and often contraindicated for individuals who are immunocompromised, especially those under immunosuppressive drugs ( ex. transplant patients, cancer, etc), the elderly with co-morbidities, or any other condition that weakens the immune system significantly (even those with an active infection like ordinary cough and colds virus). The usual rational management of immunocompromised individuals is not vaccination but prevention from being exposed to potentially infected persons (e.g. isolation, if necessary), ensuring that their immunocompromised status is adequately treated and managed, and supportive management (appropriate nutrition, supplements, psychological support, etc) to strengthen whatever resilience is left of their innate and natural adaptive immunity is adequately in place. However, increasingly over the years, as more and more vaccines are peddled by Big Pharma, mainstream medicine included many immunocompromised patient categories in their recommendations for vaccination on the dubious assumption that the potential benefits still outweigh the potential risks even though evidence is lacking  to show efficacy and safety. They now even insist that the immunocompromised (especially the elderly) be vaccinated against Covid-19 despite admitting that there is lack of evidence to show safety and efficacy of vaccines for the immunocompromised.

(3) Why social movements should oppose mandatory vaccination (FAQ Part 3)
Romeo F. Quijano MD  July 10, 2021
https://romeoquijanomd.net/2021/07/10/why-social-movements-should-oppose-mandatory-vaccination-faq-part-3/ 

“Most of the evil in this world is done by people with good intentions.” – T.S. Eliot

“Well-meaning people are sometimes the most dangerous.” – Angela N. Blount

The control of Big Pharma and the global elite over science and medicine has become much stronger in contemporary times. Practically all scientific studies on vaccines and pharmaceuticals are  done by the manufacturers themselves and governments accept these almost without any question. Almost all medical associations and patient advocacy groups are heavily dependent on pharmaceutical company sponsorships or grants for their operations and programs. There is hardly any medical scientific publication that is not influenced or controlled by Big Pharma and most members of the medical and scientific community rely mainly on highly biased information produced by Big Pharma and are made to believe that it is science. Practically all mainstream media are owned or controlled by the global elite who also own or have close ties with pharmaceutical companies. Most medical “experts” tapped to advise governments in the formulation of policies on vaccines and pharmaceuticals have financial ties with Big Pharma. Even international institutions like the WHO has become beholden to global elite “philanthropic” organizations with vested interests in pharmaceutical companies, with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation as the WHO’s second biggest funder. Pharmaceutical product advertising has become almost like any consumer advertising that has gone out of control in misleading the people. Worse, historically, big pharmaceutical companies have engaged repeatedly in unethical and criminal behaviour, often times with the complicity of medical professionals, and almost always, they get away with it (6,7).