The group Doctors for Covid Ethics published an open letter dated 28 February 2021 and addressed to Emer Cooke, Executive Director of the European Medicines Agency.
Dr Sucharjit Bhakdi (pictured above) and the other doctors and scientists who signed this letter are extremely well qualified. They ask serious questions about the possible adverse consequences of taking the covid vaccines and suggest that these questions should have been but were not considered and answered prior to approval of the vaccines. They also suggest that there is little scrutiny for these consequences following mass vaccination.
The letter begins:
“We note that a wide range of side effects is being reported following vaccination of previously healthy younger individuals with the gene-based COVID-19 vaccines. Moreover, there have been numerous media reports from around the world of care homes being struck by COVID-19 within days of vaccination of residents. While we recognise that these occurrences might, every one of them, have been unfortunate coincidences, we are concerned that there has been and there continues to be inadequate scrutiny of the possible causes of illness or death under these circumstances, and especially so in the absence of post-mortems examinations.”
These doctors and scientists recognise that the reported adverse events following vaccination might be unrelated coincidences but they are concerned that there has been inadequate investigation to determine the causes of these adverse events, including deaths. Given the eminence of these physicians and scientists we should see this as a reasonable concern.
The doctors note that:
Following intramuscular injection, it must be expected that the gene-based vaccines will reach the bloodstream and disseminate throughout the body. We request evidence that this possibility was excluded in pre-clinical animal models with all three vaccines prior to their approval for use in humans by the EMA.
I would have thought that it is not simply expected but intended that the vaccines should reach the bloodstream and be distributed throughout the body. How could this not be the case?
“.. it must be expected that the vaccines will remain entrapped in the circulation and be taken up by endothelial cells.”
“..during expression of the vaccines’ nucleic acids, peptides derived from the spike protein will be presented via the MHC I — pathway at the luminal surface of the cells. Many healthy individuals have CD8-lymphocytes that recognize such peptides, which may be due to prior COVID infection, but also to cross-reactions with other types of Coronavirus . We must assume that these lymphocytes will mount an attack on the respective cells.”
Are other viruses, including the SARS-CoV-2 virus, similarly distributed through the body via the bloodstream? Is intramuscular injection more efficient in facilitating this distribution than would be the case for viruses that enter the body through respiration and the skin surface? If this is the case is there a potential for more distributed damage via the vaccine than might be the case with viruses that enter through and are associated with the respiratory tract?
“.. it [might] be expected that endothelial damage with subsequent triggering of blood coagulation via platelet activation will ensue at countless sites throughout the body. “
“..it must be expected that this will lead to a drop in platelet counts, appearance of D-dimers in the blood, and to myriad ischaemic lesions throughout the body including in the brain, spinal cord and heart. Bleeding disorders might occur in the wake of this novel type of DIC-syndrome including, amongst other possibilities, profuse bleedings and haemorrhagic stroke.”
“The SARS-CoV-2 spike protein binds to the ACE2 receptor on platelets, which results in their activation. Thrombocytopenia has been reported in severe cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Thrombocytopenia has also been reported in vaccinated individuals.”
The letter outlines processes through which various blood disorders might occur and asks for evidence that the possibility of these processes taking place had been recognised and excluded prior to approval of the vaccines.
There is finally a suggestion that “by the time of consideration for approval of the vaccines, the health systems of most countries were no longer under imminent threat of being overwhelmed because a growing proportion of the world had already been infected and the worst of the pandemic had already abated”. If this is correct then, they argue, the emergency was not such that required the emergency approval given for the vaccines. If this is correct and their foregoing safety concerns are correct then the global program of mass and relentless vaccination is both unwarranted and potentially dangerous.