Source: Voices not Violence Magnified
I am told I am mad for not wanting to take any of the GMO jab’s.
I question anyone’s sanity if they take it after reading and understanding this.
You are always welcome to do your own research.
This is about the AstraZeneca GMO, which is known as AstraZeneca (AZ) Covid-19 vaccine, Oxford vaccine, Covishield, ChadOx1, or AZD1222.
In this post I used documents and assessments on the AZ GMO, from the MHRA in the UK, European Medicine Authority in the EU, and the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator in Australia. Stick with it, because if you have concerns or questions about the AZ then they may be answered here.
I explain the gene technology used, and risks discussed within the authorities above.
MHRA have covered some data on animal studies and I have shown that too.
I have concerns about the GMO, so I come to it from that standpoint, I point out the things people are not being told/not having it explained to them previous to getting the AZ jab.
The AZ has the vector (vehicle) of a cloned chimpanzee adenovirus (ChAd) (similar to a cold, some differences).
Two E genes (1&3) within the ChAd have been deleted, this is so the adenovirus will not replicate and a gene (E4) has been genetically modified for higher virus yield whilst in manufacturing.
The E4 gene has been modified within the reading frames and been replaced with corresponding genes from a human adenovirus, coding regions 4/6/7 were modified.
The E1 region was also modified to incorporate the computer generated genetic code of sars-cov-2 spike protein.
To drive the computer generated code and express the spike protein, the machinery from a genetically modified CMV herpes virus (which is used in gene therapy) has been used and bovine growth hormone.
As its a DNA adenovirus the vaccine has to enter the nucleus of the cell to transcribe.
To grow the GMO, GM hek293 fetal cells were used.
Previous post about that here
If you are curious and want to know more, read on.
***
The genes E 1 & 3 were removed using a BAC vector, this stands for Bacterial artificial chromosomes and an E-coli vector is used for this.
Australian Government, Department of Health, Office of Gene Technology
Page 9
“Due to modification of the E4 gene, the GMO demonstrates increased virus yield i.e., allows”
The E gene, regions 4/6/7 have been replaced with the equivalent genes from a human adenovirus.
In the MHRA doc it says no human products are involved, so these must be computer generated again, it does not state this though.
“The genetic coding instructions of sars-cov-2 spike protein has been inserted, the E4/6/7 genes have been replaced with the equivalent genes from a human adenovirus.”
(Page 9)
To drive the computer generated code and express the spike protein, the machinery from a genetically modified CMV herpes virus (which is used in gene therapy) has been used and also bovine (cow) growth hormone sequencers.
The Australian government document explains the above, however you need search certain words, such as CMV to see what that means, I explain below, the MHRA data has these words.
“The expression cassette for the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein fused to the tPA leader uses a modified human cytomegalovirus (CMV) promoter and a bovine growth hormone polyadenylation sequence.”
“The particles contain a single copy of the double-stranded DNA genome (contains a
transgene to express the SARS-CoV02 virus spike [S] protein).”
Cloning of DNA sequences
Page 9
“The full length sequence of the SARS-Cov-2 spike protein (GenBank accession number MN908947) was codon optimised to improve expression in human cells and the tPA leader sequence was fused upstream of the spike protein sequence.
The sequence encoding both the spike protein and tPA was then cloned into an expression cassette containing a modified human CMV promoter with tetracycline
operator sites and a poly-adenylation signal from bovine growth hormone. The expression cassette was then inserted into the E1 locus of the ChAdOx1 vector to generate the GM vaccine.”
Some modifications were made in the original cloned ChAd to enable later insertions of genes /genetic codes in the locus regions.
It also mentions in the document below that the adenovirus used as vectors from chimpanzees are cloned.
Manipulation of E1, E3, E4 Regions by Recombineering. “
What is CMV?
“CMV is related to the herpes virus that causes cold sores and chickenpox.
Once you have the virus, it stays in your body for the rest of your life.”
CMV promoter used for gene expression in cancer therapy
You will see the earlier article is covering the ChAdY25, which is another name for the ChAdOx1-S chimpanzee adenovirus.
Australian Government
Page 9
“This vector was initially called ChAdY25-E and was later renamed to ChAdOx1.”
Viruses and Cells
“The wild type chimpanzee adenovirus isolate Y25 was originally obtained from William Hillis, John Hopkins University of Medicine.”
What is a transgene?
“A transgene is an artificial gene, manipulated in the molecular biology lab that incorporate all appropriate elements critical for gene expression generally derived from a different species, for example, production of α1-proteinase inhibitor protein in transgenic sheep carrying transgene of human origin.”
I’m not saying the transgene will change us, I am merely saying that because there are two species involved, human and chimpanzee, a transgene was used.
The Australian risk assessment explores topics around integration into the genome and a term “Homologous recombination”, which means when exchange of genetic materials can occur and result in molecular evolution. It is believed that recombination between species cannot occur.
So if you saw my previous post where I spoke of “gain-of function” of virus’s, that applies here.
As the ChAd is a DNA adenovirus, the vaccine has to enter the nucleus of the cell to transcribe, that is where our genome is.
Genome integration
Australian Government
Page 6
“AdVs do not have the machinery for efficient integration into the host genome and therefore AdVs exhibit extremely low levels of integration i.e., integration is a rare event (Harui et al., 1999; Desfarges and Ciuffi, 2012; Hoppe et al., 2015; Dehghan et al., 2019). However, random integration of virus DNA into the host genome has been observed in rare cases (Harui et al., 1999; Stephen et al., 2008).”
It’s rare, but it’s not impossible, and that’s what I’ve found with a lot of these documents, the words used are “thought not to”, “should not”, never do I see the word “impossible”.
The Australian government risk assessment ruled out any genome integration.
Technically, is it gene therapy?
Human gene therapy seeks to modify or manipulate the expression of a gene or to alter the biological properties of living cells for therapeutic use
Replacing a disease-causing gene with a healthy copy of the gene
Inactivating a disease-causing gene that is not functioning properly
Introducing a new or modified gene into the body to help treat a disease
*Viral vectors: Viruses have a natural ability to deliver genetic material into cells, and therefore some gene therapy products are derived from viruses. Once viruses have been modified to remove their ability to cause infectious disease, these modified viruses can be used as vectors (vehicles) to carry therapeutic genes into human cells.
The possibility of homologous recombination.
The person would has received the GMO would need to be infected with a HAdV ( human adenovirus) at the same time for this to occur.
Australian government
Page 23
“This co-infection and recombination process could result in the generation of two different GM recombinants. These GM recombinants could contain either the gene encoding S protein or E1 gene due to co-localisation of these genes in the GMO genome and the packaging constraints on the virus
genome size. Firstly, the wild-type AdV could receive the spike protein gene from the GMO and gain immuno-stimulatory function. Secondly, the GMO could regain its E1 gene but lose the gene encoding spike protein and become replication competent. These new viruses could then be shed from the host and transmitted to other hosts in the environment.
A recombinant virus generated due to homologous recombination could alter the
characteristics (e.g., pathogenicity, host range, tissue tropism, latency, and infectivity) of the GMO.
However, homologous recombination is unlikely to expand the host range beyond humans or chimpanzees (Rogers et al., 2020).”
What it is saying above is, in the earlier deletion of the E1 gene, either the GMO spike protein could recombine with another virus and could be replaced in the region of that virus, or a corresponding gene could recombine with the GMO replacing the equivalent gene from that virus in the region of E1 of the GMO, the virus would no longer be replication deficient and transmission of a new recombined virus to other people could occur.
***
Could the AZ GMO enhance the disease?
Australian Government
“As a result of these genetic modifications, the GMO cannot replicate in the host cells and will induce an immune response in humans but will not cause ill-health in humans.”
This is from a consent form which was sent to me by a trial participant for a substudy of AstraZeneca in the USA.
Link is here, you can view and download the consent form from this link.
“PARTICIPANT INFORMATION SHEET AND CONSENT FORM AND HIPAA AUTHORIZATION”
Page 4
“There is also a potential risk that if you get the vaccine in the study and then become
ill with COVID-19 that your illness could be worse than if you hadn’t received the
vaccine.”
The consent form is dated November 06 2020, interim analysis cut off date for MHRA was 04 November as stated in the MHRA document, page 30.
Over 10 thousand people had taken the AZ GMO in the main clinical trials by the time of the date on the consent form.
“Currently, there is no completed clinical study of the vaccine. Over 10,000 people
have received the vaccine so far. If you have severe side effects from the vaccine,
the study doctor may ask you not to get a second dose of vaccine or placebo.”
What is ADE?
Australia government
Dated 18th December 2020
Page 22
“Antibody-dependant enhancement can occur when pre-existing sub- or non-neutralising antibodies towards a virus can enhance the viral entry into host’s cells during secondary viral infections. This antibody-dependant enhancement mediated viral entry has been mostly documented in flaviviruses (e.g. dengue virus) but also observed in various viral infections such as HIV, Ebola and coronaviruses (e.g. MERS and SARS-CoV-1).”
Australian Government
Page 22
“There is potential for these vaccines to cause antibody-dependant
enhancement-mediated viral entry or immunopathology via the generation of sub- or non-neutralising antibodies towards the spike protein (Arvin et al., 2020; Su et al., 2020). However, there has not been any reports of antibody-dependant enhancement (ADE) associated with these COVID-19 vaccine candidates to date.”
“To date, there is no conclusive evidence demonstrating a risk of ADE in humans in
relation to SARS-CoV-2 infection.”
EU
“Summary of risk management plan for COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca (AZD1222; ChAdOx1-S [recombinant])”
European Medicines Agency.
(Full link at the bottom of the post)
“Important potential risk: Vaccine-associated enhanced disease (VAED), including
vaccine-associated enhanced respiratory disease (VAERD)”
“There is a theoretical concern that vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 may be
associated with enhanced severity of COVID-19 episodes which would manifest as VAED/VAERD. Vaccine-associated enhanced disease was observed in children given formalin-inactivated whole-virus vaccines against respiratory syncytial virus and measles virus, and findings from experimental models of SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV infection suggest that VAED/VAERD may be possible in certain conditions.”
ALSO from the doc
Risk factors and risk groups:
There are no known risk factors identified for VAED/VAERD.
Risk minimisation measures :
None.
From the AZ substudy consent form
“In the past, experimental vaccines were studied against another coronavirus (called
SARS), which also infects the lungs. In some cases, animals that received certain
types of SARS vaccines appeared to develop more severe lung inflammation when
they were later infected with SARS compared with animals that had not been
vaccinated.”
MHRA
Page 24
“Concerning the potential for induction of antibody-dependent disease enhancement, whereby use of the vaccine might put vaccinees at risk of worse disease, this risk is not well characterised. It is not clear at present even if this can be assessed appropriately in studies in animals. The general toxicity studies do not give any insights on this as the study designs do
not include exposure to virus.”
There is no date on this document, but on Google main search page it is dated 31st December 2020.
AZ consent form
“An experimental vaccine tested in the 1960s for a different respiratory virus (RSV)
resulted in some infants developing more severe lung inflammation when they were
later infected with the virus. Two of the infants died. Other versions of RSV vaccines
have not caused these severe reactions.”
“In other studies, animals that received two shots of this vaccine (AZD1222) and then
were infected with COVID-19 had the virus in the intestinal tract but were not sicker
than animals that received one shot. It is possible that people who get two shots of
this vaccine could also have the COVID-19 virus present in their intestinal tract if
they get infected for a longer period of time than people who get infected but didn’t
get the vaccine. As a result, you should practice good hygiene like hand washing, to
avoid spreading the virus to other people.”
Reduction of disease in rhesus monkeys, but no reduction in transmission of Sars-cov-2 after taking the AZ GMO.
MHRA.
Page 18
“COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca reduced viral load in the lungs, reducing virus replication in the lower respiratory tract. Despite this, there was no reduction
in viral shedding from the nose with either prime-only or prime-boost regimens. These data support an interpretation that COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca may not prevent infection nor transmission of SARS-CoV-2, but it may reduce illness.”
MHRA
Page 18
“Rhesus Monkeys were vaccinated then challenged with sars-cov-2, 28 days later, they were killed on day 7, 13 and 14 after the virus was introduced.”
Monkeys appeared to be protected as they produced antibodies, it appeared to prime the immune system and have an increase in T cells. There was little evidence there was a reduction in viral load of upper respiratory tract, meaning they could pass covid on when infected and there was an increase of viral RNA in the intestinal system, as was explained in the consent form.
As quoted above, monkeys were killed between 3 and 14 days, so no further results were obtained.
MHRA
Mice
“Potential effects of COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca on the vital systems (cardiovascular, respiratory) in male mice given a single intramuscular dose of COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca. Administration of COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca resulted in a statistically significant decrease in respiratory rate and increase in inspiration and expiration time throughout the whole 4-hour recording period.”
For reasons given on page 18, it was thought not to be related to the AZ GMO, the reason given, in the days previous the breathing rates were the similar.
Ferrets.
In an earlier SARS COV vaccine there was an increase in hepatitis in ferrets, this was in the MHRA data on page 19, thought not to relate to AZ as an Ankara virus was used, not a ChAd vector. However it did have the genetic code of SARS inserted like in the AZ GMO and it was thought significant enough to show in the MHRA document.
The MHRA is the only government document I have found where the brief animal studies are discussed, however what you will find is there were comparison studies to bulk it up. Above I stated the document says the Ankara virus cannot be compared, but soon after other viruses are compared, MERS in a Chad vector and also HAd/ adV/HadV vectors, which are human adenovirus vectors.
One interesting thing to note, is when pregnant mice were given the AZ GMO, their pups had antibodies when born.
MHRA
Page 22
“Seropositivity of fetuses and pups was confirmed and was indicative of placental and lactational anti-S glycoprotein antibody transfer.”
No adverse events noted in pups, but it does go to prove that material from the GMO does reach the PLACENTA and pass onto the fetus.
It is not known how long the mice were kept alive, dame nor pups.
MHRA go onto say:
“The mouse may not be the best choice of species for the evaluation of potential reproductive toxicity as the exposure to the organs of the fetus during their development to antibody induced by the vaccine probably did not occur. Nevertheless, international guidelines indicate that mice are an acceptable species for testing potential reproductive toxicity and no indication of harm was identified. Further information from the company will be supplied”
(The information was due to be released end of January 2021)
International guidelines on pre clinical (animal) trials in vaccines are taken from WHO and that document is here
MHRA
Page 22
“Considering potential use in women who are breastfeeding, the preliminary study does not
give sufficient evidence of lack of risk and therefore a final recommendation on use in
pregnant or lactating women cannot be made at this time. The ongoing GLP-compliant study should provide more information once it is completed. The information provided to
healthcare professionals states that COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca should only be considered in pregnancy when the potential benefits outweigh any potential risks for the mother and fetus.”
More information from the EU document
Missing information: Use during pregnancy and while breastfeeding
Missing information: Use in immunocompromised patients
Missing information: Use in frail patients with co-morbidities (eg, chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease, diabetes, chronic neurological disease, cardiovascular disorders)
Risk minimisation methods: None
Missing information: Use in patients with autoimmune or inflammatory disorders
Risk minimisation methods: None
Missing information: Interactions with other vaccines
Missing information: Long-term safety
Risk minimisation methods: None
***
I know it was a long post and believe it or not, I had to cut it short.
I have provided the original links to all the government documents below and I would advise people to take the time to scrutinise them.
It’s not all bad, but there are a lot of unanswered questions and this is an experimental/novel GMO and the safety and efficacy profile is questionable.
***
EU, European Medicines Agency
UK, MHRA
Medicine and healthcare products regulation
agency.
Australian Government
Department of Health
Office of the Gene Technology Regulator
***
