John R. Houk, Blog Editor
© May 20, 2022
Things are getting crazy twisted by whoever actually
controls the U.S. Government. At age sixty-five it feels like another dose of 1960s
NEVER trust Big Brother Government and the increasingly
Fascist-Marxist nature of Corporate America in collusion with ONE-WORLD
Government Globalists to end individual thinking, individual
Liberty and individual Laissez-Faire
choices.
[Of interest further reading - The
Radical Socialist Roots of Fascism: Fascism is a form of socialism.
As such, it does not engage in a fight between left and right, but between
different leftists ideologies; By EMMANUEL RINCÓN; El American; 3/27/21]
It should be evident to at least those paying some attention
Dem-Marxists (aka the Democratic Party) have been lying for decades and since the
Obama years has planted unelected Dem-Marxist bureaucrats to keep political
power (Trump was their unexpected monkey wrench) and COVID fearmongering (99% survival rate) became the tool to
oust any threat to Dem-Marxist power.
Dr.
Joseph Mercola and Judicial
Watch (including
video) demonstrate who corrupt government scientists and science
agencies are so consumed with greed an power, there is little evidence of
protecting American citizens which taxpayers constituted them to do.
JRH 5/20/22
READER SUPPORTED! I need Readers willing to chip in $5 -
$10 - $25 - $50 - $100. I need your generosity. PLEASE
GIVE to overcome research expenses:
Please
Support SlantRight 2.0
Big Tech Censorship is pervasive – Share voluminously on
all social media platforms!
*****************************
Government Scientists Secretly Paid Off While Hiding Data
Science
Greed
Analysis by Dr. Joseph
Mercola
May 20, 2022
Mercola.com
STORY AT-A-GLANCE
Ø According
to government watchdog Open the Books, the National Institutes of Health and
hundreds of individual scientists received an estimated $350 million in
undisclosed royalties from third parties, primarily drug companies, in the
decade between 2010 and 2020
Ø Between
2010 and 2014, National Cancer Institute employees received nearly $113
million. The National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and
its leadership received more than $9.3 million
Ø Federal
agencies are increasingly refusing to comply with Freedom of Information Act
requests, thereby forcing legal action. This is an obnoxious waste of taxpayer
money as, by law, they’re required to release the information
Ø Forced
FOIA disclosures have shown the NIH lied about not funding gain of function
research in China, and allowed the EcoHealth Alliance — whom they’re supposed
to regulate — to write its own reporting rules. NIH has also been caught
redacting information under false pretenses
Ø Members
of U.S. Congress are calling for an investigation into the EcoHealth Alliance,
to determine the true scope of its cover-up. House investigators have found
EcoHealth hid more data than previously known, including a death rate of 75% in
humanized mice infected with its gain of function coronavirus
We’ve long suspected that U.S. government agencies have deep
conflicts of interest, and in recent days, we’re finding these conflicts run
deeper than most people imagined.
Government officials and employees are personally profiting
on the taxpayers’ dime, and as conflicts of interest have increased,
government’s transparency has decreased, making it more costly and
time-consuming to get to the bottom of it all.
Undisclosed Royalties Paid to Hundreds of Scientists
According to government watchdog Open the Books,1,2,3 the
National Institutes of Health and hundreds of individual scientists received an
estimated $350 million in undisclosed royalties from third parties, primarily
drug companies, in the decade between 2010 and 2020. The total amount is likely
far greater, as four agencies have redacted their royalty payments.
“Because those payments enrich the agency and its
scientists, each and every royalty payment could be a potential conflict of
interest and needs disclosure,” Open the Books CEO Adam Andrzejewski writes.4 Why
are these people getting paid? Open the Books explains:5
“The National Institute of
Health [NIH], part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services [DHHS],
is the largest biomedical research agency in the world. NIH grants over $32
billion in funding to research institutions around the world, and employs
thousands of scientists to conduct research in-house.
When an NIH employee makes a
discovery in their official capacity, the NIH owns the rights to any resulting
patent. These patents are then licensed for commercial use to companies that
could use them to bring products to market. Employees are listed as inventors
on the patents and receive a share of the royalties obtained through any
licensing, or ‘technology transfer,’ of their inventions.
Essentially, taxpayer money
funding NIH research benefits researchers employed by NIH because they are
listed as patent inventors and therefore receive royalty payments from
licensees.”
Who’s Been Getting Rich on the Taxpayers’ Dime?
During a May 9, 2022, news conference with reporters,
Andrzejewski stated that payments issued between 2010 and 2014 accounted for
40% of the total payouts.6 In all, 1,675 scientists received
secret royalties during those years, with the average payout totaling $21,100
per person.
The five NIH employees — all of whom worked or work for the
National Cancer Institute (NCI) — who received the greatest number of payments
were Robert Gallo, Ira Pastan, Mikulas Popovic, Flossie Wong-Staal and
Mangalasseril Sarngadharan.7
In total, NCI employees received nearly $113 million between
2010 and 2014. The National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases
(NIAID) and its leadership received more than $9.3 million. According to
Andrzejewski:
“Francis Collins, the immediate
past director of NIH, received 14 payments. Dr. Anthony Fauci received 23
payments and his deputy, Clifford Lane, received eight payments8 ...
With tens of billions of dollars
in grant-making at NIH and tens of millions of royalty dollars from third-party
payers flowing back into the agency each year, NIH needs to come clean with the
American people and open the books. We need to be able to follow the money.9”
In 2005, the Associated Press investigated and reported on
NIH royalty payments, including details on who got what, and from whom. Many of
those details are now kept secret, even though the payments are significantly
larger, and thereby pose far greater risk in terms of conflicts of interest. As
noted in the British Medical Journal at the time:10
“A patient advocacy group, the
Alliance for Human Research Protection, says that patients might have thought
differently about the risks of trial treatment if they knew of scientists'
financial interests.”
During a May 11, 2022, House Appropriations Committee
subcommittee hearing, Rep. John Moolenaar, R-Mich., told acting director of the
NIH, Dr. Lawrence Tabak:11
“Right now, I think the NIH has
a credibility problem and this only feeds into this ... People in my district
say, ‘Well, so-and-so has a financial interest,’ or they don’t like ivermectin
because they aren’t benefitting from that royalty.
You may have very sound
scientific reasons for recommending a medicine or not, but the idea that people
get a financial benefit from certain research that’s been done and grants that
were awarded, that is, to me, the height of the appearance of a conflict of
interest.”
Tabak admitted the undisclosed royalty payments present “an
appearance of a conflict of interest” and don’t appear ethical,12 but
that the agency will not make recommendations on drugs based on anything other
than the science.
Government’s Illegal Noncompliance Is Costly
Not only is the NIH database heavily redacted, but NIH
financial disclosure forms also help hide the payouts, as they define
third-party royalty payments as income received from the NIH.
When Open the Books initially filed a Freedom of Information
Act (FOIA) request with the NIH to obtain this information, the NIH declined to
respond. Only after the watchdog group sued the NIH for noncompliance were they
able to pry the documentation from them, and even then, it was redacted.
The fact that government agencies are increasingly refusing
to comply with FOIA laws is a serious problem, Jason Foster, president of
Empower Oversight says, as “the public’s business ought to be public.” In an
April 2022 Newsweek opinion piece, he wrote:13
“Last November my organization,
Empower Oversight, sued the National Institutes of Health (NIH) for failing to
comply with Freedom of Information Act requests related to the agency's
response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Around half a dozen other
entities have also been forced to go to court to compel the NIH to make
pandemic documents public. It's worth noting that this didn't need to happen.
Good lawyers charge hundreds of dollars an hour or more and hiring legal talent
to pursue cases full time is not easy.
By forcing public interest
groups to spend this money on litigation before complying with Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) requests, the NIH is locking out the vast majority of
Americans from accessing federal records. It takes financial resources to most
effectively probe how our government operates ...
We all pay extra when anyone
sues the government. The process sucks up court time and expenses, and forces
lawyers at the Department of Justice to get involved and collect agency
documents. It would all be cheaper and faster if the NIH simply followed the
law in the first place.”
Why Public Confidence Is Tanking
When federal agencies shirk disclosure laws, they also erode
public confidence. Over the past 18 months, we’ve repeatedly discovered that
federal officials have lied to our faces, thanks to organizations footing the
bill to sue them for information they’re required to release voluntarily.
For example, as detailed by Foster,14 The
Intercept sued, forcing the NIH to fess up correspondence that ended up
confirming the NIH was in fact funding gain of function research at Wuhan
Institute of Virology (WIV).
Emails also showed the NIH allowed the EcoHealth Alliance to craft the language that governed
this controversial and risky research, even though the NIH is supposed to
regulate EcoHealth Alliance’s work!
None of this would have come to light had The Intercept not
sued to force the NIH to comply with FOIA rules. Other public interest groups,
such as Knowledge Ecology International and Public Citizen, have sued the
agency to determine its role in the development of COVID-19 therapies.
“These requests are important
because taxpayers helped subsidize vaccines for which we are now paying top
dollar,” Foster notes.15
Forced FOIA disclosures have also shown the NIH is redacting
information under false pretenses. In documents released to Buzzfeed, after
they sued, the NIH redacted part of an email citing exemption code 7(A), which
permits the withholding of “records compiled for law enforcement purposes when
disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement
proceedings.”16
Later, when senators requested the records, that passage was
left unredacted. As it turns out, the redacted passage couldn’t possibly have
been withheld for law enforcement purposes, because the blotted-out sentence
was simply EcoHealth Alliance president Peter Daszak telling Fauci about “work
we’ve been doing in collaboration with Chinese virologists.”
In other words, the NIH simply wanted their “collaboration
with Chinese virologists” to remain secret. This is profoundly dishonest, and
piles insult on top of injury. Clearly, the NIH — as well as other federal
agencies — have become cesspools of corruption and malfeasance.
Foster even points out that then-director of the NIH,
Collins, was personally reviewing and clearing FOIA requests — “an odd use of
time by the director of a public health agency in the midst of a pandemic.”17 Indeed.
Rep. Dr. Neal Dunn, R-Fla., told The Epoch Times:18
“It’s no secret that the agency
needs reform. Their many issues were exacerbated and highlighted by the
COVID-19 pandemic. Providing the public with transparent access to how the NIH
is spending taxpayer dollars and reaching their decisions is a basic responsibility,
and they must be held accountable. Now more than ever, we must commit to
reforming our federal health agencies and restoring America’s trust in public
health.”
The question is, can they be reformed, or is the rot too
deep to clean out? Perhaps we need to strip these agencies down to nothing and
rebuild from scratch?
EcoHealth Covered Up Deadly Experiments
While the news of undisclosed royalty payments to NIH
scientists is gaining traction, members of the U.S. Congress are also calling
for an investigation into the EcoHealth Alliance, to determine the true scope
of its cover-up.
“EcoHealth reported that its
infected mice had only ‘mild’ clinical symptoms when, in reality, the infection
had a 75% death rate. ~ New York Post”
As reported by the New York Post:19
“Documents the White Coat Waste
Project obtained via the Freedom of Information Act revealed ... that in 2016,
staffers at the ... NIAID ... worried that EcoHealth’s animal experiments ran
afoul of the government’s moratorium on gain-of-function research — the
practice of manipulating viruses to make them more transmissible, more lethal
and more dangerous.
Instead of stopping the project,
however, NIAID offered EcoHealth the chance to create its own policy governing
the dangerous research, then allowed the planned animal experiments to proceed
... EcoHealth promised NIAID it would stop its experiments, and immediately
report, if the coronaviruses it engineered showed viral growth greater than 10
times that of the original virus.
The novel coronaviruses did get
more dangerous, with viral growth 10,000 times greater than that of the
original virus, and made mice very sick. We now know that EcoHealth did not
properly report the increased virulence — in violation of its self-imposed
grant terms.
Now, House investigators, led by
Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.), have revealed that EcoHealth seems to
have hidden far more data than previously known. Her letter to NIH notes that
EcoHealth reported that its infected mice had only ‘mild’ clinical symptoms
when, in reality, the infection had a 75% death rate.
EcoHealth apparently obscured
the fact that its experiments caused an alarming increase in mouse deaths by
deleting the word ‘dead’ from the phrase ‘dead point’ on a graph, though it
appeared in earlier reports. Its omission made it look as though mice were
simply carrying more of the virus, rather than dying in droves ...
Investigators suggest that
EcoHealth’s omission was not accidental and was ‘intended to deceive ... peer
reviewers.’ Had they known what was actually going on, reviewers likely ‘would
have wanted to stop such risky research and not continue EcoHealth’s funding.’”
CDC in a Panic Over Own Disinformation Being Disclosed
Internal documents and emails from the U.S. Centers for
Disease control (obtained through FOIA requests) reveal it too is guilty of
obfuscation and cover-ups. In a report issued by the CDC’s Advisory Committee
on Immunization Practices (ACIP) December 18, 2020, the Pfizer-BioNTech
COVID-19 vaccine was said to have “consistent high efficacy” of 92% or more
among people with evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection.20
Based on this, the CDC urged everyone, including those who
had previously recovered from COVID, to get the shot.
After carefully reviewing the Pfizer trial data, Rep. Thomas
Massie — a Republican Congressman for Kentucky and an award-winning scientist —
discovered the ACIP’s claim was completely false. Pfizer’s trial showed NO
efficacy among participants with previous COVID infection, and there was no
proof of efficacy in the Moderna trial either, for that matter.
In a January 30, 2021, Full Measure report,21,22 investigative
journalist Sharyl Attkisson described how Massie tried to get the CDC to
correct its error. After multiple phone calls, CDC deputy director Dr. Anne
Schuchat finally acknowledged the error and told Massie it would be fixed.
However, when the CDC issued its “correction,” at the end of January 2021, they
did not fix the error. Instead, they simply rephrased the lie in a different
way.
The “correction” still misleadingly suggested that
vaccination was effective for those previously infected, even though the data
showed no such thing. Now, emails reveal Massie’s discussions with the CDC
ignited a firestorm of panic.23 More than 1,000 pages of emails
mention Massie’s concern that they were putting out disinformation and
misleading the public.
Exactly what they said is hard to determine, however, as
many of the emails are 100% redacted. Some did try to defend the false
information, though, highlighting certain paragraphs that might justify
vaccinating people with natural immunity.
“It’s unclear why conversations
between CDC officials and scientists on matters of great public health
importance would be kept hidden from public view,” Attkisson writes,24 adding, “Nobody
was held publicly accountable for the serious and potentially dangerous false
information the CDC officials and scientists signed off on and publicized.”
In her May 9, 2022, update on the CDC’s disinformation
campaign, Attkisson also points out that the CDC has been tracking and logging
CDC-related tweets by members of Congress. The purpose of that Twitter post
collection is unclear. Probably, someone should demand an answer.
On the whole, it seems all of our federal health agencies
are corrupted and broken, possibly beyond repair. Not one of them has fulfilled
their mandate to protect public health. Instead, they’ve lied to us and
protected Big Pharma profits, part of which gets kicked back to them. At this
point, anyone who listens to and trusts the NIH, the CDC or the Food and Drug
Administration, does so at their own risk.
My latest book, “The
Truth About COVID-19,” is an instant bestseller. After thousands of
reviews it has a nearly perfect 5-star rating, so grab
your copy today before it’s too late!
Sources and References
1, 4 Open the books May 9, 2022
2, 5, 7 Open the Books NIH Royalty Disclosures Fact Sheet
3 The Epoch Times May 9, 2022
6, 8 Zero Hedge May 10, 2022
9, 11, 12, 18 The Epoch Times May 11, 2022
10 BMJ
2005 Jan 22; 330(7484): 162
13, 14, 15, 17 Newsweek April 13, 2022
16 USRTK November 5, 2022
19 New York Post May 8, 2022
20 MMWR December 18, 2020
21 Full Measure After Hours Podcast January 30, 2021
22 Full Measure News January 31, 2021
23, 24 Sharyl Attkisson May 9, 2022
© 1997-2022 Dr. Joseph Mercola. All Rights
Reserved.
+++++++++++++++++++
Rumble VIDEO: NEW
FDA Documents on Vaccine Safety Revealed!
Posted JudicialWatch
Published May 19, 2022
READ: https://www.judicialwatch.org/nanoparticles-materials-outside-injection-site/
Judicial Watch received 466 pages of records from the
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) regarding biodistribution studies
and related data for the COVID-19 vaccines that show a key component of the
vaccines developed by Pfizer/BioNTech, lipid nanoparticles (LNPs), were found
outside the injection site, mainly the liver, adrenal glands, spleen and
ovaries of test animals, eight to 48 hours after injection.
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Judicial Watch: Pfizer/BioNTech Study Found Lipid
Nanoparticles Materials Outside Injection Site in Test Animals
JW
- Lipid Nanoparticles
By JUDICIAL WATCH Staff
MAY 02, 2022
Judicial
Watch
Johnson & Johnson relied on studies showing that
vaccine DNA particles and injected virus particles were still present in test
animals months after injection
(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced
today that it received 466 pages of records from the Department of
Health and Human Services (HHS) regarding biodistribution studies and related
data for the COVID-19 vaccines that show a key component of the vaccines
developed by Pfizer/BioNTech, lipid
nanoparticles (LNPs), were found outside the injection site, mainly the liver,
adrenal glands, spleen and ovaries of test animals, eight to 48 hours after
injection.
Pfizer/BioNTech’s mRNA-based COVID vaccine relies on LNPs as
a delivery system. Pfizer said in a January 10, 2022 press release that Acuitas Therapeutics LNP
technology is used in COMIRNATY, the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine.
Judicial Watch also received 663 pages of records from HHS regarding
biodistribution studies and related data for COVID-19 vaccines, which show that
Johnson & Johnson relied on studies showing that vaccine DNA particles and
injected virus particles were still present in test animals months after
injection.
The records also show that Johnson & Johnson, as part of
its submission to the FDA for approval of its COVID vaccine, did not include
studies of the spike protein encoded in the J&J vaccine.
Biodistribution is a method of tracking where
compounds of interest travel in an experimental animal or human subject.
Judicial Watch obtained the records in response to a Freedom
of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services (No. 1:21-cv-02418)) filed after the Food
and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the
National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Disease failed to respond to a
June 8, 2021, FOIA request for:
[A]ccess to biodistribution
studies and related data for the Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson
vaccines used to treat and/or prevent SARS-CoV-2 and/or COVID-19.
The Pfizer records include a report, which was approved in February 2021, on
the animal trials on the distribution of the Pfizer COVID vaccine in rat
subjects, in a section titled “Safety Pharmacology,” the report notes, “No
safety pharmacology studies were conducted with BNT162b2 [the BioNTech vaccine]
as they are not considered necessary for the development of vaccines according
to the WHO guideline (WHO, 2005).” Similarly, under “Pharmacodynamic Drug
Interactions,” is “Nonclinical studies evaluating pharmacodynamic drug
interactions with BNT162b2 were not conducted as they are generally not
considered necessary to support development and licensure of vaccine products
for infectious diseases (WHO, 2005).”
This Pfizer report notes that when lipid nanoparticles
(LNPs) “with a comparable composition,” to that used in the Pfizer COVID
vaccine were injected into rats, “Total recovery (% of injected dose) of LNP
outside the injection site was greatest in the liver and was much less in the
spleen, adrenal glands, and ovaries.” … “in summary” … “the LNP distributes to
the liver.” In the detailed analysis, the report states, “Over 48 hours, the
LNP distributed mainly to liver, adrenal glands, spleen and ovaries, with
maximum concentrations observed at 8-48 hours post-dose. Total recovery (% of
injected dose) of LNP, for combined male and female animals, outside of the
injection site was greatest in the liver (up to 18%) …”
This same Pfizer/BioNTech study notes “No genotoxicity
studies are planned for BNT162b2 [the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID vaccine] as the components
of the vaccine constructs are lipids and RNA and are not expected to have
genotoxic potential (WHO, 2005).” Similarly, “Carcinogenicity studies with
BNT162b2 have not been conducted as the components of the vaccine construct are
lipids and RNA and are not expected to have carcinogenic or tumorigenic
potential.”
The conclusion of the study begins: “The nonclinical program
demonstrates that BNT162b2 is immunogenic in mice, rats, and nonhuman primates,
and the toxicity studies support the licensure of this vaccine.” The report
notes that “boost immunizations” were also being tested on the animals in the
trial. Also, “Vaccine-related microscopic findings at the end of dosing for
BNT162b2 were evident in injection sites and surrounding tissues, in the draining
iliac lymph nodes, bone marrow, spleen, and liver.”
Also included in the Pfizer records is a report, approved in January 2021, titled
“Pharmacokinetics Tabulated Summary.” A table in the report shows the
biodistribution of lipid nanoparticles containing mRNA used in the vaccine
using rats as the clinical trial subjects reports LNPs accumulating after 48
hours, especially in the lymph nodes, ovaries, small intestine and spleen.
A summary of a study, approved in November 2020, of LNP mRNA
distribution in rats, sponsored by Acuitas Therapeutics, notes that the
concentrations of the LNP mRNA saw “levels peaking in the plasma by 1-4 hours
post-dose and distribution mainly into liver, adrenal glands, spleen and
ovaries over 48 hours. Total recovery of radioactivity outside of the injection
site was greatest in the liver, with much lower total recovery in spleen, and
very little recovery in adrenals glands and ovaries. The mean plasma, blood and
tissue concentrations and tissue distribution patterns were broadly similar
between the sexes and … did not associate with red blood cells.”
A September 2020 “Confidential” appendix to the clinical trial studies submitted for the
Pfizer/BioNTech COVID vaccine (BNT162b2), titled “Justification for the absence
of studies in CTD Module 4 (part of 2.4)” notes under “Safety Pharmacology”
that “No safety pharmacology studies were conducted as they are not considered
necessary according to the WHO guideline (WHO, 2005).”
And under “Pharmacodynamic Drug Interactions,” is written:
“Nonclinical studies evaluating pharmacodynamic drug interactions were not
conducted as they are not generally considered necessary to support development
and licensure of vaccine products for infectious diseases (WHO, 2005).”
Under the heading “Genotoxicity,” is: “No genotoxicity
studies are planned for BNT162b2 as the components of the vaccine constructs
are lipids and RNA that are not expected to have genotoxic potential (WHO,
2005).”
Regarding “Carcinogenicity (including supportive
toxicokinetics evaluations)” is written:
Carcinogenicity studies with
BNT162b2 have not been conducted as the components of the vaccine constructs
are lipids and RNA that are not expected to have carcinogenic or tumorigenic
potential. Carcinogenicity testing is generally not considered necessary to
support the development and licensure of vaccine products for infectious
diseases (WHO, 2005).
In a “Confidential” Pfizer study, approved in April 2020, looking at four
COVID vaccine variants, the company tested a vaccine with an RNA strand “that
self-amplifies upon entering the cell.” It “encodes the Venezuelan equine
encephalitis (VEE) virus RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RDRP or replicase).”
In the same Pfizer study, the authors note that, “Although
liver function tests will be carefully monitored during the clinical
development of these vaccines, BioNTech’s prior clinical experience indicates
that the distribution to the liver does not pose a safety concern.”
Also, the Pfizer study authors note, “Based on previous
nonclinical and clinical experience with the three RNA platforms, a beneficial
safety profile is anticipated, and may include transient local reactions (such
as swelling/edema or redness) and body temperature increases.”
The Johnson & Johnson records include a 2007 study of the biodistribution of an
intramuscular-administered adenovector-based
viral vaccine using New Zealand white rabbits, which showed
that the vaccine accumulated in “the spleen, iliac lymph node, and the muscle
at the site of injection.”
A biodistribution table included as an appendix to the 2007
rabbit study showed that the vaccine DNA particles were still present in the
iliac lymph nodes 91 days after injection.
A chart of pharmacokinetics data from a November 2020 report of a study on “VAC31518
JNJ-78436735,” the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, on rabbits shows collection
of the injected virus particles in the spleen and iliac lymph nodes up to three
months later, as well as particles found in the skin and muscle at the
injection site.
In a November 4, 2020, report submitted to the FDA
regarding the Johnson & Johnson COVID vaccine, the authors discuss the 2007
New Zealand rabbit study in which adenovirus-vectored vaccine is trialed, but
note that “No pharmacokinetic or biodistribution studies have been conducted
with AD26.COV2.S specifically.”
The report notes that metabolism, excretion, and
pharmacokinetic interactions with other drugs were not studied in this trial
because they are “Not applicable to vaccines.” It is also noted that “biodistribution
studies have not been conducted with Ad26.COV2.S.”
A table in the report shows that the vaccine virus continued
to appear in the rabbits’ iliac lymph nodes 180 days after injection.
A June 2020 “Pharmacokinetics Written Summary” for the Johnson
& Johnson COVID-19 vaccines notes that:
Ad26COVS1 (also known as
VAC31518 or JNJ-78436735) is a monovalent, recombinant replication-incompetent
adenovirus type 26 (Ad26) vectored vaccine encoding a severe acute respiratory
syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Spike protein…. No specific pharmacokinetic
studies have been performed with Ad26COVS1. However, to assess distribution,
persistence, and clearance of the Ad26 vector (platform), biodistribution
studies were conducted in rabbits using two other Ad26-based vaccines encoding
[redacted] and [redacted] antigens…. [T]he available biodistribution results
are considered sufficient to inform on the biodistribution profile of
Ad26COVS1, for which the same Ad26 vector backbone is used.
“These documents show why many Americans have concerns about
whether the novel COVID vaccines that were developed at such an accelerated
pace were tested properly and thoroughly,” said Judicial Watch President Tom
Fitton.
© 2022 Judicial Watch, Inc.
