PROPHYLACTIC VACCINES / Do you see that?!

Do you remember the movie "I am Legend", doctors were trying to get rid of cancer and the damn medical intervention caused the mutation of a human/animal-like hybrid species? Vaccinologists, scientists, and clinicians are blinded by the positive short-term effects in individual patients but don't seem to bother about the disastrous consequences for global health. 

Why?! 

PROPHYLACTIC VACCINES work by exposing healthy individuals to a weakened pathogen, or parts of it, in order to trigger a protective immune response. This immune response involves various cells which attack or engulf their target to destroy it, as well as the generation of ‘memory’ immune cells. These continue to circulate in the body long after the vaccine has disappeared, ready to recognize and rapidly respond to that specific pathogen should we encounter it again. By speeding up the immune response, PROPHYLACTIC VACCINES prevent the development of disease symptoms or reduce their severity, in response to the pathogen. The prophylactic vaccines also block transmission of that pathogen to other people, by preventing it from gaining a foothold in the body and replicating. This is called sterilizing immunity. 

Do you see that in these PROPHYLACTIC VACCINES?! 

These PROPHYLACTIC VACCINES are highly dangerous when used in mass vaccination campaigns during a viral pandemic, and current human interventions could turn circulating variants into wild monsters.

This will happen because widespread vaccination will apply strong selection pressure on the virus to develop mutations that will ultimately become immune to the vaccine. People who have been vaccinated will spread the virus rather than protect the unvaccinated. Further, the immune systems of the vaccinated will be less effective at fighting variants of the virus. An unvaccinated person may stand a better chance against future virus variants.

There can be no doubt that continued mass vaccination campaigns will give rise to more viral variants with ever-increasing infectiousness and ultimately result in a dramatic incline in new cases despite enhanced vaccine coverage rates. Movies have turned out to be predictors of the future. We know they are fiction. But, imagine the bustling chaos of suddenly quiet, still, and devoid of life -- save for a solitary man and his companion, walking down a desolate, overgrown Fifth Avenue.  It doesn't mean that the elites are not trying to imitate that fiction and make it real. 

Zeljko Serdar

Aspirate Before Intramuscular Injection

Aspiration during any kind of injection is meant to ensure that the needle tip is at the desired location during this blind procedure. While aspiration appears to be a simple procedure, it has generated a lot of controversy concerning the perceived benefits and indications. Keeping in view the huge number of injections given worldwide, it is important that we draw attention to key questions regarding aspiration that, up till now, remain unanswered. Wrongly administering COVID-19 vaccines into blood vessels instead of the muscles could be behind the serious side effects.

A report published by the Journal of Korean Medical Sciences is one of the first in the world to suggest that technique known as aspiration -- which is pulling back on the syringe plunger before injecting the vaccine to ensure no blood vessel is accidentally punctured -- may provide better chances of avoiding side effects.

The report looked at Korea’s first fatal case of a rare blood clotting condition called thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome, or TTS, in a 33-year-old man who received AstraZeneca’s vaccine. He died 19 days following his first vaccination in June, after developing blood clots in the brain called cerebral venous sinus thrombosis. As of Sept. 30, the latest date for which the data is available, there were 56 confirmed cases of myocarditis, pericarditis, or both, after Pfizer’s vaccine in Korea, and seven after Moderna’s. Thirty-two out of the total 63 cases were in people under 30. One in his early 20s died.

Over the same period, three people in Korea were confirmed with TTS after their first AstraZeneca dose. Two were men in their early 30s, one of whom died, and the other a woman in her 70s.

Another study, published in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases, made similar observations with mRNA-type vaccines. The study concluded that “inadvertent intravenous injection of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines may induce myocarditis or pericarditis.” Myocarditis is inflammation of the heart muscle, and pericarditis, an inflammation of the tissue surrounding the heart.

You might think it should occur equally in men and women, and also in older men and women. But heart inflammation after mRNA vaccines is reported to be more common in young men, while blood clots after adenovirus vector vaccines are more common in young women.

Hence, intramuscular injection, with aspiration prior to injection, could be a potential preventive measure when administering adenovirus-based vaccines. Currently, the guidelines do not require health care providers to aspirate before giving a COVID-19 vaccination. 

It astonishes me that anyone in the medical field would NOT aspirate before intramuscular injection. It is shocking that this could happen worldwide. So much harm has been done and no mention that it could have been inflicted upon innocent and possibly vulnerable patients. No wonder some people don't trust the vaccination. Please, aspirate before every single IM injection. It’s so simple. This should be standard protocol in every medical institution across the world and the fact it isn’t already is shocking to me. Zeljko Serdar, CCRES

The EU’s green-investing taxonomy

Our mission is to support and enable the investment community in driving significant and real progress by 2030 towards a net-zero and resilient future. This will be achieved through capital allocation decisions, stewardship, and successful engagement with companies, policymakers, and fellow investors.

The Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC) has published an open letter to EU Member State representatives and MEPs, calling for gas to be excluded from the EU Taxonomy. IIGCC is the leading European membership body enabling the European investment community in driving significant and real progress by 2030 towards a net-zero and resilient future. IIGCC’s 370+ members, representing €50 trillion AUM, are in a position to catalyze real-world change through their capital allocation decisions, stewardship, and engagement with companies and the wider market, as well as through their policy advocacy.

Stephanie Pfeifer, CEO, IIGCC, said: “As the cornerstone of the EU’s sustainable finance agenda, the inclusion of gas would undermine the credibility of the taxonomy as well as the EU’s own commitment to climate neutrality by 2050. While there is a place for gas as a short-term bridge as part of a period of transition, it cannot honestly be classified as green.”

“For institutional investors, the inclusion of gas will limit their ability to align their portfolios and investment with net-zero. At a time when we need clarity, the inclusion of gas creates an unhelpful precedent and muddies the waters for investors looking to do the right thing.”

“The inclusion of gas also risks channeling material levels of capital towards initiatives that undermine a sustainable, net-zero future. We urge policymakers to vote accordingly.”     

Will Martindale, Group Head of Sustainability, Cardano, said: “Many investors, both asset owners, and asset managers, are trying to chart a course that supports a 1.5°C future. The inclusion of gas in the taxonomy risks undermining this ambition and creates an unnecessary headache for those looking to align their portfolios and investments with net-zero.”

“This is a landmark piece of legislation that sets the tone for the investment community globally. The ramifications of this must not be forgotten when policymakers make their final decision.”

Fossil gas should be excluded from Europe’s list of sustainable investments, according to a group of climate investors with €50 trillion worth of assets. The group added it was still considering whether to consider nuclear as a sustainable investment. In an open letter, the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC), a powerful coalition of pension funds and asset managers, has warned that labeling fossil gas as a sustainable investment risk channeling capital towards activities that are incompatible with Europe’s climate ambition. The taxonomy is designed to give investors a guide to sustainable technologies in a bid to avoid greenwashing, where companies claim to be spending money on green activities which are actually ineffective or damaging to the environment. However, the latest list of sustainable investments has been widely criticized for including nuclear and gas projects, which some environmentalists see as undermining the climate ambition of the legislation.

The IIGCC has previously called for the taxonomy to be aligned with ambitions to reach net-zero emissions and wanted it to take a science-based approach. In the open letter, it argues that the draft criteria for fossil gas to obtain a green label – a threshold of life cycle emissions of 270g C02e/kWh for projects with permits granted before 2030 – would mean energy companies could be in compliance with the taxonomy, even if they are not aligned with Europe’s net-zero emission goal. While fossil gas may have a role to play as a bridge from more-polluting coal to renewables but it cannot meet the requirements set for a transitional activity under the taxonomy legislation, the letter argues, saying its inclusion would be “misleading”. “As the cornerstone of the EU’s sustainable finance agenda, the inclusion of gas would undermine the credibility of the taxonomy as well as the EU’s own commitment to climate neutrality by 2050,” said Stephanie Pfeifer, the CEO of IIGCC. “At a time when we need clarity, the inclusion of gas creates an unhelpful precedent and muddies the waters for investors looking to do the right thing. The inclusion of gas also risks channeling material levels of capital towards initiatives that undermine a sustainable, net-zero future,” she added. The other controversial aspect of the leaked draft is the prospect of a green label being granted to nuclear energy.

Asked about nuclear’s inclusion in the taxonomy, and IIGCC spokesperson told: “We have focused on gas as this issue is the priority for our members and has been the focus of our previous engagement with the Commission regarding the taxonomy.” “While gas is our focus, we continue to explore the question of the inclusion of nuclear in the taxonomy with our members and may choose to engage on this topic in the future,” the spokesperson added. Others have been quick to criticize the inclusion of nuclear energy. The Club of Rome, a think tank made up of notable scientists, economists, business leaders, and former politicians, have criticized the inclusion of both gas and nuclear projects. The proposal “disregards four years of rigorous scientific, financial analysis and stakeholder dialogue, which had aimed to support the mobilization of capital away from stranded assets into truly sustainable and low carbon economic alternatives,” said Sandrine Dixson-Declève, co-president of the Club of Rome and member of the European Commission’s Platform on Sustainable Finance.

“The moves to label natural gas and nuclear as ‘green’, in as far as being ‘transitional activities’, is completely misleading,” she added, pointing to China, which developed a taxonomy that excludes fossil gas, and South Korea’s taxonomy, which excludes nuclear power. Environmental organizations were left dismayed by the draft, with clean mobility NGO Transport and Environment (T&E) saying the EU was “set to kill off its own sustainable finance rules by greenwashing gas”. Greenpeace argued that there is yet to be a commercially viable long-term solution for disposing of nuclear waste and that giving fossil gas a green label would “only exacerbate its devastating climate impact”.

Meanwhile, the nuclear industry body, Foratom, has welcomed the inclusion of nuclear but has warned that ambiguous wording in the draft could lead to otherwise eligible nuclear power plants missing out on the green label. The gas industry organization, Eurogas, has been more tentative in welcoming the draft, saying gas turbines were critical to rapidly transition away from coal power generation. “Eurogas holds the ambition of fully decarbonizing the gas network soon after 2045. Progressively decreasing thresholds, as expected in the taxonomy, are going to help drive that, but realistic starting points are a must,” the industry group argues. To achieve this, Eurogas says the taxonomy should include an initial threshold of 350g CO2/kWh for power generation using combined-cycle gas turbines. For CHP, the best-in-class technology is currently at around 270g CO2/kWh, Eurogas notes. The 270g CO2/kWh threshold is also the maximum accepted under the taxonomy. Above that level, energy generation technologies are considered to be making “significant harm” to the environment.

What is the EU taxonomy? 

The EU taxonomy is a classification system, establishing a list of environmentally sustainable economic activities. ... The EU taxonomy would provide companies, investors and policymakers with appropriate definitions for which economic activities can be considered environmentally sustainable.