Novavax Uses Magician’s Tricks in Vaccine Study

My last blog described a phase 3 clinical trial for Novavax vaccine published in the New England Journal of Medicine.  Like a master stage magician, this study uses distraction, illusion, and manipulation to support its conclusions.  In this blog, I will blow away some of the smoke and expose the fraud.  

For example, the authors report that all-cause mortality among trial participants is “balanced”—a word probably selected for its positive connotation.  But in a vaccine study, balanced all-cause mortality is not desirable.   An effective vaccine prevents people from dying from disease, and a safe vaccine does not cause death from vaccine complications.  Instead of balance, a reduction in all-cause mortality in a large study population supports the claim of “safe and effective” vaccine.  When all-cause mortality is balanced, the vaccine is either ineffective, unsafe, or both.  Yet the authors leave the reader with the illusion that “balanced” all-cause mortality is a good thing.

The study concludes that the vaccine is effective.  While the data shows Novavax vaccine reduced SARS-CoV-2 infections, most of the infections prevented were mild.  The vaccine provided the best protection against the original strain, a strain that is no longer a threat.  It prevented “moderate-severe COVID” in a tiny fraction of participants, and it saved no lives.  Does that make it effective?

To answer that question, we must examine the other side of the equation.  We must ask whether these potential benefits are worth the cost of taking the vaccine.  Cost is measured in adverse effects.

Nearly 80% of the vaccinated, four times more than control, experienced adverse effects.  Although the reported adverse effects were mild, the monitoring period averaged only two months.

Safety cannot be proven in two months.  Because of the law of delayed consequences, observations over years, even decades, are needed to assure a substance is safe for injection.  It took generations to recognize the harmful effects of diethylstilbestrol, a synthetic hormone.  Yet this study eliminated the possibility of finding serious long-term vaccine complications by eliminating the control group after 3-4 months. 

Does this vaccine cause serious consequences 6 months after vaccination?  Is all-cause mortality higher in the vaccinated after a year?  We will never know because the researchers vaccinated the control group.  The study is corrupted.  The “A/B” test is now an “A/A” test.

Then, like a great magician, the authors substitute fake science for real science by stating that “hazard models have been proposed for subsequent analyses.”

The proposal to monitor for long term ill-effects with a “hazard model” mocks the clinical trial process.  If actual observation of the actual response to actual vaccines in actual human beings over time can be replaced by computer models, why ever bother with clinical trials?  Clinical trials are messy, expensive, and painful.  Sometimes they flop.  Yet clinical trials necessary to establish knowledge.  They cannot be replaced by “hazard models.”

This is not just bad science; this is anti-science.  Science requires strict adherence to the scientific method.  Anything else is wishful fantasy.  Or worse—a deliberate deception. 

We have seen these tricks before.  Eliminating control groups, hiding adverse findings, covering contradictory evidence with high gloss rhetoric, and cherry-picking data characterized Pfizer’s authorization studies.  These ruses are eloquently detailed by Robert Kennedy, Jr., in his book The Real Anthony Fauci.

I am not saying that Novavax is a bad vaccine.  Maybe an alternative to mRNA is a good thing, and maybe some individuals could benefit from this vaccine.  Since the data is incomplete, I cannot say.  What I can say is that this study about the Novavax vaccine is dishonest, yet it forms the foundation of Novavax’s EUA application.

And why is FDA considering an emergency use authorization for a new vaccine so late in the game?  Clearly, it is time to end the emergency.  We need to wind up emergency use authorizations.  EUA products should be licensed or discarded.  We do not need another EUA vaccine.

Maybe the FDA is considering EUA for “Novavax COVID-19 Vaccine, Adjuvanted” because it is the first COVID vaccine to show feasibility as a combination vaccine with flu.  Perhaps this was part of the game all along.

One more thing.  Novavax inadvertently debunked the claim that vaccination-induced immunity is superior to disease-induced immunity.  The “Novavax COVID-19 Vaccine, Adjuvanted” uses a proprietary protein “Matrix-M,” to present spike protein because it is thought to better resemble virus than other vaccines.  According to a company press release, “This arrangement mimics nature, helping your immune system recognize that target protein from different angles—the same way that your immune system would see the details of a real pathogen.”

Until now, we have been told that the immune effects of the real virus are insufficient.  We must have spike protein coating our own cells—the proposed mechanism of mRNA vaccines—to stimulate effective immunity, even after infection by real virus.  Novavax differentiates its vaccine from mRNA by its ability to mimic a “real pathogen,” implying that real pathogens stimulate the best immunity.  Of course, this was the dogma of medical science for eons, until 2020 when the buildup to mRNA vaccine release required a new theory of immunology.

Thank you, Novavax, for setting us straight on this point.