Pfizer & Moderna distance themselves from J&J…

Ask  yourself: Why is that?

Last week, the WSJ published a report that may foreshadow vaccine developments over the next couple of months.

Well-publicized, distribution of  the J&J vaccine was suspended in the U.S. due to  a handful of blood-clotting cases.  The Feds review board was expected to lift the suspension last Friday, but pushed the decision off by at least a week.

Fauci & Friends asserted that the J&J vaccine is safe, that the suspension was just an “an abundance of caution” and that the delayed decision was no big deal.

Less well-publicized: According to the WSJ’s “exclusive report”, J&J (and AstraZenaca)approached Pfizer and Moderna “to join forces to investigate the safety issues and communicate vaccine benefits and risks”.

But, Pfizer and Moderna rebuffed the invitation, confiding to WSJ reporters that “their vaccines appeared safe” and that “the safety of the Pfizer and Moderna shots could be tarnished by association”.


The “experts” and the media keep down-playing (or completely ignoring) a basic fact: There are two very different vaccine modalities in play: Pfizer & Moderna are single strand mRNA vaccines; J&J and AstraZeneca are double strand “viral-vector DNA” vaccines.

Both types penetrate a body’s cells, but only the viral-vector DNA vaccines are “nuclei-invasive”, meaning that they penetrate cells’ nuclei.

For more details, see: J&J vaccine is halted … so what?

Fauci & Friends say not to worry … asserting that the vaccines’ DNA strands are rendered harmless before they are injected and, thus, are incapable of causing long-term health consequences.

My most “in-the-know” medical-science friends tell me (off the record, of course): “Not so fast”.

They point out that “messing with DNA is inherently dicey” and, since the vaccines are “novel”, that  there is no concrete evidence — either pro or con — regarding the long-term health risks of viral-vector DNA vaccines.

Note: Ebola vaccines are viral-vectors, but even they are too recent to dismiss long-term risks.

It could be that a few blood-clotting cases may be isolated flukes (less than a 1 in a million occurrence), or they may be proverbial canaries-in-coal mines.

Keep an eye on this one.

DISCLAIMER: I’m not a medical professional or scientist — just a curious, self-interested guy.  So, don’t take anything that I say or write as medical advice. Get that from your doctor!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: