I suspect some of you have already heard of Novavax, but many others not.
In early July I wrote about the D.A.D Strategy (Delay. Avoid. Delay)
Novavax was an integral part of that strategy, so I thought it was worth commenting on again over three months later.
Mechanism of Action
Let’s start with how it works. The current crop of options in Australia (Pfizer, Astra Zeneca and Moderna) all do the same thing but in separate ways. They use new genetic technology to get your cells to produce spike protein.
This is the fundamental problem. The mRNA doesn’t stay in your arm (as initially thought or hoped) and travels all over the body, settling in cells that end up producing the toxic (yes, cytotoxic it is) spike protein in those locations. Your body gets flooded with spike protein and some people produce more of it than others leading to a broad range of serious side effects (that are being suppressed from the public square).
If you want to understand these risks better and don’t mind putting aside a few hours to study up, you could do worse than read this:
In this review we first describe the technology underlying these vaccines in detail. We then review both components of and the intended biological response to these vaccines, including production of the spike protein itself, and their potential relationship to a wide range of both acute and long-term induced pathologies, such as blood disorders, neurodegenerative diseases, and autoimmune diseases.
This is one of the more important highlights of the paper:
Three years or so from now no one will connect the dots between the injections and increased diseases.
On the other hand, there is Novavax. The mechanism of action is different.
The spike protein is manufactured outside of our bodies and then injected into the arm, giving our immune system a chance to see it and develop some immunity. Importantly it doesn’t get your cells to produce spike, meaning less spike in your system (that’s a good thing) and hopefully just located in your arm (which is good thing again). According to Steve Kirsch (and I am not in a position to disagree with him, and I trust him as a credible source of honest analysis) it has an acceptable risk profile. For now, that’s good enough for me.
Here are some highlights from:
Based on what I now know about the miniscule vaccine benefits (less than a .5% reduction in absolute risk), side effects (including death), current COVID rates, and the success rate of early treatment protocols, the answer I would give today to anyone asking me for advice as to whether to take any of the current vaccines would be, “Just say NO.” Waiting for Novavax (and other traditional vaccines) is a much safer option. If you get COVID in the meantime, treating with early treatment protocols that incorporate fluvoxamine and ivermectin is vastly superior to getting the most dangerous vaccine in the last 30 years.
This was written on June 1, 2021. My views may change as new evidence and new vaccines emerge. I’m particularly excited about the Novavax, Covaxin, and Valneva vaccines because they may have a superior safety profile than the current vaccines and the Valneva is likely to lead to much broader immunity. Novavax reports minimal side-effects. That is the key.
At the present time, if I had to order preferred approaches to COVID I would choose Novavax, Covaxin, or Valneva vaccine when widely available if and only if the superior safety data is confirmed (no free spike in blood, distribution limited to arm, no excess SAEs) and I haven’t had COVID
And these highlights from:
We are not anti-vax. The Novavax vaccine appears to have a much better safety profile, comparable to other vaccines. The antigen for these vaccines is pre-manufactured and there are no LNPs that would transport the spike protein into unwanted areas.
Safe vaccines are fine; we have no objections. For example, the safety data from the Novavax COVID vaccine, which uses a traditional approach, is superior to any of the gene-based vaccines, yet the efficacy is comparable. Why won’t the FDA allow it to be used in the US? The answer: once people learn the truth, nobody will want the gene-based vaccines.
Newer vaccines have been already shown to be much safer. As of June 19, the safety data for the Novavax vaccine is significantly safer by at least a factor of two or more. Why isn’t the FDA allowing it to be used in the US? Answer: because nobody would take any of the other vaccines if Novavax was made available. Drug company profits in the US are apparently more important than people’s lives.
And this from the UK:
The Novavax vaccine has been found to be 89% effective and to work well against the Kent Covid variant in trials. It will now go to be considered for approval by the MHRA. Britain has 60 million doses on order, which will be produced at Stockton on Tees, and if approved it will take Britain’s vaccine doses total to 217 million. The Novavax vaccine is closer to a traditional type of vaccine than the mRNA Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, containing purified pieces of the spike protein that are administered with an adjuvant, a molecule that enhances the immune response.
A senior Government source said the U.K. would also benefit from new vaccines from Novavax and Valneva, which are awaiting approval from the U.K.’s medicines regulator.
51 million doses (for Australia)
So, our government went ahead and bought us 51M doses to be precise (2 doses for every man, woman and child).
Clearly, they are happy for us to take it.
The Unjabbed are the Untermensch
If you have not succumbed to the jab yet, you are under increasing pressure, from all corners. In NSW for example, they have started “giving back” some of the freedoms they stole, but only to the jabbed and only very conditionally.
Others are facing direct job loss of significant employer pressure under the threat of job loss, if they don’t comply. So, the unjabbed have become the Untermensch (look it up).
Novavax helps to change the calculus. Assuming you cannot afford to lose your job (honestly who can?). Assuming it becomes available and assuming it has the promised acceptable risk profile, then taking it vs losing your job is a reasonable risk-based decision. I cannot fault it.
In a normal world (the one we had before March 2020) taking your chances with a flu like virus would have been considered reasonable, especially if you are under 70. But considering that we don’t live in a normal world anymore, the question becomes one of trying to navigate this new world with the least risk and cost possible. Novavax is potentially that low risk “ticket” back into a jobs, travel, and broader society.
Four government approved options
I think this point is worth repeating. Your own government has said that they have gone ahead and ordered 51M doses for you. It’s not as if you are waiting for some voodoo medicine only found in the deepest bowels of conspiracy theory rabbit holes. You are simply waiting for a government sanctioned product. It is a very reasonable position to take.
Conversations with employers
This is assuming you don’t want to put up some resistance (which would be my initial and recommended course of action). But if that is not an option, and you are OK with taking Novavax, then, in response to an employer’s pressure (or anyone else’s for that matter) it would be very reasonable to say something like this:
When are you getting vaccinated?
I will get vaccinated, definitely. Actually, looking forward to it to tell you the truth.
I’ve been reading up on the side effects and risks of the four government vaccines available and so I’ve decided to wait a bit longer for Novavax. It’s at least as effective as the current ones with a safer risk profile.
Setting it up this way is not only true but tells your employer that you know a thing or two about side effects and if they push the subject, you can go back to them with evidence of all the problems. It sets up a risk-based discussion, if they are game enough to go there.
Most people will back off and let you wait for a safer option.
When is it coming?
Well, according to a 4th Oct 21 interview with Federal Health Minister Greg Hunt:
So Novavax around the world, it's finishing off its clinical trials. Our guidance is that our first supplies are likely to be November, but they haven't been confirmed and they haven't registered in any country or commenced distribution. But the latest guidance from my discussions on the weekend with the company were still November, but we're waiting for them to complete their trials and their registrations around the world.
Risks to this strategy
There is a multi-billion-dollar battle going on between the Big Pharma gorillas. It is possible that Novavax falls victim to this. It is not out of the question that Novavax doesn’t get its US FDA approvals nor its Australian TGA approvals. There is a lot invested in maintaining the current narrative around the current vaccines. Novavax potentially ruins that narrative by being genuinely safer and framing the rest as unsafe (which they are). So that is one possible and very real risk.
The other risk is that it gets approved but only as a booster, so removing it as an option for the Untermensch. That would allow them to maintain their narrative and only provide this safer option to those who already took the risk of the first ones. Another real possibility.
Not much we can do about either risk, but we will just roll with the punches if either of these possibilities plays out. We regroup and restrategise.
Chronology of further reading