Introducing Transparency

Deciphering medical literature on controversial topics and empowering everyday people to communicate confidently.

Everything You Need to Know about the COVID 19 Vaccine

Our free guide will get you up to speed quickly and summarize trial results, government reports, and all publicly known knowledge about the vaccine.

Johnson and Johnson get their Shot at Covid-19 Vaccine EUA

Johnson and Johnson recently announced that they have met their COVID-19 vaccine trial's primary endpoint. They are now seeking Emergency Use Authorization from the FDA for their one-dose vaccine for Sars-Cov-2 called JNJ-78436735 or Ad26.COV2.S by J&J's pharmaceutical arm Janssen who developed the product. A meeting will be held on February 26, 2021, to determine if the first single-dose vaccine will receive emergency use authorization. According to Johnson and Johnson the vaccine is overall 66% effective in preventing moderate to severe COVID-19, 28 days after vaccination. Unlike Pfizer and Moderna this vaccine leverages a more traditional vaccine technology called AdVac. Instead of using mRNA, AdVac is a vector (carrier) technology, the vector is based on a genetically modified version of the adenovirus, which carries in the genetic code of an antigen (pieces of viruses, bacteria, or pathogens). Explained by Janssen: "The AdVac® technology works by using an adenovirus as a vector (a carrier) of an antigen’s genetic code, to mimic components of a pathogen (a bacterium, virus, or other disease-causing organisms). Antigens (components of a pathogen) are produced to mimic the pathogen, without causing severe disease." Although this technology has produced several vaccine candidates for viruses such as HIV, RSV, and Zika it has never been licensed in the United States. The previously mentioned vaccines are currently only candidates. Janssen's Ebola two-dose regimen...

read more

AstraZeneca and the Aborted Fetal Tissue Question

Recently the AstraZeneca Covid-19 vaccine was approved for use in the UK and is being widely distributed. This vaccine uses more traditional mechanisms than the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines and thus, the use of aborted fetal tissue is a concern. There was even a viral video of the packaging showing cell-lines as an ingredient. After which, many articles were written purporting to have "debunked" this claim. However, now that the vaccine ingredients have been released to the public it is clear that there is still cellular debris from aborted fetal tissue in the vaccine (please see section 2 and the screenshot below). Ingredients of the AstraZeneca Covid Vaccine HEK-293 cells were obtained in the 1970s from an aborted female fetus, of unspecified origin by Dr. Frank Graham. The name HEK293 was put on this cell line because it was Frank Graham’s 293rd experiment. Usually, they are used for testing food products, however, many manufacturers have used these cells to help in the creation of various COVID-19 vaccines. There will likely be many claims that, although spike protein was produced on human embryonic kidney cells there are none of those cells left in the vaccine. Despite there being a purifying process, it is chemically impossible to remove all of the stems cells in their entirety. Please note at the bottom of the image above states, "This product contains genetically modified organisms." What are those genetically modified organisms, you may ask? The, "genetically...

read more

Adverse Events of the COVID-19 Vaccines

It has been a few weeks since both the Pfizer and the ModernaTX vaccine have been released. As of December 31, 2020, according to the Department of Health and Human Service's vaccine adverse reporting system, there have been 16,054 adverse events from the Covid-19 vaccinations in the United States. Some of the most serious and common side effects listed are: 10 reported deaths841 headaches557 cases of nausea511 cases of chills464 cases of pyrexia472 cases of paraesthesia397 rashes233 cases of chest pain and discomfort212 cases of palpitations2,014 cases of tachycardia151 cases of vomiting167 cases of urticaria253 cases of throat irritation86 cases of tremors107 "unevaluable events" There are hundreds of other side effects listed including 2 autoimmune disorders. However, it is difficult to assess how accurate these numbers are or if they are related to the vaccine. VAERS allows anyone who has been vaccinated to submit a report. However, rather than there being an overflow of reports, injuries are vastly under-reported. If you read my post about vaccine liability you know that a CDC commissioned study by Harvard Pilgram found that less than one percent of adverse events are ever reported. The COVID-19 Vaccine Reporting It seems that this vaccine is following a similar route. Although there appears to be a significant increase in reporting on adverse events than there has been with other vaccines, adverse events are still being under-reported. According to the CDC's...

read more

Moderna Vaccine: The Current Unknowns

On December 17, 2020, Moderna submitted a 54-page document to the FDA containing the data from their vaccine trials. When compared to Pfizer's original data, there are some obvious differences although the two are using the same technology and had a similar demographic and number of participants in their trials. One of these differences doesn't have to do with adverse events or efficacy data, (though I will be dissecting those as I update our guide, Everything You Need to Know about the COVID-19 Vaccine), it has to do with declaring the unknowns of this vaccine. Specifically the known unknowns. The Beginning of the Unknown Starting on page 48 Moderna lists "Unknown Benefits/Data Gaps," these include: Duration of ProtectionEffectiveness in certain populations at high risk of severe COVID-19Effectiveness in individuals previously infected with SARS-CoV-2Effectiveness in pediatric populationsFuture vaccine effectiveness as influenced by characteristics of the pandemic, changes in the virus, and/or potential effects of co-infectionsVaccine effectiveness against asymptomatic infectionVaccine effectiveness against long-term effects of COVID-19 diseaseVaccine effectiveness against mortalityVaccine effectiveness against transmission of SARS-CoV-2 Although I would love to dig into each one of these unknowns, many of the above speak for themselves, so let's just take on the important or more complicated issues. 1. Duration of protection The vaccine trials only lasted for around 8...

read more

Why Weren’t There More Cases of COVID-19 During the Pfizer Trial?

It has been nearly impossible to keep up with all the additional data emerging about the COVID-19 vaccine from both Pfizer and Moderna TX. I already feel like I need to make many updates to my guide, Everything You Need to Know About the COVID-19 Vaccine. However, I don't want to put out a brand new copy every time there is the tiniest update in my analysis. So, I thought, instead I would give you a quick sneak peek here in a blog post, to get the information out and the wheels turning. New Data on Efficacy Hidden Within the Pfizer Trial We have all heard multiple times that the Pfizer vaccine's efficacy rate is somewhere around 95%. This efficacy rate is defined from the following data (from the same source), "The first primary objective analysis is based on 170 cases of COVID-19, as specified in the study protocol, of which 162 cases of COVID-19 were observed in the placebo group versus 8 cases in the BNT162b2 group." The first thing I thought after reading this data was, "one hundred and seventy cases is an incredibly small sample size to base complete efficacy data from." Especially when the entire purported population of the study was over 35,000 individuals. It seems as though these were the only cases based on the way that efficacy has been reported by Pfizer as well as by the FDA However, we are often reminded that cases are skyrocketing, in the US and all over the world, so, even though the study period was quite short, should we not have seen more cases in...

read more

Vaccine Liability: How Vaccines fit into the Legal Picture

We often hear people in movies say things like, "I'll sue you," or see scenes of our hero meeting with lawyers and using the system to get justice. But, what do the words, "I'll sue you," really mean in the context of pharmaceuticals and vaccines? You may have heard about the recent lawsuits against Johnson and Johnson or Bayer's subsidiary Monsanto due to evidence that their products cause cancer. The damages for these claims total over 11 billion dollars. Both of the items in question are household products, used for years. One, a talcum powder used for baby diaper rashes, and the other a weed killer. Things the average American doesn't give any thought to using. If this is the case with ordinary products with a history of long-time use, what about things that play a much larger chemical role in our lives? If a drug causes someone injury, how does that person get redress? There are a couple of ways this is done. Most of the time, when a drug has harmed someone, that person can file a personal injury claim. This is different than a medical malpractice suit, which is specifically filed to sue a particular health care provider or pharmacist. A personal injury claim, in the case of pharmaceuticals, is much like a product liability claim. The short of the long of it is, the plaintiff (or the person who is claiming injury/defect) can file a suit against the manufacturer of the product to get redress for harms done. A Preponderance of Evidence In that suit, the plaintiff has the...

read more

19th Century Mortality Rates: Why did Deaths from Disease Suddenly decrease by 74%?

Those of you who read my post about herd immunity may be asking yourself this question: "If America has never reached the medical standard of herd immunity, (a 95% vaccination rate), why aren't people dying from disease left and right?" "Why aren't people dying from as many sicknesses as before?" Which leads to the question of, what caused the 74% mortality rate decrease from the late 1900s until now? [I want to put in a caveat before I begin this post - I will specifically be speaking about mortality (or the death rate) dropping. This post is not specifically about morbidity, (or the number of people infected). I will address morbidity in a separate post, there is far too much to address both of these topics in one sitting.] Mortality Rate Answers from the CDC: So, let's get back to answering the question of why mortality rates dropped by 74% in the twentieth century. First, I will turn to the CDC to answer what is not responsible for the 74% decline in mortality. In 2000 the CDC, along with doctors at John Hopkins produced a study in Pediatrics called, "Annual summary of vital statistics: trends in the health of Americans during the 20th century." The study aimed to understand the large drop in Mortality in the twentieth century compared to centuries past. This was their explicit analysis: “Thus vaccination does not account for the impressive declines in mortality seen in the first half of the century…nearly 90% of the decline in infectious disease mortality among US...

read more

5 Tips on How to Talk to Others about Controversial Subjects

Now that we have established that herd immunity, at least in the vaccinated sense, is an illusion--how do we talk to people about it? I am just going to give you a quick "don'ts" list first. I think this may be the best way to help you avoid any large mishaps. Some of these you may see many times as you read more of my posts about how to talk with people. They continually seem to creep up in our everyday conversations on difficult topics. They are bad habits we have to break if we are ever going to really get through to people, so it is worth mentioning more than once. 1) DON'T text. Do not, do not, do not, DO NOT try to have these conversations over text, messenger, IG, Twitter, etc. I KNOW you want to and I KNOW you will. And you will lose. I understand that this is the main way that we communicate, but it is just not effective for this kind of communication. Anyone can lose in a text message. Even I lose using text messages. The reason why has to do with two major problems with these short-form communication tools. Reason #1 There is the obvious problem of being able to interpret the written word any way you want. Meaning, there is no implicit tone or body language in writing, like there is when actually speaking with each other in person. So, if the other person is angry, it doesn't really matter if there are a million heart emojis in your text; suddenly, what you have written is going to seem pompous and belittling. Words can be read in such a different way than you...

read more

The Journey to ResearchBased

I think it's important for people to understand why ResearchBased was born. It's a long and controversial story, so buckle up. It's also important, so I hope you will read it all. Working in Research I started out just like any other bright-eyed college student. I was so excited to make a difference in the world and I thought that research was truly the way to do that. Throughout college, I had worked for a research conference. I had done a little bit of everything, looking over submitted projects and research, helping get the event together, and public relations which entailed posting on Facebook about the newest and most interesting studies. I had taken a couple of research courses and it became a large part of my minor, so reading these studies and the whole research process was fascinating to me. I went above and beyond to learn about research, how it should be done, how it shouldn't be done, and everything in between.   Right after college, I started working at a company known mostly for survey research called Qualtrics. The job that I was doing was more consultative, I worked with high touch companies and universities, like Harvard, Duke, Stanford, Yale, Google, Nike, etc. and we would plan out their studies and how we were going to get the participants they needed. I would go and find these participants to make sure the study was all good to go and bill them as they started the project. I was able to talk to some very brilliant people, CEOs, and professors,...

read more

The Herd Immunity Illusion

I am going to lay out a scenario here. You may or may not agree with this scenario. You may or may not have experienced this scenario. However, I chose this one because it illustrates a point I want to make about herd immunity and why and how the science around herd immunity is so controversial. After thinking it over for a long time and stewing and waiting and weighing their friendship a parent finally decides to tell a friend that they have some doubts about the mainstream medical narrative. They may start by mentioning something offhandedly about toxins or certain procedures not making any sense. Eventually, and slowly, their friend starts to get the picture that this parent's beliefs about health are a little “alternative.” Sometimes this goes over smoothly, but most of the time, it does not. All of a sudden there’s a text message telling them that their kids are not allowed over anymore. This message may be the “nice” kind where her friend tells her something like, “I feel so bad about this” and “I still think you’re a really great parent but…” or this may be the blatantly rude kind where they are suddenly labeled as “selfish” or a “freeloader” or “I can’t believe you could do this to your child! You’re a baby-killer!” Whichever it is, it isn’t a pretty sight. They take a deep breath and let it out as they roll their eyes. “There goes another friend,” they think scolding themselves that they decided to trust that person in the first place. Let's take a step back. Why...

read more