African Children as Guinea Pigs: A Look at GSK's Malaria Jab

Once more, 'the science™' is hard at work 'vaccinating', with 'partly protective' jabs, little concern for a truthful accounting of safety issues, to say nothing about legacy media gaslighting

It seems as if the pace of events is quickening, but not in a good way: a few weeks ago, I saw the below-reproduced piece on Norwegian state broadcaster NRK’s website. It documents, in a very misleading way, the roll-out of a ‘new’ anti-malarial vaccine in sub-Saharan Africa.

Branded as a grand gesture of philanthropy, the piece is full of omissions and mischaracterisations about the product, its background, and its history.

In fact, it reeks of the ongoing normalisation of child sacrifices by pharmaceutical intervention. Long-term readers know that I’ve addressed these issues before in the context of the HPV death jabs:

HPV Injection Kills 19yo Student in Austria While Media Pushes the Jabs by Association with HIV/AIDS

So, today, we’ll add another pharmaceutical product (sic) to the list of crap we’re investigating.

All non-English content is translated by me, with emphases added. Sigh.

One last word of caution here: I’m of course aware that malaria is a very bad disease, and that it’s very unfortunate it’s still so pervasive in certain parts of the world. None of this, however, should gloss over the fact that the eradication of water-dwelling, mosquito-borne, and malaria(-like) disease in the northern hemisphere was due to the draining of marshlands, sanitation, better hygiene, and more plentiful food. The spraying of pesticides—esp. DDT—also did a lot in this context (also making humans sick), but note that none of these aspects play a role in what follows.

---

Kia (2) is the First of Many to be Diagnosed with the Disease

Every year malaria kills tens of thousands of African children. Now, in a historical first, a new anti-malaria vaccine is rolled out. Cameroonian babies are the first in line.

By Vegard Tjørholm, NRK, 18 Aug. 2024 [source]

‘I have huge problems with malaria here. There is so much garbage all around [told you so], and the mosquitos like to swarm and hover above it’, says Aurline Fuebu.

She holds her one year old baby in her arms and reads about all the vaccines that are part of Cameroon’s vaccination programme.

And one of the vaccines is brand-new. So new, in fact, that Cameroon has been in the news all over the world.

The country is the first to include a vaccine against malaria in its national childhood vaccination programme.

‘It’s good to know, because I’ve already had malaria, I’ve been in the hospital for several days, and it was enormously difficult. So I’m very hopeful that this time, hopefully, if this is possible, we can eradicate this disease’, explains Fuebu.

94% of All Malaria Cases Occure in Africa

She is one of many mothers and fathers who are waiting in line to get vaccinated. Everyone knows someone who died of malaria, and virtually all of them have been infected themselves by the diseases, which is spread by mosquitos.

In 2022, 94% of all registered cases of malaria were in Africa, and 95% of all malaria-related deaths occurred in Africa.

People of all ages were affected, but for children under the age of five, the elderly, and those with preexisting conditions, malaria is a serious threat.

‘It is my job to disseminate information [about the vaccine] to parents. Three months ago, I began this task’, explains nurse Danielle Ekoto. She works with doctors at a clinic in Yaounde, which was visited by NRK.

Ekoto adds that scepticism about the vaccines is very limited, even though Cameroonians are the first world-wide to receive the injections on a grand scale. She hopes that a vaccine against malaria will triumph over vaccine hesitancy [so that is the aim here? Who’s running this campaign?]:

It is a very new and good program. I am proud to see the roll-out of a new vaccine that that protects our children.

Thus Danielle Ekoto, who administered several hundreds of vaccinations per day.

[Here follows an info box that explains something about the injections: the product used in Cameroon goes by the name RTS S, and it is also known as Moquirix; it is manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline in collaboration with PATH, a self-declared organisation dedicated to achieving ‘vaccine equity’, is a ‘charitable’ institution (as per US law) financed overwhelmingly by ‘foundations’ and the US gov’t, and their list of donors (p. 26-29) list, well, a ton of ‘usual suspects’.

And then there’s the Matrix-M product developed—much like the AstraZeneca Covid gene therapy product—by the U of Oxford (AZ is one of PATH’s donors, by the way). Reference is made to several studies and trials, with the results summarised as follows:

Both products were ‘repeatedly tested’ in Ghana, Malawi, and Kenya, ‘resulting in a -13% change in death rates’, achieved albeit ‘irrespective of malaria or other diseases being the cause of death’.

The information box derives information from GAVI, the Gates-funded pro-jab diehards, ‘with generous support from Norway’, the infobox concludes.]

Fear that Children will Die

The year-old Kia is one of the three children who are now at the centre of attention because they are receiving a few jabs in their arms. Accurately, however, Kia’s mother Chrystel Bifouma is opposed to letting her daughter out of site:

‘I am afraid I’m going to lose my child’, she says looking at her daughter, adding:

Since I was little, I have lived with malaria. And I also realised that my children are born with the same risk. But now I feel very good because I know she received the vaccine.

[The whole ‘article™’ features three more such images and two videos to emotionally highjack the reader’s attention; I’m reproducing but this one here because of the caption: ‘Kia has already had malaria, and she overcame it. Now her mother hopes to prevent a new round of illness with the new vaccine’. We’ll look at one of the underlying studies below the article.]

Bifouma’s grandfather was infected with malaria [it’s unclear if he died with or of malaria], and her daughter Kia has already had the disease, too.

The vaccines her daughter now received was found to be effective, but mention must be made that a second, new malaria vaccine is on the way to marketing authorisation, too.

To Effective Vaccines

It has taken time to develop a malaria vaccine, but this has happened in the last few years [keep this timeframe in mind].

‘As a malaria researcher, I would like to try and find an effective vaccine against malaria. Now I have two’, says WHO director Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, adding that last October he noticed a second vaccine candidate exhibiting positive result.

Professor emeritus of the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Allister Craig, said to the Associated Press that the vaccines will save lives:

If the new vaccine is used across the whole of Africa, it can lead to a dramatic reduction in the number of cases of malaria in the next few years. [remember: a ‘case’ derives from testing and/or a clinical diagnosis, while mortality is recorded by state statisticians]

And now Chrystel is sitting on a wooden bench in Cameroon, full of hope and optimism about the doctor walking towards her.

I truly hope that everyone is bearing witness for just how important this is because of everything I and all other mothers had to endure due to malaria.

He then takes Kia and sits her down on his lap, and then the sweet children’s smile is quickly replaced with a few minutes of crying as the important injection needle disappears in her small arm [I’m puking as I translate this].

‘The Science™’ on the Malaria Injections

Needless to say, I was vomiting all over the place reading this fawning piece of agit-prop masquerading as ‘journalism™’. And then I searched for what ‘the Science™’ actually ordained about the malaria vaccine used, which goes by the name RTS S or Mosquirix, manufactured by GSK.

It didn’t take very long for me to find out about it; here’s the link to the paper ‘RTS,S/AS01 vaccine (Mosquirix™): an overview’ by one Matthew B. Laurens, which appeared in Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2020; 16(3): 480–489, from which I shall reproduce, and comment on, a few choice excerpts (I’ve removed the references, for them, please click the link and look them up):

Abstract

Malaria is an illness caused by Plasmodium parasites transmitted to humans by infected mosquitoes. Of the five species that infect humans, P. falciparum exacts the highest toll in terms of human morbidity and mortality, and therefore represents a major public health threat in endemic areas. Recent advances in control efforts have reduced malaria incidence and prevalence, including rapid diagnostic testing, highly effective artemisinin combination therapy, use of insecticide-treated bednets [this seems to be the most cost-effective measure, esp. in terms of ‘adverse events’], and indoor residual spraying. But, reductions in numbers of cases have stalled over the last few years, and incidence may have increased. As this concerning trend calls for new tools to combat the disease, the RTS,S vaccine has arrived just in time. The vaccine was created in 1987 [oh, look at that: the above piece claimed it appeared ‘in recent years’] and began pilot implementation in endemic countries in 2019 [what took you guys so long?] This first-generation malaria vaccine demonstrates modest efficacy against malaria illness and holds promise as a public health tool, especially for children in high-transmission areas where mortality is high.

Huhum, stuff that was made almost forty years ago: why wasn’t it rolled out back then? Who made this concoction, by the way? (We’ll soon find out, no worries.) And then there’s the ‘modest efficacy’, as per ‘the Science™’, which flies into the face of the preposterous claims made in the above article. This all reminds me of the ‘100% effective’ claims of the modRNA Covid gene therapy shitshow, but I digress.

Here’s what the author writes about malaria control efforts (nevermind: he’s a cheap sell-out shilling for vaccines). Here’s parts of the introduction:

An effective malaria vaccine would be an important tool to combat the enormous socioeconomic burden caused by this disease. Vaccines promote both individual and public health, and are thus considered among the most highly successful public health tools. After provision of clean water and sanitation, vaccination against infectious diseases has contributed the greatest to public health worldwide, compared with other human interventions.

So, I told you above what would help more than vaccines, but, of course, the GAVI-supplied ‘info-material™’ tells everyone that it’s them jabs that do the thing. For once, ‘the Science™’, while regurgitating the party line, agrees.

In recognition of malaria’s global importance, the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 3, to ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages, targets a 90% reduction in malaria incidence and mortality by 2030 [no way ‘the provision of clean water and sanitation’ can be achieved by then, perhaps, if we wouldn’t fight each other but pour resources and engineers into sub-Saharan Africa, but that would benefit Africans, as opposed to Big Pharma]. This goal also includes malaria elimination in at least 35 endemic countries. Advances in malaria control include strategies to control the vector using insecticide-treated bed nets, larval source management, and indoor residual spraying [another set of things to do before vaccination, but that would benefit Africans, as opposed to Big Pharma]. Intermittent preventive therapy provides antimalarials to vulnerable groups to clear parasites and prevent infection [and yet more such ‘stuff’, which benefits Africans, as opposed to Big Pharma]. Other efforts that remain in development include mass drug administration and genetically modified mosquitoes [oh, that does benefit Big Pharma and the Gates-associated ventures; note that the question of ‘what could go wrong’, esp. with respect to ‘genetically modified mosquitoes’ doesn’t cross Matthew Laurens’ mind]. In parallel with these efforts, the first WHO-directed malaria vaccine implementation studies are underway to determine how to maximize public health benefit of the most advanced malaria vaccine to date, the RTS,S vaccine.

Mind you, this paper is from 2019-20, but keep in mind that the vaccine was developed in 1987—and ask yourself: who developed it? And why were these trials only rolled out in 2017?

Well, here’s ‘the science™’ ‘splainin’ things:

RTS,S vaccine was created in 1987 as part of a collaboration between GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research (WRAIR) that began in 1984.

Are you surprised yet? If, by the way, you’re asking yourself now: what took so long? Well, fear not, ‘the science™’ is good at ‘splainin’ things:

A full-length CSP antigen proved difficult to produce at the time, the research team used GSK’s Escherichia coli elaboration system to produce a subunit antigen based on the central repeat region, work supported by epitope mapping of protective monoclonal antibodies to this region. Among four candidate antigens produced, one advanced to clinical testing in humans with controlled human malaria infection (CHMI), and demonstrated protection in a single volunteer [I’ve looked at the referenced paper (which appeared in The Lancet in 1987: that trial had a study population (sic) of three (!!!) people, or, if you’re a Big Pharma whore, a third of study participants were ‘protected’]. Multiple attempts to advance a standalone CSP subunit vaccine continued, but none showed significant clinical efficacy.

Oh, your fascinating vaccine design failed, that’s why it took so long.

Using expertise gained during development of the Energix-B™ vaccine against Hepatitis B [what does it matter which pathogen is the target, right?], researchers at GSK then pioneered the use of hepatitis B surface antigen as a carrier matrix for the CSP central repeat region, and added the CSP C terminal region that contains T- and B-cell epitopes, all based on the P. falciparum NF54 strain. This formed the RTS,S vaccine [so, is Hepatitis B a possible ‘side-effect’ of the malaria jab?]…The particulate and highly repetitive nature of the RTS,S antigen provides enhanced presentation to the immune system, and likely [eh, do we know this, as in, data?] facilitates the strong anti-CSP antibody and T-cell responses measured in vaccinated individuals [do we have data? There’s no reference, hence I think it’s a valid question]…

Multiple adjuvants have been tested with RTS,S…Stability studies prompted development of a lyophilized RTS,S formulation for reconstitution with AS02A, and the combination showed equivalent efficacy against CHMI. Subsequently, a newer adjuvant system AS01, comprised of liposomes, MPL, and QS-21, provided an opportunity to improve RTS,S immunogenicity.

And this is where we take a brief detour to find out what AS01 is.

What is Adjuvant AS01?

To do so, we’ll have a brief look at the manufacturer’s website and the hot-of-the-presses paper with the title ‘Adjuvant system AS01: from mode of action to effective vaccines’, which appeared in Expert Rev Vaccines. 2024 Jan-Dec;23(1):715-729. There we learn the following (references omitted):

What is adjuvant system AS01?

Combinations of adjuvants were first explored in the 1990s after unsuccessful attempts to develop a human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) vaccine using classical methods. Adjuvants such as MPL (3-O-desacyl-4’-monophosphoryl lipid A) and QS-21 (Quillaja saponaria Molina, fraction 21 licensed by GSK from Antigenics LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Agenus Inc., a Delaware, U.S.A. corporation [Agenus Inc. partners with Merck, GSK, and Janssen using these adjuvants]) were known from the 1980s to boost different aspects of the immune response. Combinations of these immune-modulating molecules and classical adjuvants such as aluminum salts, emulsions and liposomes, were expected to have additive or possibly synergistic effects in inducing specific immune responses.

Another key insight is ‘revealed’, no less, by Agenus’ Wikipedia profile:

Agenus is the sole US-manufacturer of a patented and FDA-approved triterpene glycoside extract known as (QS-21, Matrix M), which is a key component in the manufacturing of the Oxford–AstraZeneca COVID-19 as well as the Novavax COVID-19 vaccines. Supplies are tightly controlled [by…], and the US has invoked the US Defence Production Act […the DoD, what a ‘surprise™’] to preserve vaccine raw materials for its own companies.

Oh, imagine that.

AS01 is an Adjuvant System containing MPL, QS-21 and liposome. MPL (produced by GSK) is a detoxified lipopolysaccharide obtained by hydrolysis of lipopolysaccharide (LPS) from Salmonella minnesota…AS01 induced strong CD4+ (cluster of differentiation 4+) and humoral responses in animal studies and was therefore initially tested as adjuvant in the RTS,S malaria vaccine [so they used it first in the above-related malaria jab without really knowing much about it: ‘the science™’, hard at-work]

So, is AS01 ‘safe™’ and ‘effective™’? For clarification, we may turn to the paper I cited at the top of this section:

AS01-containing vaccines appear relatively impervious to baseline immune status translating into high efficacy across populations [translation: we’re unsure if these shots work than natural immunity]. Currently licensed AS01-containing vaccines have shown acceptable safety profiles in clinical trials and post-marketing settings.

Oh, my. From the ‘plain-language summary’:

Experiments have shown that AS01 induces a sophisticated immune ‘gene signature’ in blood within 24 h after vaccination, and people who developed this ‘gene signature’ had a stronger response to vaccination [how long does this—epigenetic—‘gene signature’ last? is it permanent?]. AS01 seems [so, no data? I mean, what does this mean?] to be able to stimulate the immune system of most people—even if they are older or have a weakened immune system. This means that AS01 could be included in other vaccines against other challenging diseases, such as tuberculosis, or could be used in the treatment of some disease, such as chronic hepatitis B.

And, as the piece shows, ‘the science™’ does what it does best:

Safety was evaluated during the study and reactogenicity was recorded for 14 days [and you thought the Covid modRNA gene therapy was badly evaluated, eh?] after each dose…

When compared to HBsAg/Aluminum hydroxide [as an adjuvant, i.e., they compared one adjuvant to another and, apparently, neither to saline: I call this cheating], significant differences in the quantity and quality of the humoral immune response induced by HBsAg/AS01 were observed…

While invaluable information can be drawn from exploratory clinical research studies, these are resource intensive [sorry for not having more and real data, we didn’t want to spend the money: ‘follow the science™’]. In vitro modeling of adjuvant effects using primary human cells is emerging [we’re not even spending funds on eight mice] as an avenue to complement animal and clinical adjuvant mode of action data…

Overall, the body of evidence accumulated in the clinical development of AS01-containing vaccines suggests [no need to read on: there’s not a whole lot of evidence or data] that many of the features of AS01 mode of action described above are involved in promoting efficient adaptive immune responses, ultimately contributing to vaccine-induced protection.

No need to read on, the words ‘genotexicity’, ‘carcinotoxicity’, or ‘fertility’ aren’t found in this review.

Is there anything else? Well…from a paper with the wonderful title ‘Functional and epigenetic changes in monocytes from adults immunized with an AS01-adjuvanted vaccine’, which appeared in Science Translational Medicine 16:758, 31 July 2024, https://doi.org/10.1126/scitranslmed.adl3381, we learn the following:

Abstract

The adjuvant AS01 plays a key role in the immunogenicity of several approved human vaccines with demonstrated high efficacy [ahem]. Its adjuvant effect relies on activation of the innate immune system. However, specific effects of AS01-adjuvanted vaccines on innate cell function and epigenetic remodeling, as described for Bacille Calmette-Guérin (BCG) and influenza vaccines, are still unknown [did anyone ask about these ‘specific effects’?] The AS01-adjuvanted [Hepatitis B] vaccine…increased the number of circulating monocytes and their expression of human leukocyte antigen (HLA)–DR, which correlated with the magnitude of the memory CD4⁺ T cell response. Single-cell analyses revealed epigenetic alterations in monocyte and dendritic cell subsets [so, vaccinees exhibited genetic changes to human cells: is that ‘good’?], affecting accessibility of transcription factors involved in cell functions including activator protein-1 (AP-1), GATA, C/EBP, and interferon regulatory factor. The functional changes were characterized by a reduced proinflammatory response to Toll-like receptor activation and an improved response to interferon-γ, a cytokine critical for the adjuvant’s mode of action. Epigenetic changes were most evident shortly after the second vaccine dose in CD14⁺ monocytes, for which accessibility differences of some transcription factors could persist for up to 6 months postvaccination [we didn’t look for epigenetic changes thereafter]. Together, we show that reprogramming of monocyte subsets occurs after vaccination with an AS01-adjuvanted vaccine [ahem, did anyone tell the parents in Cameroon that the malaria shot did some ‘reprogramming of monocytes?], an effect that may contribute to the impact of vaccination beyond antigen-specific protection [but we didn’t test, hence we may not know].

What a shitshow is this?

It won’t surprise you, by the way, that the above-cited paper is from 2024, and that WHO’s select committee wrote the following in 2009 (!):

The Committee reviewed clinical safety data from phase I and phase II trials of the candidate malaria vaccine RTS,S/AS01…the current RTS,S/AS01 vaccine has completed phase II trials in children aged 5–17 months and also in trials using the Expanded Programme on Immunization (EPI) for children aged 6–14 weeks; multicentre phase III trials in infants and young children started in May 2009 in sub-Saharan Africa.

Phase II studies have shown consistent efficacy for the vaccine, and the Committee evaluated its safety in anticipation of licensure for the prevention of P. falciparum malaria in young children in regions where it is endemic. Safety parameters included reactogenicity observed during 7 days following vaccination and unsolicited symptoms recorded during 30 days after inoculation with doses 1, 2 and 3 [i.e., no such data thereafter] in delivery schedules administered at 0 months, 1 month and 2 months and for schedules administered at 0 months, 1 month and 7 months. Comparator vaccines given for control were cell-culture rabies vaccine and pentavalent diphtheria–tetanus–whole-cell pertussis plus hepatitis B vaccine plus Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccine [plus the ‘comparison’ was made to other vaccines, incl. the notorious DTP jab, but not vs. a true placebo, such as saline] A total of 1147 study participants (including 340 in the age range recommended by EPI) who received 2 or 3 doses of RTS,S/AS01 were evaluated. In general, injection-induced local inflammatory signs and systemic signs and symptoms occurring during the 7 days and 30 days following vaccination were similar between study and control vaccines. Of those receiving study vaccines, 2 children had convulsions, which were assessed as febrile. One sign – skin rash – appeared in excess (statistically significant) during the 7-day interval in study children, and further detailed description of the nature of the rash is necessary to assess its clinical significance [i.e., we don’t know much, if anything, about this rash]. This observation is particularly important in view of the earlier observations of skin lesions (including urticaria and immunoglobulin E response characteristic of immediate-type hypersensitivity, which may lead to anaphylaxis) and delayed-type hypersensitivity detected by skin testing in a few participants who received other experimental malaria vaccines. These other malaria vaccines used different antigens (for example, linear circumsporozoite antigen in doses of 200–2000 µg) and different adjuvants (that is, not AS01 or AS02).

For the full report by the WHO’s ‘experts™’, click here.

Is the RTS,S/AS01, or Mosquirix™, Shot Effective?

To answer this pertinent question—which never troubled the intrepid NRK vaccine propagandist journo™, we go back, finally, to the above-linked paper by Matthew Laurens:

The RTS,S/AS01 vaccine advanced to Phase 3 testing from 2009–2014 in 7 sub-Saharan African countries, and enrolled 15,459 participants, including 8922 children 5–17 months of age and 6537 infants 6–12 weeks of age…

With regard to the primary aim, efficacy measured by negative binomial regression against first or only episode of clinical malaria in the 12 months after dose 3 was 31.3%…in the 5–17 month age group.

Note that it’s impossible to assess anything about any drug if the efficacy is below 50%; there’s no way one could claim—as NRK does—that the RTS,S/AS01 shot is effective because, at these measures, it’s statistically impossible to determine if the effect is due to the intervention or chance.

For the sake of completion, I’m reproducing Table 1 and the summary of efficacy (sic):

‘Vaccine efficacy™’ ranged between 1.1% to, at best, 36.3% (but note the negative efficacy ranges in three instances).

At no point in any of the trials did ‘vaccine efficacy™’ rise above the 50% threshold.

So much for reading skills among ‘jornos™’.

Is the RTS,S/AS01, or Mosquirix™, Shot Safe?

With regard to vaccine safety, the RTS,S/AS01 profile is similar to other routine vaccines given to children except for an increased risk of febrile seizures [what’s a febrile seizure or two among friends?]. Children aged 5–17 months at first vaccination were more likely than controls to have a febrile seizure within 7 days after vaccination, especially the third dose. This effect was transient, and all affected children recovered after 7 days [easy for you to say because you people didn’t follow up longer]. Safety surveillance also suggested a potential increased risk of meningitis and cerebral malaria in this same age group [well, kinda expected, eh?]. A study in Kenyan children with WHO Stage 1 or 2 HIV disease found that RTS,S/AS01 was well-tolerated in this population, and that they can be safely included in future vaccination programs [is that because they’re Africans?]

I’m not asking this for whatever reasons, I’m asking because, a few paragraphs further down, there is this:

The vaccine was not intended for marketing in malaria-free areas, and the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) of the European Medicines Agency was asked to review the Phase 3 data and to provide a scientific opinion based on vaccine quality and the risk/benefit assessment from a regulatory perspective. This process is known as article 58, and is invoked for medicinal products manufactured for human use in a European Union (EU) state that are intended exclusively for markets outside the EU, yet it requires that products meet the same standards as those marketed in the EU. The CHMP performed a scientific evaluation of the vaccine and issued a positive opinion in July 2015, indicating that the risk/benefit assessment is favorable. The CHMP noted that the benefits may be especially important for children in high transmission areas [plus/minus vaccine-induced febrile seizures, cerebral malaria, and/or meningitis].

They said it, not me.

Who is Responsible for This?

Later in October 2015, the WHO Strategic Advisory Group of Experts (SAGE) on immunization and the Malaria Policy Advisory Group (MPAC) reviewed Phase 3 data for RTS,S…

The vaccine is currently being piloted in children 5–17 months of age in Ghana, Kenya and Malawi. Results of these implementation studies are expected to guide advisory groups, policy makers and individual countries in their decision for RTS,S/AS01 licensure and deployment.

RTS,S/AS01 vaccination is expected to lead to a later increased risk of malaria in older children. Seven-year follow-up of 5–17 month old children who received 3 doses of vaccine in Kilifi, Kenya and Korogwe, Tanzania demonstrated a waning effect of efficacy [which never rose above 50%, remember] over time. After 5 years, vaccinated children suffered increased risk of clinical malaria compared to controls [read this again]. This is not surprising, and is true for other malaria interventions including insecticide-treated nets and seasonal malaria chemoprophylaxis. Whereas this reversal in malaria risk may be viewed as a disadvantage, the goal of early vaccination is to prevent malaria in young children who are at high risk for severe malaria complications [see, it’s fine, because we determined other endpoints matter], including adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes. Annual booster doses of RTS,S may be considered to alleviate risk for this rebound phenomenon [what could go wrong?]…

Efficacy of RTS,S/AS01 vaccine is modest [odd], yet still provides significant public health benefit. The Phase 3 results demonstrated that among children who received 4 doses of vaccine, 1744 clinical malaria cases were prevented for every 1000 children vaccinated [I don’t know how that math works]…

Ultimately, political will is required for RTS,S uptake and deployment [because medical grounds are lacking]. Fortunately, politicians desire to combat malaria illness and death, but RTS,S vaccination must first be accepted as a viable intervention for malaria, which can take considerable time and effort in the case of a partly protective vaccine. After acceptance, political will can then work to overcome obstacles to vaccine implementation.

An indictment, if there ever was one.

Bottom Lines

I’m so disgusted by this ‘science™’ called ‘vaccinology’.

Before Covid, I never really thought about any of this; since the WHO-declared, so-called ‘Pandemic™’ I spend much time reading these papers and writing these postings.

The way NRK writes about the malaria shot by GSK is…appalling, to say the least. Nausea-inducing. And an indictment of legacy journalism, if there ever was one.

In the case of the Mosquirix jab, we also note the utter disregard for small children and the gaslighting of their parents whose feelings are weaponised to make them consent to getting their children this vaccine even though doctors and researchers know about this ‘partly protective vaccine’ with these crappy efficacy markers, to say nothing about safety concerns, specifically vaccine-induced febrile seizures, cerebral malaria, as well as the ‘rebound’ effect as efficacy wanes over time.

And if you’d excuse me now, I’m going to vomit once more.