In 2021 at the rollout of several vaccines against the covid19 pandemic, many nations and pharmaceutical companies chose to attack the vaccine created by Oxford University and AstraZeneca, due to mafia style commercial rivalry in the USA and due to resentment of Brexit Britain in Europe. Pretext after pretext was advanced to discredit the AstraZeneca vaccine. These achieved their desired effect of curteiling uptake of the vaccine particularly among Britains natural enemies. However as 2021 rolls on, an increasing tide of scientific data is coming in which is sweeping away and exposing as shallow lies the various arguments that were used to discredit the effectiveness of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine.
Fake arguments used against the AZ vaccine included:
- It is not effective against the over 60’s (because the necessarily super-fast clinical trial avoided the elderly for safety reasons)
- It’s protective percentage from clinical trials (60-70%) was lower than other vaccines such as Prizer and Moderna (90%)
- It is not effective against various new strains of the virus including the B1351 strain from South Africa
- It’s rare side effects such as blood clots, while much rarer than other generally accepted drugs like contraceptives, nonetheless are a pretext when mixed with racism to reject the AZ vaccine
As we shall see, unstoppable armies of scientific peer-reviewed studies, one after the other, are comprehensively destroying every one of these arguments. Some of this evidence is described below.
Real data on the effectiveness of coronavirus vaccines given in the UK shows that while Pfizer vaccine is 85% effective against covid19 hospital admissions, the AstraZeneca vaccine is 94% effective. So in the real world the AZ vaccine is working better than the Pfizer vaccine. As well as costing nearly ten times less and not requiring minus 70-80 degrees expensive deep freeze storage.
The reduction in the risk of symptomatic infection in over-80s observed in early 2021 during ongoing UK vaccination of the population, is 57% and 63% respectively for the Pfizer and Oxford-AZ jabs, 14 days after a single dose. Again better results from the AZ vaccine.
Real world percentages show AZ equal to Pfizer but media cling to out of date clinical trial data with lower AZ numbers out of dishonest prejudice
The numbers that anglophobic journalists love to recite again and again like a comforting litany, Pfizer-Moderna 90%, AZ 70%, have been brushed aside by much more accurate and authoritative results from real world vaccine rollouts of tens of millions of people. South Korea have published data showing that the protection percentages from Pfizer and AZ are 90 and 86 percent respectively after a single dose to the over 60’s. This was based on 3.5 million vaccinations. (Bigger than a clinical trial.)
Likewise, in april 2021 the Office of National Statistics in the UK showed that people who had been vaccinated with a single dose of either the Oxford-AstraZeneca or Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines were 65% less likely to get a new Covid infection. The efficacy of the two vaccines was indistinguishable.
The risk of blood clots from the AstraZeneca vaccine is very small at about one case in 100,000 and one death in a million. Overall risks from all causes are not much different between all covid19 vaccines. In the clinical trial in the USA for the AZ vaccine, the blood clot risk was non-existent. As mentioned above, clinical trials involve tens of thousands of people and are a much weaker and more imprecise source of data than the real world rollouts of millions of vaccines.
An accurate picture of blot clot side effects from the AZ vaccine has been published in a BMJ paper reporting data from Denmark and Norway. Out of 280,000 injected with the AZ vaccine, where a background of 30 deep vein blood clots would be expected, 59 were found. Notably these were all venous clots, not the arterial clots that are a risk for heart attacks and strokes. The results are described by the authors as “largely reassuring”. Some of the raised incidence among those vaccinated could be due to greater vigilance among that group.
The authors conclusions are hard-hiting and speak for themselves:
“The absolute risks of venous thromboembolic events described in this study are small, and the findings should be interpreted in the context of the benefits of covid-19 vaccination at both the societal and the individual level.
“Those countries that delayed their own vaccination programmes at a time of high transmission rates by declining to use available Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccines should know that their decision will have contributed to an increase in the number of avoidable deaths from covid-19.”
Pfizer side effects no-one is talking about
Meanwhile reports of serious allergic reactions to other covid19 vaccines such as the Pfizer vaccine, are being suppressed and not discussed at all.
Other serious side effects from the Pfizer mRNA vaccine that have not received the limelight of the blood clots from the AZ vaccine, but are potentially equally serious, include myocarditis (inflammation of heart muscles):
and also acute pancreatitis:
Vaccines after previous covid infection: AZ better than Pfizer for all major strains
We were told that the AZ vaccine was less effective than other vaccines against some strains such as the South African one, but this also appears to be fake news. A recent study of the Pfizer and AZ vaccines given to those previously infected, shows good protection by both vaccines against four strains: the orignial one, the B 117 UK strain, the B1351 South African strain and the P1 Brazilian strain.
The data itself indicate slightly better protection from the AZ than from the Pfizer vaccines:
Better T-cell protection with lasting and adaptive protection from AZ, not Pfizer
The British Medical Journal has published data showing the AZ and Pfizer vaccines have similar effectiveness at antibody production against covid19, but that AZ gives a better T-cell response:
“A single dose of the Pfizer or Oxford-AstraZeneca covid-19 vaccine produces equivalent antibody responses five weeks after vaccination, a small study looking at people over 80 has found.
The study, led by University of Birmingham researchers and made available through a preprint, found that antibodies specific to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein were present in most people in both groups—93% after the Pfizer vaccine and 87% after the AstraZeneca vaccine.
The study also found stronger T cell responses in people who had received the AstraZeneca vaccine, with 31% of this group producing detectable T cell responses compared with 12% of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine group.
The difference between antibodies and T cells is that antibodies are seeing shapes, like a lock and a key, and therefore a single amino acid can make a big change in the structure, and that means a lot of antibodies can’t bind. Whereas T cells see little peptide fragments, the virus is stripped into fragments and therefore the T cell response is not so badly lost against single amino acid changes.”
Further research has emphasised the importance of the T-cell response:
So overall, Pfizer and AZ vaccines show similar numbers for covid-19 protection, but there are signs that the protection from the oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine are more long-lasting and effective across multiple strains than the Pfizer one. This might possibly be because of the better T-cell response from the AZ vaccine. This would be expected from a viral vector vaccine, while an mRNA vaccine could boost primarily the antibody defence which, while important, is only the first line of defence.