Further proof, were further proof needed, that the World Health Organisation (WHO) is Not Up To Scratch (NUTS) can be found on its website in documents that are completely at odds with each other. On the one hand, one corps of the health fascists wants governments to ban — without a shred of evidence — all alcohol for all women of childbearing age, a preposterous example of coercive healthism so extreme that could easily fill a post of its own. On the other hand, another corps of the health fascists breezily endorses — no need to worry about that side effect nonsense round here — covid mRNA vaccines for all but all women of childbearing age, despite animal studies showing that the vaccine is very likely (we can’t yet say certainly, as we shall see presently) preferentially concentrated in the ovaries. One blasted precautionary principle so large it can be seen from space, another blasted precautionary principle so small not even an electron microscope could detect it. Truly, the WHO is NUTS.

The alcohol guidance is in the organisation’s draft Global Alcohol Action Plan 2022-2030, published only last week (PDF, 1Mb). In language all too reminiscent of SPI-B’s sinister “perceived level of personal threat needs to be increased among those who are complacent”, WHO’s draft — it may be only a draft, but the direction of travel is clear — says “It is necessary to raise awareness among decision-makers and the general public about the risks and harms associated with alcohol consumption. Appropriate attention should be given to…prevention of drinking among pregnant women and women of childbearing age… (emphasis added)”. Being WHO, the language has been mangled by its passage through a thousand human photocopiers, but if we pare it back to basics, WHO wants to prevent all women of childbearing age from drinking any alcohol. It’s enough to make any sane woman of childbearing age turn to drink, big time.

The alcohol guidance is so bonkers, so NUTS, we can leave it there, for now. But if the alcohol team are bowling from the Nursery End, then the covid vaccine team are surely bowling from the Pavilion End. In contrast to the alcohol guidance saying no woman of childbearing age should touch any alcohol, the covid vaccine guidance has it that all (but all) women of childbearing age should be vaccinated. “The COVID-19 vaccines are safe for most people 18 years and older, including those with pre-existing conditions of any kind, including auto-immune disorders” is the general guidance. Even when pregnancy is in the air, there is no need for alarm: “WHO does not recommend pregnancy testing prior to vaccination. WHO does not recommend delaying pregnancy or terminating pregnancy because of vaccination”. There are remarkably few contra-indications (reasons why it should not be administered) for the vaccine, and being of childbearing age certainly isn’t one of them, despite those findings suggesting the vaccine may be preferentially concentrated in the ovaries. Perhaps WHO hopes that if they don’t look at the evidence, it might just go away. Indeed, the evidence is somewhat buried, and is far from perfect, a consequence of the accelerated development and approval process for the vaccine. But it is nonetheless there.

The normal development process for drugs, including vaccines, includes pharmacokinetic (how a dug moves through the body) studies of biodistribution (where the drug, or vaccine, ends up in the body, and when). In the ordinary course of development, these pre-clinical animal studies are comprehensive and thorough, but in the case of covid vaccine development and approval, regulatory authorities lowered the bar considerably. The MHRA’s Reg 174 Information for Healthcare Professionals on Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, for example, drops the bar through the floor (“5.2 Pharmacokinetic properties Not applicable.”), while in its long and complicated lay summary of the vaccine it says “Pharmacokinetic studies have not been conducted with COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 and are generally not considered necessary to support the development and licensure of vaccine products…(emphasis added)”. The EMA (European Medicines Agency, Europe’s equivalent to our MHRA) is happily singing along on the same hymn sheet: “No traditional pharmacokinetic or  biodistribution studies have been performed with the vaccine candidate BNT162b2”.         

Instead the regulators relied on studies that use surrogates for the vaccine. The results are not easy to find: those for biodistribution are buried deep in a Pfizer report submitted to the Japanese regulators in Japanese which defeats even google translate. Where is Clive James when you need him? In his column A Load of Chunk, about Britsh actors playing Cherman officers with Cherman accents behaving in unchentlemanly ways in Chersey during WWII, the opening paragraph perfectly nails spoken Chapanese: “Macahaviahties Dyahagahestivah Bahiscuhihetah”. But how to nail written Chapanese? Perhaps the results have been published in a chournal, perhaps in Cherman rather than Chapanese? No dice. Chust as he was about to give up, Dr No found the crucial table of biodistribution results is readable by Western eyes! Such choy!

The surrogate used in the biodistribution study uses the same LNP (lipid nanoparticle) RNA technology as the Pfizer/Biontech vaccine, and there are no reasons to suppose its biodistribution is significantly different to the vaccine’s distribution, allowing it to pass muster for the vaccine, at least in the regulators’ eyes. But we should apply a caveat. Animal studies are only an indication of how a drug will behave in humans, because different species handle drugs in different ways. Nonetheless, it is an indication, and furthermore, it is all we have. After giving a large dose (getting on for 500 times the normal vaccine dose per kilogram of body weight used in humans) of a radio-actively labelled version of the surrogate to rats, researchers turned off the lights, and watched, observing when and where the rats started to glow in the dark. These observations were of course done using sophisticated laboratory machinery, rather than the naked eye, and again, the results can be seen and read here.

At 48 hours, the surrogate is widely distributed across the body. We will look only at percentage distribution, to avoid distraction by the size of the dose. Only 44% of the administered dose is detectable, or at least reported in the table, but of the total, 24.6% remains at the injection site, and of the rest, in descending order, 16.2% ends up in the liver, 1.03% in the spleen, 0.835% in the small bowel, 0.762% in the large bowel, 0.106% in the adrenal glands, 0.101% in the lungs, and 0.095% in the ovaries. Since the columns are headed ‘males and females combined’, it is possible this percentage should be doubled, to 0.19%, if the denominator was the dose given to all the rats, to get the actual percentage in female rats. If this is correct, then the ovaries collect the sixth largest concentration of the surrogate in the body.

Around 0.1% (or perhaps 0.2%) of the administered dose is by any reckoning a small percentage, rats are not humans, and the study only ran for 48 hours. But sure as eggs are eggs, ovaries are ovaries, and they contain human eggs. Let Dr No be very clear: nothing is proven, except that a very small percentage of the administered surrogate  ends up 48 hours later in the ovaries of female rats. But this finding, buried in a hard to find obscure Pfizer report in Japanese, raises vitally important questions, and demands urgent action. We need to know firstly how much, and for how long, the vaccine itself, not the surrogate, remains in human ovaries, if any, and secondly, we need intense surveillance of vaccinated pregnant women, and the children born to them. In the meantime, all women of childbearing age considering vaccination need to be told there is a chance the vaccine they are considering may end up in their ovaries, and at this stage we have no idea what that means for them, their pregnancies, and their children. Without that information, there can be no informed consent; and if there is no informed consent, then any vaccine administration amounts to common assault, or worse. Women of childbearing age are of course free to give consent to the vaccine, if they so wish, but it must be informed consent.

In the meantime, we are left with this bizarre, utterly extraordinary contradiction. On the one hand WHO wants, on the basis of a precautionary principle so enormous it can be seen from outer space, to prevent all women of childbearing age from drinking any alcohol, yet at the time, it wants all (but all) women of childbearing age to be vaccinated with a novel vaccine that uses a novel technology that, according to the one surrogate animal study we have, appears to get concentrated in the ovaries. Truly, the WHO is NUTS.       


  1. Tom+Welsh Reply

    I surmise that the one overriding principle that adequately explains both pronunciations is “We Know Best”.

    As a corollary, “We Don’t Need No Steenkin’ Tests”.

    Because the Elect Just Know, and if you Just Know, where’s the point in testing? It’s rather like the syndrome, pointed out by Dr John Ioannidis and many others, that has gradually almost eliminated replication of scientific experiments. If the original result was the desired one, why tempt fate by risking disagreement? And if the original result was not the desired one… well, it was probably never published anyway.

  2. dearieme Reply

    Aren’t the WHO the bunch of incompetents (or liars) who said that our fine, new respiratory virus did not spread by aerosols and, indeed, that human-to-human transmission did not happen? That WHO?

    String the buggers up. (Usually I mean that figuratively but for the WHO I’ll make an exception.)

    • Tom+Welsh Reply

      They also said that masks were useless, then that they were essential. And that PCR tests should be done with cycle counts of 40+; and then (once Biden had won the election) with cycle counts of 24, or less than 30; etc.

      Moreover, different WHO people say different things at the same time. As always with such huge bureaucratic organisations, the more junior the employee the more likely they are to be right. Ignore completely any formal statements by the big cheeses.

  3. carolyn_f Reply

    Goodness me: …But this finding, buried in a hard to find obscure Pfizer report in Japanese, raises vitally important questions, and demands urgent action. We need to know firstly how much, and for how long, the vaccine itself, not the surrogate, remains in human ovaries, if any, and secondly, we need intense surveillance of vaccinated pregnant women, and the children born to them. …

    That is serious stuff – we truly do ‘need to know’. Vitally important.

    I’d bet good money that no front-line gynaecologists or midwives have any inkling of this and therefore of the importance of careful recording, observation and reporting to (I suppose) the MHRA and their professional body?

    Humans – never mind rats! – are being experimented on a vast scale. How do we halt this?

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *