Clarification from Dr. Meryl Nass on 'Novel' MPOX Vaccines

by Scott Creighton

This morning I wrote an article then made a brief video (3rd try) in which I mentioned Dr. Meryl Nass' use of the term 'novel' in an article she wrote the other day regarding the WHO MPOX vaccine roll-out  in Africa.

Nass clears up the issue by explaining that the WHO had not, as of the time of her writing the article, announced just which of the MPOX vaccines the WHO had approved for distribution. 

 

She rightly points out an article they (WHO) published in Aug of 2023 which I cited would be considered out of date, though it did involve the exact three MPOX vaccines the WHO were considering now. I, not being a scientist, made the assumption that the two they approved would be on that list of three from a year ago and further surmised that it would be the two approved by the CDC.

'Substacker Scott Creighton called bullshit on me this morning over my statement that the 2 vaccines WHO said it would roll out on Wednesday (when I listened to the press conference and provided their names) were not novel. He had not read prior posts.

Last night WHO issued a new statement adding the 3’d vaccine (ACAM2000) if the others are not available.

Let me clarify why I said Jynneos was novel (despite being licensed in 2019) and that the Japanese (unlicensed) vaccine is novel. I was not referring to ACAM2000 since Wednesday because it has been used for over 20 years despite causing myocarditis in 1 in 175 naive recipients, according to CDC. So it will only be used if it has a liability waiver. Expect all these vaccines to be used ONLY if there is a liability waiver as none have demonstrated safety.' Dr. Nass

I went on to write:

'Perhaps I am confused by what she means by 'novel'...' and 'Again, both have been around for a while though one was used to treat smallpox and not MPOX so does she suggest the new crossover application qualifies as a 'novel' use of an established vaccine?'

I am glad she took the time to clarify her use of the term and to point out the secrecy involved in the approval of the use of this drug along with, if I might add, the secrecy involved with the negotiations pertaining to the WHO Pandemic Treaty, are understandably problematic.

I thank Dr. Nass for taking the time to respond to my article. It certainly helps clear things up. Shit moves fast out here the closer to the deadline the WHO and the masters of the universe get to their goals. As I have said before, Dr. Nass is Doing outstanding work keeping up with all the shifting sands surrounding this agenda and I strongly recommend following her efforts on her Substack. 

On subjects like this her work as up to date and thorough as any out there.