China’s Sinovac and Sinopharm covid vaccines are not safe

There is an unsubstantiated claim that non-mRNA covid-19 vaccines are relatively “safe and effective.” However, incidents of sudden deaths among young healthy people vaccinated with China’s covid vaccines suggest otherwise.

As well as the examples Dr. Mathew Maavak describes below, Mark Crispin Miller, a professor of media, culture and communications at New York University, continues to document every week those who “died suddenly” worldwide including people in China and Russia.

Sinovac and Sinopharm: The myth of ‘relatively safe’ Covid-19 vaccines

By Dr. Mathew Maavak

On 30 June, Zhang Zhijie, who was described as an “outstanding” 17-year-old badminton player from China suddenly collapsed and died during a match at the Asia Junior Championships in Yogyakarta, Indonesia. Those present were so stunned by the spectacle that the Chinese coaching staff had to wait for a palpable moment – which seemed like an eternity – before getting the referee’s permission to attend to the collapsed player. 

The teenager was subsequently rushed to the nearest hospital where he died after repeated attempts at resuscitating him failed. An initial examination revealed that Zhang had succumbed to “sudden cardiac arrest.”

There were hardly any damage-limitation narratives to explain away Zhang’s shocking demise as the world is currently beset by a sudden surge in deaths among toddlers, teenagers and young professional athletes. A few of my X (Twitter) compatriots who track instances of “sudden and unexpected” deaths worldwide are alarmed as well, especially as more and more young people are dying suddenly. 

Zhang’s case is especially noteworthy as he would have been injected with the so-called “safe and effective” Chinese vaccines which are not based on mRNA technology. 

The argument that Zhang might have opted for the mRNA-based Pfizer or Moderna vaccines to compete in international sporting events does not hold water. Unlike Russia’s Sputnik V, the Sinovac (CoronaVac) and Sinopharm vaccines from China are on the approved list of the World Health Organisation (“WHO”) and United States Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) for cross-border travel and participation in international sporting events. Zhang would have been 14 years old when the Chinese vaccines were rolled out in 2021, and there were hardly any international youth competitions held that year. Furthermore, China would not have allowed its athletes to take the Pfizer and Moderna options as that would have been a tacit admission of the inferiority of its homegrown vaccine technologies. 

All top-level athletes are also routinely subjected to extensive medical checks to rule out underlying health issues and the use of steroids. Furthermore, top-flight athletes generally concede a walkover if they are either injured or feeling unwell. This would have been the case with Zhang as he was facing Japan’s Kazuma Kawano at the time of the fateful incident. (Losing to a Japanese player by a huge margin would have been considered a national embarrassment). 

Zhang was not the only prominent young casualty from nations that had opted for the Chinese vaccines. 

“Safer” Vaccine Myth

Some experts continue to claim that China’s Sinovac and Sinopharm covid-19 vaccines are safer alternatives to their mRNA counterparts. These vaccines reportedly used the traditional “inactivated virus” approach to neuter the SARS-CoV-2 virus which causes covid-19. They were therefore “old school” and “safer.” These claims began to spread like wildfire in various instant messaging services from early 2021 onwards. 

Many “vaccine-hesitant” folks in Asia – upon receiving an ultimatum – finally opted for the Sinovac or Sinopharm injections to keep their jobs or travel abroad. Sometimes this plan backfired. Imagine walking into a designated vaccination centre only to be told that the Sinovac stock was exhausted while the “superior” mRNA vaccines were still available? Some gave in; others did not. 

The misplaced belief that the Chinese vaccines (or Russia’s Sputnik V) were safer persisted even after scattered reports emerged of sudden and “baffling deaths” from China to Indonesia to Hong Kong to Argentina. The number of confirmed deaths in Chile, Turkey, and Pakistan, amongst others, had also dramatically increased post-vaccination. In some nations, this unforeseen phenomenon led to new rounds of curfews and movement restrictions. It could also be the reason why China imposed draconian lockdowns throughout 2021 and 2022. The homes of those deemed “infected” were welded or sealedto prevent the transmission of this supposedly “deadly pandemic”. Not a great way to advertise the efficacy of your national vaccines, is it?

Independent doctors had traditionally considered inactivated virus-based vaccines to be relatively safe. This was predicated on the surmise that time-tested adjuvants were used which may not have been the case with ALL covid-19 vaccines, mRNA or otherwise. 

All inactivated virus-based vaccines may cause side effects of varying types and degrees among recipients. These side effects may last for hours, days and even weeks at the most. I have not heard of any inactivated virus-based vaccine that turns lethal overnight after two or three years of injection. (Those who want to argue against this observation should post relevant examples and links in the comments box below).

The lethal side effects of traditional vaccines have to be limited to extreme margins. Otherwise, they would be summarily withdrawn from the market. The Rotashield vaccine, for instance, was withdrawn in 1999 after it was associated with intussusception at a rate of about 1 in 10,000 injections. The same stringent yardstick was not applied to the covid-19 vaccines. No surprises there!

SARS-CoV-2 Bioweapon

Big Pharma-owned experts are still struggling to explain away the hitherto unprecedented phenomenon of “sudden and unexpected” deaths among the young and healthy. Is it due to long covid, extended long covid or the ridiculous culprit called climate change? 

Even alleged ethnic reactions to sunlight were being blamed for the surge in “sudden deaths” worldwide. Talk about mainstream pseudosciences on steroids!

It is a well-known fact that “people of colour” have more tolerance towards intense sunlight and heat. But not so according to new “studies” commissioned by Big Pharma lackeys. To pirouette around the fragile “wokescape,” they naturally get coloured writers to file these nonsensical reports. 

Is Big Pharma desperately clutching at the factual straws? A 2022 study found that the number of athletes who “died suddenly” had increased by a mind-boggling 1700% since covid vaccination began. I am betting that the 2024 figures are going to be much higher unless the figures are going to be as rigged as the last US presidential elections. 

As soon as the “pandemic” began to make waves four years ago, there were mounting allegations that the SARS-CoV-2 virus was nothing but a deliberately engineered bioweapon. As early as January 2020, a high-powered Indian study had discovered that the novel coronavirus was engineered with HIV-like insertions. Authors of the Indian study, despite being quoted by Prof. Luc Montagnier – who won the 2008 Nobel Prize for Medicine for his work on HIV/AIDS – were forced to withdraw the paper under international pressure. Referencing the Indian study, Montagnier had this to say about the mainstream bat (or pangolin) zoonotic narrative: “C’est une belle légende, ce n’est pas possible. Le virus sort d’un laboratoire de Wuhan” (“It’s a beautiful legend, it’s not possible. The virus came out of a laboratory in Wuhan.”)

Subsequent predictions that the vaccinated would soon suffer from a variety of ailments resembling AIDS or the broader Immune Deficiency Syndrome (“IDS”) is being fulfilled to this very day. There was even a new term coined for this phenomenon – Vaccine Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (“VAIDS”) – a crowdsourced term loathed by Big Pharma and its spineless lackeys in the medical fraternity. 

Now, if the SARS-CoV-2 was indeed a bioweapon, would vaccines based on weaponised viruses – inactivated or otherwise –  be of any use? Or will it aggravate matters further? After all, weaponised viruses are designed to dodge any known conventional or experimental therapies.

Read more: ‘Sudden’ and ‘Excess’ Deaths Worldwide Cannot be Ignored Anymore, Dr. Mathew Maavak, 6 March 2024 (Behind a paywall)

Graphene or Agent X? 

There are some dissident experts who claim that all covid-19 vaccines – pardon the pun – are spiked with graphenes. 

Now, I was a consultant for the national nanotechnology blueprint and roadmap project here in Malaysia and I had to study how nanotechnology presented the next great frontier in the “targeted delivery of medicines” to affected zones in the human body. The study was completed more than 10 years ago and the technology concerned would have matured greatly since then. 

However, these experts were also gratuitously attacked by fellow dissenters who claimed that the angular and jagged anomalies observed under specialised electron microscopes were nothing but “contaminants.” But let’s give the latter school of thought some benefit of the doubt, shall we? This viewpoint raises even more problematic questions. Why were these contaminants so ubiquitous in ALL vaccine labels sampled thus far? And in the case of Sinovac and Sinopharm vaccines, are these very “contaminants” causing sudden deaths a full two to three years post-injection? 

To a reasonable extent, the graphene-in-the-vaccine claim also explains why “sudden and unexpected” heart attacks keep happening among the young, healthy and athletic. The theory goes that graphenes may act as nano-razors which can slowly and imperceptibly slice away cells in various organs, including the heart. If this assumption is plausible, then young individuals are the ones most at risk. When their hearts work overtime during sporting events, the rate of “cardial nano-slicing” increases, leading to the risk of heart failure. (I am using a term that is as layman-friendly as possible)

Anyone reasonably versed in systems theory, and the related field of game theory, would not rule out anything in the coronapsychosis matrix. Never rubbish logical assumptions unless you are a world-class virologist with state-of-the-art laboratories and the best and brightest co-researchers at your disposal. The best we can reasonably do is to approximate causation via correlation and other scientific methods – especially when you are a dissident expert locked out of mainstream research data and facilities! 

Furthermore, if graphenes in “relatively safer” vaccines do not exist, then what exactly is causing all these sudden and unexpected deaths? Do Sinovac and Sinopharm vaccines also cause massive blood clots? We were told that only mRNA vaccines did that. Or can we reasonably consider the possibility that there is a hidden toxic agent present in all covid-19 vaccines? How many corona-sceptics have personally conducted the following types of tests on all vaccine labels to isolate the offending Agent X? 

• Mass Spectrometry (MS): Identifies and quantifies compounds based on their mass-to-charge ratio.
• Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (GC-MS): Separates and identifies compounds in a sample.
• Liquid Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (LC-MS): Similar to GC-MS but used for liquid samples.
• Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) Spectroscopy: Provides detailed information about the structure of organic compounds.
• High-Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC): Separates, identifies, and quantifies each component in a mixture.
• Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR): Identifies chemical bonds in a molecule by producing an infrared absorption spectrum.

From what I gather, many dissident experts are still relying on studies conducted at major laboratories and universities which are tainted by either Big Pharma funding or influence. 

Now, coming back to the central question that provoked this commentary in the first place: Are covid-19 vaccines based on inactivated viruses less lethal than mRNA vaccines? Absolutely, if casual observations on “sudden and unexpected” deaths are anything to go by. However, any such volumetric-based comparison would be akin to comparing arsenic with potassium cyanide. In lower doses, the former may make you sick while the latter kills. 

It is also akin to playing Russian roulette between .22 and .45 calibre bullets. Would any informed person take the chance? 

About the Author

Mathew Maavak holds a PhD in Policy Studies and is affiliated with the Big Data Excellence Centre.  He specialises in systems science, global risks, strategic foresight, geopolitics and governance. He is a Malaysian expert on risk foresight and governance.

Dr. Maavak has published numerous Op-Eds on a variety of eclectic subjects for over 20 years – by “connecting the dots” in a disjointed world.  He has written articles for various publications including Eurasia Review, Modern Diplomacy and Business Standard. He has also appeared on CCTV (China), Sputnik (Russia), and other media outlets, sharing his expertise on global issues.

He is the author of a Substack page titled ‘The Eye Opener’ which you can subscribe to and follow HERE.  You can also support his work by tipping him a one-time cuppa with Ko-Fi.