There’s a secret layer of information in your cells called messenger RNA, that’s located between DNA and proteins, that serves as a critical link. Now, in a medical shocker to the whole world of vaccine philosophy, scientists at Sloan Kettering found that mRNA itself carries cancer CAUSING changes – changes that genetic tests don’t even analyze, flying completely under the radar of oncologists across the globe. So now, it’s time for independent laboratories that are not vaccine manufacturers (or hired by them) to run diagnostic testing on the Covid vaccine series and find out if these are cancer-driving inoculations that, once the series is complete, will cause cancer tumors in the vaccinated masses who have all rushed out to get the jab out of fear and propaganda influence. Welcome to the world of experimental and dirty vaccines known as mRNA “technology.”
Previously unknown cancer driving messengers are hiding in RNA, not DNA
This mind-blowing discovery should be published on every medical news site, newspaper, television news broadcast and on the CDC website, but unless you are reading this article and use DuckDuckGo as your search engine, you probably wouldn’t ever see it. That’s because Google is in on the fix, with Big Pharma and the VIC – the vaccine industrial complex. So here’s a more in-depth explanation of what we’re looking at, for real, regarding mRNA and vaccines. The information carrying molecule, messenger RNA, can instruct human cells ultimately in the same way as cancer drivers, playing a major role in causing cancer to thrive while inactivating natural tumor-suppressing proteins the human body creates to save you from cancer. This is the complete opposite of what the CDC and the vaccine manufactures are telling everyone right now about the Covid vaccines, and this is based on clinical research by molecular biologists at the Sloan Kettering Institute. Even sequencing the DNA in cancer cells doesn’t reveal these changes, that’s how sneaky the vaccines are. It’s like a Trojan horse that tells your cells to allow these changes to be made, as if they were safe, but they’re not. All assumptions being made about mRNA being ‘safe’ right now have been completely turned 180 degrees with this research. Consider this very carefully if you have not yet been vaccinated with mRNA technology, and you may want to ‘lawyer-up’ if you already got the jabs.
After your Covid vaccination, RNA is transported out of your cell’s nucleus, and will no longer function properly as a cancer tumor suppressor
Bill Gates and the Vaccine Industrial Complex are very sinister, as we all know, but to create vaccines that truncate (disable by cutting short) cancer tumor suppressors, and destroy the human body’s ability to protect against cancer, well, that’s just complete insanity. Truncated tumor-suppressor proteins are similar to the DNA mutations that cause cancer cells to mutate and multiply uncontrollably. Will America see cancer cases skyrocket over the next few years due to Covid vaccines? Only time will tell, but right now, science is revealing that it’s likely. Pay close attention. Therefore, anyone who is scared to death of the Covid vaccines is pro-science rather than anti-science, because the science shows the mRNA technology is very dangerous, especially concerning proteins that fuel cancer tumors. Let’s say that again: Science shows mRNA technology can fuel cancer tumor growth.
Substantial amount of people with blood cancer have the SAME inactivation of tumor-suppressor genes at the mRNA level
Scientists also discovered that a substantial amount of people with blood cancer, a.k.a. chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), have the same exact inactivation of tumor-suppressor genes at the mRNA level. In fact, the mRNA changes they detected could possibly account for the missing DNA mutations, and that spells out bad news for everyone who thinks the Covid vaccine series is “safe and effective.” It’s effective alright, at suppressing anti-cancer proteins, one might conclude. Even if just half (partial truncation) mRNA changes in human cells take place, it’s enough to “completely override the function of the normal versions that are present,” according to the Sloan Kettering team of scientists. These changes can also apply to 100 different genes at the same time, so the changes can add up quickly and cause horrific health repercussions. Of course, mainstream media will dismiss any connections made by these discoveries, but they’re paid to regurgitate pharma talk, so that’s not surprising at all. It is important to note that mRNA changes, according to researchers, are not limited to blood cancer, but have been linked to acute lymphatic cancer and breast cancer. Could this mean we’re looking at a new population control mechanism hidden in messenger RNA? About 20,000 people in the US develop “CLL” chronic lympthocytic leukemia each year. How many will quietly begin developing it now, and then have it suddenly “show up” five years from now? Symptoms include fatigue, enlarged lymph nodes, and night sweats. Did you get mRNA vaccinated and experience those symptoms already? Are those symptoms on the warning label – the vaccine insert? Did you read them? There’s only one “treatment” offered right now for CLL by the Pharma Industrial Complex, and that’s stem cell bone marrow transplantation. Oh, but it’s only recommended if your CLL is “likely” to advance. Do your mRNA vaccines now qualify you as “likely” to advance with CLL? Tune your internet dial to Vaccines.news for updates on human challenge trials for people interested in suppressing genes that fight cancer. No wonder Mark Zuckerberg is scared to death about the Covid vaccine.
Below is a brief clip from of David Cohen, a professor and Associate Dean for Research and Development of at the Luskin School of Social Work, University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA). His research focuses on psychoactive drugs (prescribed, licit, and illicit) and their desirable and undesirable effects as socio-cultural phenomena “constructed” through language, policy, attitudes, and social interactions.
He has conducted research on the side effects of psychiatric medications and on withdrawal. Public and private institutions in the U.S., Canada, and France have funded him to conduct clinical-neuropsychological studies, qualitative investigations, and epidemiological surveys of patients, professionals, and the general population.
In the clip, taken from the Medicating Normal documentary, he explains how antidepressants may provide a very short term mood boost for patients. He also expresses why pharmaceutical companies only conduct short-term studies instead of long term studies for antidepressant medications.
A study published in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology looked at 185 meta-analyses on antidepressant medication and found that one third of them were written by pharmaceutical industry employees and that almost 80 percent of the studies had industry ties.
A study published in the British Medical Journal by researchers at the Nordic Cochrane Center in Copenhagen showed that pharmaceutical companies were not disclosing all information regarding the results of their drug trials. Researchers looked at documents from 70 different double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI) and serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRI) and found that the full extent of serious harm in clinical study reports went unreported.
“We really don’t have good enough evidence that antidepressants are effective and we have increasing evidence that they can be can be harmful. So we need to go into reverse and stop this increasing trend of prescribing them.” – Joanna Moncrieff, a psychiatrist and researcher at University College London (source)
These medications don’t seem to be prescribed based on honest evidence when it comes to the cause of these illnesses, as well as what exactly these drugs are doing to our brain and biology. For example, a New England Journal of Medicinereview on Major Depression is one of multiple that express these sentiments:
… numerous studies of norepinephrine and serotonin metabolites in plasma, urine, and cerebrospinal fluid as well as postmortem studies of the brains of patients with depression, have yet to identify the purported deficiency reliably.
According to Daniel J. Carlat, M.D., Associate Clinical Professor of Psychiatry at Tufts University School of Medicine,
“And where there is a scientific vacuum, drug companies are happy to insert a marketing message and call it science. As a result, psychiatry has become a proving ground for outrageous manipulations of science in the service of profit.” (source)
A 2002 article in the American Psychological Association journal Prevention and Treatment describes the lack of efficacy for antidepressant drugs. Even if there is a difference between drug and placebo, it is clinically insignificant. The majority of studies on antidepressants actually found no significant difference between drug and placebo. The negative results were not published and the researchers had to request access to US FDA documents to review the data.
A 2008 meta-analysis in PLoS Med has this to say about the lack of efficacy for antidepressants:
“Drug-placebo differences in antidepressant efficacy increase as a function of baseline severity, but are relatively small even for severely depressed patients. The relationship between initial severity and antidepressant efficacy is attributable to decreased responsiveness to placebo among very severely depressed patients, rather than to increased responsiveness to medication.”
A 2008 article by prestigious researcher John Ioannidis reviewed the evidence that antidepressants are not effective.
“While only half of these trials had formally significant effectiveness, published reports almost ubiquitously claimed significant results. ‘Negative’ trials were either left unpublished or were distorted to present ‘positive’ results.” This article ends with the statement: “Nevertheless, even if one feels a bit depressed by this state of affairs, there is no reason to take antidepressants, they probably won’t work.”
A recent report that appeared in the British Medical Journal/Evidence-Based Medicine which concluded antidepressants should not be prescribed because there is no evidence that their benefits outweigh the harms- even for major depression.
The Takeaway: When it comes to issues such as depression, nutritional, holistic and mindful interventions never really see the light of day and are never really discussed or recommended by your everyday psychiatrist.
In today’s day and age, self education is a must, and that goes for doctors as well. When it comes to solutions to these issues, one must also considered options outside of the pharmaceutical industry and dive into other resources to seek out interventions that may not be motivated by profit. This is why awareness is key. As more people become aware of this type information they begin to seek out alternatives and make new choices.
It would be helpful if more effort and funding was applied to study other interventions that may not provide profit for the pharmaceutical industry. Perhaps this also shows the limitation in basing public well being on a capitalistic economy. Perhaps it’s simply a measure of our societal worldview.
Depression may not be a problem with brain structure, chemical flow and neurotransmitters. Instead, the mood of depression we experience comes from other factors that in turn may lead to changes in biology, brain structure, chemical flows etc. Mainstream medicine does not identify this issue, because the issue is not biological and is instead rooted in human experience, trauma, how one perceives the world and much more.
Note: This article, published on 5 February 2010, originally appeared in Forbes. It was removed sometime in mid October 2020 with no explanation.
While you can find a capture at archive.org, we have saved a copy here to protect against censorship and for easy sharing. – Evidence Not Fear
The World Health Organization has suddenly gone from crying “The sky is falling!” like a cackling Chicken Little to squealing like a stuck pig. The reason: charges that the agency deliberately fomented swine flu hysteria. “The world is going through a real pandemic. The description of it as a fake is wrong and irresponsible,” the agency claims on its Web site. A WHO spokesman declined to specify who or what gave this “description,” but the primary accuser is hard to ignore.
The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), a human rights watchdog, is publicly investigating the WHO’s motives in declaring a pandemic. Indeed, the chairman of its influential health committee, epidemiologist Wolfgang Wodarg, has declared that the “false pandemic” is “one of the greatest medicine scandals of the century.”
Even within the agency, the director of the WHO Collaborating Center for Epidemiology in Munster, Germany, Dr. Ulrich Kiel, has essentially labeled the pandemic a hoax. “We are witnessing a gigantic misallocation of resources [$18 billion so far] in terms of public health,” he said.
They’re right. This wasn’t merely overcautiousness or simple misjudgment. The pandemic declaration and all the Klaxon-ringing since reflect sheer dishonesty motivated not by medical concerns but political ones.
Unquestionably, swine flu has proved to be vastly milder than ordinary seasonal flu. It kills at a third to a tenth the rate, according to U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates. Data from other countries like France and Japan indicate it’s far tamer than that.
Indeed, judging by what we’ve seen in New Zealand and Australia (where the epidemics have ended), and by what we’re seeing elsewhere in the world, we’ll have considerably fewer flu deaths this season than normal. That’s because swine flu muscles aside seasonal flu, acting as a sort of inoculation against the far deadlier strain.
Did the WHO have any indicators of this mildness when it declared the pandemic in June?
Absolutely, as I wrote at the time. We were then fully 11 weeks into the outbreak and swine flu had only killed 144 people worldwide–the same number who die of seasonal flu worldwide every few hours. (An estimated 250,000 to 500,000 per year by the WHO’s own numbers.) The mildest pandemics of the 20th century killed at least a million people.
But how could the organization declare a pandemic when its own official definition required “simultaneous epidemics worldwide with enormous numbers of deaths and illness.” Severity–that is, the number of deaths–is crucial, because every year flu causes “a global spread of disease.”
Easy. In May, in what it admitted was a direct response to the outbreak of swine flu the month before, WHO promulgated a new definition matched to swine flu that simply eliminated severity as a factor. You could now have a pandemic with zero deaths.
Under fire, the organization is boldly lying about the change, to which anybody with an Internet connection can attest. In a mid-January virtual conference WHO swine flu chief Keiji Fukuda stated: “Did WHO change its definition of a pandemic? The answer is no: WHO did not change its definition.” Two weeks later at a PACE conference he insisted: “Having severe deaths has never been part of the WHO definition.”
They did it; but why?
In part, it was CYA for the WHO. The agency was losing credibility over the refusal of avian flu H5N1 to go pandemic and kill as many as 150 million people worldwide, as its “flu czar” had predicted in 2005.
Around the world nations heeded the warnings and spent vast sums developing vaccines and making other preparations. So when swine flu conveniently trotted in, the WHO essentially crossed out “avian,” inserted “swine,” and WHO Director-General Margaret Chan arrogantly boasted, “The world can now reap the benefits of investments over the last five years in pandemic preparedness.”
But there’s more than bureaucratic self-interest at work here. Bizarrely enough, the WHO has also exploited its phony pandemic to push a hard left political agenda.
In a September speech WHO Director-General Chan said “ministers of health” should take advantage of the “devastating impact” swine flu will have on poorer nations to get out the message that “changes in the functioning of the global economy” are needed to “distribute wealth on the basis of” values “like community, solidarity, equity and social justice.” She further declared it should be used as a weapon against “international policies and systems that govern financial markets, economies, commerce, trade and foreign affairs.”
Chan’s dream now lies in tatters. All the WHO has done, says PACE’s Wodart, is to destroy “much of the credibility that they should have, which is invaluable to us if there’s a future scare that might turn out to be a killer on a large scale.”
Michael Fumento is director of the nonprofit Independent Journalism Project, where he specializes in health and science issues.
Last week the Guardian proclaimed Butterfly Numbers Plummeting in US West as Climate Crisis Takes Toll. Numerous media outlets flooded the internet with similar versions in response to the research article Fewer Butterflies Seen by Community Scientists Across the Warming and Drying Landscapes of The American West by lead author Dr. Matt Forister. For the factors examined, their research found climate change had the greatest statistical effect associated with changing butterfly populations. Warmer summer temperatures however had a positive effect, while warmer autumn temperatures had a negative effect. Of course, in an age where chicken little catastrophes sell, only warming fall temperatures and butterfly extinctions could promote a profitable climate crisis. Worse, the public was misled to assume “all” western butterflies were declining.
For example, a University of Arizona press release (home of Forister’s co-author) stated, “Western butterfly populations are declining at an estimated rate of 1.6% per year,… The report looks at more than 450 butterfly species.” However, the researchers only stated their databases “encompassed more than 450 species”. In reality their analyses addressed just 290 species of which only 182 or 40% of the 450 species exhibited declining populations. Another 106 species were stable or increasing, and 251 lacked sufficient data for analysis.
It’s expected that during any given decade various populations of a butterfly species will randomly increase in one area but decrease in another, but with no overall declines as recently reported for USA insects. So correctly, Forister et al. asked if a species’ population trend was restricted to a local area or widespread. To answer that they examined 3 independent datasets. The North American Butterfly Association (NABA) supplied their once‑a‑year butterfly counts, typically held around July 4th, of which only 72 different sites had the required 10+ years of data (average was 21 years) with which to determine a species’ abundance trend. A second data set came from Dr. Art Shapiro’s northern California bi-weekly surveys but covered only 10 sites from the San Francisco Bay area to the Sierra Nevada crest at Donner Pass. A third database used iNaturalist’s citizen science data that only provided flashy optics suggesting widespread coverage. Although iNaturalist is a great application that easily connects laypeople with experts for accurate identifications and determines the presence of a species in a given locale, it doesn’t provide trustworthy trend data.
To argue for widespread declines, a species had to be declining in at least two of their three datasets. Comparing trends in the NABA & Shapiro datasets, only 104 species exhibited declines in both. In other words, only 23% of the ballyhooed 450 species showed a possible widespread decline. However, when interviewed by the Washington Post for the article Butterflies Are Vanishing Out West. Scientists Say Climate Change is to Blame, Forister contrarily stated, “The influence of climate change is driving those declines, which makes sense because they’re so widespread”
Despite the real number of examined species, National Geographic still trumpeted 450 Butterfly Species Rapidly Declining Due to Warmer Autumns In The Western U.S. while shamefully ignoring the positive summer warming. Indeed Forister had reported, “locations that have been warming in the fall months have seen fewer butterflies over time”, adding an unsupported hypothesis that “fall warming likely induces physiological stress on active and diapausing stages, reduces host plant vigor, or extends activity periods for natural enemies.” But most butterfly species are no longer flying or laying eggs or feeding during the autumn. Instead, they have snuggled into relative safety from environmental changes to overwinter until the next flush of new springtime vegetation.
The larvae (caterpillars) of some declining species feed on grasses (i.e. Eufala Skipper and Sachem skipper), or herbs (i.e. Cabbage White or Sara Orange-Tip). But most grasses and herbs are dead or dormant by the end of summer. Other larvae of declining species feed on the young leaves or needles produced by trees in the spring (like Propertius duskywing or Western pine elfin). Autumn warmth has no effect on the “vigor” of dead or dormant food plants. Autumn temperatures are simply not critically important. Natural enemies like parasitic wasps typically evolved similar sensitivities to the same environmental cues as their caterpillar hosts and insect eating birds begin migrating south in August. Claiming global warming somehow selectively hurts butterflies but helps their enemies is a totally unsupported claim hurled far too often by those fabricating a climate crisis.
Disturbingly, Forister et al. simultaneously downplayed known benefits of summer warming, suggesting it only increased ‘butterfly visibility’ stating, “warming in the summer influences adult activity times directly and hence increases the probability of detection”. But to power their flight, butterflies sunbathe to raise their body temperature above ambient air temperature. Increased activity is needed for mating and finding host plants. Greater summer warmth also enables faster larval growth, which in some species enables an increased number of generations each year enabling larger summer populations (i.e. Monarchs). In other species like Edith’s checkerspot the caterpillars seek hotter surfaces to grow fast enough each summer and reach a required size allowing overwinter survival. Warmer summers benefit many species in many ways.
To my knowledge not one media outlet reported the summer benefits or the most telling conclusion of Forister et al. “Although our analyses point to warming fall temperatures as an important factor in insect declines, we acknowledge the multifaceted nature of the problem and how much remains to be understood about climate change interacting with habitat loss and degradation.”
If Forister et al. were truly trying to decipher the causes for observed butterfly declines, they should have at least adhered to the most basic scientific principle of controlling for known confounding factors. To blame climate change, confounding effects must be removed. But they were not. Thus, declining trends could be completely caused by insecticides and land use. And Forister was well aware of such important factors.
In a 2010 paper co-authored with Dr. Shapiro he found, “most severe reductions at the lowest elevations, where habitat destruction is greatest.” In a 2014 paper Forister concluded “Patterns of land use contributed to declines in species richness, but the net effect of a changing climate on butterfly richness was more difficult to discern.” In his 2016 paper he modelled negative effects of neonicotinoid insecticides. Listed as Forister’s 37th most declining species, the media highlighted the recent 99% decline of western Monarch butterflies. Yet the Monarch’s big killers are also land use change and herbicides, not climate change.
In the 1970s scientists discovered virtually all monarchs breeding east of the Rocky Mountains migrate to extremely small patches of high mountain forests in central Mexico. When that critical wintering habitat was logged, it opened the forest canopies removing its insulating effects. In January 2002, a storm brought cold rains followed by clear skies. Without the clouds’ greenhouse effect, or an insulating forest canopy, temperatures plummeted to 23°F (- 4°C). Millions of damp butterflies froze in place. Many millions more fell creating an eerie carpet of dead and dying butterflies several inches deep. Distraught researchers calculated 500 million butterflies died that winter, wiping out 80% of the entire eastern population. Similar cold events happened in 2004, 2010 and 2016.
In contrast, monarchs breeding west of the Rockies winter along the California coast to Baja where the ocean moderates temperatures and prevents freezing. Nonetheless those wintering populations also plummeted by 81% by 2014. Interestingly, tagging studies and genetics suggest California and Mexican wintering populations intermingle. Although it’s not clear if one wintering population contributes to the other, their abundance has fluctuated very similarly. In addition, a 1991 statewide study implicated land use as 38 overwintering sites in California were destroyed.
Herbicides severely reduced the monarch’s food plants, milkweeds. Adapted to colonizing open disturbed landscapes, milkweed species began invading the fertilized ground between rows of crops. As 1900s monarch populations boomed, farmers’ crops suffered. Milkweed competition reduced harvests of wheat and sorghum by 20% and most states declared milkweed a noxious weed. Attempts to eradicate milkweed by tilling only stimulated underground roots promoting more milkweed. The 1970s discovery that the herbicide glyphosate (i.e. Roundup) killed the whole plant, turned the tide against milkweed. When genetically modified herbicide‑resistant soybean and corn crops were developed in 1996, herbicide use dramatically increased, furthering the milkweeds rapid decline. That loss of milkweed now hinders monarch recovery. For monarch lovers, our best safeguard is planting more milkweed in our gardens. Likewise, we can plant butterfly friendly gardens for all species. On the bright side of climate change, warming could allow an added monarch generation.
Talk to Florida Governor Ron DeSantis. He understands the game.
In December, his office issued an order to all state labs processing COVID PCR tests. They must now report “the number of cycles” they deploy in every test they perform. [1] [1a]
Roughly speaking, a cycle is a quantum leap which increases the sensitivity of the test. As readily asserted by Anthony Fauci, any test using more than 35 cycles is meaningless. [2] [2a]
—Not only meaningless, but laden with false-positive results. The patient is falsely claimed to be “infected.”
However, the FDA and the CDC, since the launch of the COVID PCR test, have been recommending using 40 cycles; and therefore labs have been following this advice. [3] [3a] [3b]
The outcome, in terms of falsely inflated case numbers, has been a disaster.
Furthermore, as reported by the New York Times, testing labs never tell the patient or the doctor how many cycles they use in running the PCR. [4]
Governor DeSantis understood the massive testing problem. That’s why his office, and his state department of health, ordered the labs to report “numbers of cycles.”
Armed with this background, you governors can meet and overcome challenges as you re-open your states. Why do I say this? Because the attacks coming your way will be based on three statistics:
The number of COVID cases in your state; the number of COVID deaths; and the number of COVID hospitalizations.
“Well, these numbers are rising. The governors must lock down again. Otherwise, they are contributing to disease and death.”
But you see, all three statistical categories depend on a positive PCR test. And since the test, improperly run, has resulted in huge numbers of false-positives, you can restore sanity and more accurate data by following Governor DeSantis’ lead.
Once your state labs report how many cycles they are using for each PCR test they run, you can reject any test that deploys over 35 cycles. You can eliminate vast numbers of false-positives, and when you DO…
The number of COVID cases, COVID deaths, and COVID hospitalizations in your state will decline, as they should.
And those who would attack you, based on those numbers, will have no ability to make their case.
In a nutshell, a vast fraud has been perpetrated on The People, and you can stop it.
You can restore sanity, re-open your states, and make the stranglehold of COVID restrictions a thing of the past.
Readers of this article: you can perform a valuable service by forwarding the article to the governor’s office in your state.
Over the last 12 months, one of the leading voices opposing pandemic hysteria has been former Minnesota state senator Dr. Scott Jensen. According to a press release obtained by the Minnesota Reformer, Jensen is expected to announce his candidacy for governor of the state next week.
Dr. Jensen, 66, a qualified physician, gained global popularity after appearing on national TV and coming out challenging the government response to COVID-19 and explaining how reactionary policies are out of proportion in relation to the actual risk posed by this seasonal coronavirus. His popular testimonials have since been serialized in thousands of video presentations online.
He also took on the official ‘consensus’ of politicians and the medical community and exposed the scandal of how hospitals had a financial incentive in declaring a patient a COVID “case”, as well as financial incentives for hospitals to needlessly place people on ventilators – a dangerous procedure which many do not survive.
Based on the adversarial tone of the Reformer’s report, it seems that the political and medical establishment are afraid of Jensen: “His status as a physician could give him credibility to attack Walz on the governor’s COVID-19 response, except by the fall of 2022 the pandemic is likely to have evaporated. And, Jensen’s comments about the pandemic will likely face intense scrutiny.”
According to the their report, Dr. Jensen has confirmed the announcement with the headline “Jensen Announces Run for Minnesota Governor” had indeed been drafted, and is set to be released on March 16th.
Some of the text of the release includes:
“He will elevate thoughtful discourse, engage in difficult conversations, and will not allow pandering groupthink to impede the vital contributions science can provide,” the release reads. “Scott is excited to embark on this journey and looks forward to meeting with his fellow Minnesotans across the state and restoring their hope and freedom.”
Jensen, a Republican, would be the first candidate to run against first-term Democratic-Farmer-Labor Gov. Tim Walz.
On March 4 and 5, Canada, the UK, Australia, Switzerland and Singapore released identical guidelines for fast-tracking release onto the market of vaccines for the new variants. The countries issued the recommendations under the banner of the ‘ACCESS Consortium.’ ACCESS is an acronym based on the first letters of the five countries’ names.
A few days earlier, on February 22, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released a similar set of recommendations. They allow Emergency Use Authorizations (EUAs) for “investigational” vaccines for new variants, letting them be used on the general public without first showing evidence of safety or effectiveness.
The recommendations all state that companies don’t need to conduct new clinical trials before putting the new-variant vaccines onto the market and potentially into millions of people’s arms. Requiring new trials, the ACCESS document asserts, would cause “considerable delay” and “bears the risk that the virus is evolving even further, potentially making a new vaccine version outdated at the time of approval again.”
Instead, the safety record of the currently used Covid vaccines can be used to judge the safety of the new ones, the countries’ regulatory agencies declare.
And they claim that the currently used vaccines are safe and effective: “[T]here is considerable safety experience accumulating as the pandemic progresses and vaccines are rolled out, and [in any case] efficacy has been established for the initial vaccine candidate [i.e., the original Covid vaccines] via large clinical Phase 3 studies,” the ACCESS document states.
This is despite the fact that manyobservers have documented significant safety problems associated with the Covid vaccines, including high death rates.
That helps explain why public-health officials and politicians around the world are bending over backwards to assert that Covid vaccines are very safe and effective. This gives the green light for all future forms of these vaccines to be used without safety testing.
(The regulatory authorities also say these new guidelines can only be used for vaccines that are modifications of the Covid vaccines already in use. But there’s enough wiggle room in the new recommendations that I believe they also will be used for new entrants into the Covid-vaccine race.)
Rather than full clinical trials, only a small amount of data needs to be put together by the manufacturers prior to seeking an EUA. Then after the EUA is granted further data can then be gathered from people in the general population who are given the vaccines.
This approach apparently is modeled on the approval of new flu vaccines every year. The flu-vaccine regulations were in turn, “developed based on ample experience gained through years of seasonal vaccinations, and the 2009 H1N1 pandemic,” the ACCESS guidelines state.
The latter claim is particularly alarming. The H1N1 swine-flu ‘pandemic’ never materialized. Hundreds of people were needlessly severely injured by the main vaccine for it, GlaxoSmithKline’s Pandemrix. Furthermore, Glaxo was not required to compensate victims; instead, the UK government paid tens of millions of pounds to people who were brain injured by Pandemrix.
The ACCESS and US FDA recommendations only require that companies measure the level of antibodies that people produce when they are given the vaccine. The regulatory agencies will accept this as a proxy for effectiveness.
The ACCESS document states that “the correlations of antibody titres [levels] to effectiveness is not established.” They therefore suggest that the World Health Organization (WHO) create an “International Standard and Reference Panel for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody as use of standardized reference material” for all such antibody-level tests.
Such antibody testing is conducted by measuring whether a quantity of virus or other protein-containing substance are or aren’t all bound by antibodies in a person’s blood sample. This method has been used for years.
However, as I showed in my last article and video, The Antibody Deception, there is no objective evidence that there is in fact binding of antibodies only to the novel coronavirus. Instead, antibodies that purportedly are specific to the novel coronavirus frequently bind to other things.
Therefore this is a fatally flawed approach to determining whether vaccines are effective in any way.
There is a field of other red flags in these new recommendations. For example:
1. They don’t address the fact that until 2020 scientists were unable to develop any effective vaccines against coronaviruses, despite decades of effort. Then suddenly in 2020-2021 they were able to create at least seven. And now six countries are poised to allow vaccines for new variants to be used one after another in quick succession. The regulatory authorities don’t appear interested in objectively reconciling this contradiction.
2. The ACCESS guidelines have no references. So it’s very hard to check whether their points are accurate. The U.S. FDA recommendations have 13 references. That’s more than zero, but it’s still not a lot in a document that’s rewriting how Covid vaccines are authorized for use in hundreds of millions of people.
3. There’s not a single mention of the fact that pummelling populations with vaccines will make the viruses they’re aimed at become less susceptible to the vaccines. This phenomenon is known as resistance.
Resistance has been a concern for many decades with respect to antibiotics. But we rarely hear about viral resistance — even though it is inevitable, particularly because other treatments such as antivirals and monoclonal antibodies.are being used against the novel coronavirus in parallel with vaccines.
4. On February 22, 2021, the USA FDA also issued a new guidance (PDF here) for development of monoclonal antibodies for treating Covid including the new variants. The document outlines how the FDA will significantly speed up this approval: “when scientifically supported, FDA will streamline the data necessary to support the development of monoclonal antibody products targeting SARS-CoV-2 and also expedite the review of these data.”
In addition, the document states that the “FDA strongly recommends that individual monoclonal antibody products be developed with the expectation that they will be combined with one or more monoclonal antibody products that bind to different epitopes [very short protein segments] to minimize the risk of losing activity against emergency variants.”
However, as I indicated in my ‘The Antibody Deception’ video and article, there’s no proof that antibodies, whether used singly or in combination with others, are effective against Covid, whether the ‘original’ virus or variants.
This all seems designed to allow new vaccines and monoclonal antibodies for the new variants onto the market with very little regulatory oversight.
After obtaining an MSc in molecular biology from the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Calgary, Rosemary Frei became a freelance writer. For the next 22 years she was a medical writer and journalist. She pivoted again in early 2016 to full-time, independent activism and investigative journalism. Her website is RosemaryFrei.ca
Have you heard of the 7-Step Recipe for Generating Interest In, And Demand For Flu (or any other) Vaccination? Back when journalists did some real work, HuffPo’s Laurence Solomon wrote a fascinating expose on the CDC colluding with vaccine makers.
The problem with the mRNA Covid-19 vaccine, is not that it’s a vaccine. It’s that it’s not safe. That’s the issue: Safety.
This view is shared by a great many professionals who believe that these potentially-toxic concoctions pose a significant threat to the health and well-being of anyone who chooses to get inoculated.
Do you realize that the mRNA vaccine is a purely synthetic PEG-coated lipid nanoparticle that spreads throughout the body and brain creating conditions for debilitating ailments 3 or 4 years down the road? (More on this below) Do you realize that these dubious vaccines have not been thoroughly tested, did not undergo critical animal trials, did not complete Phase 3 trials, and were waved through the regulatory process under the “Emergency Use Authorization (EUA)” provision?
What does it mean when we say: “The vaccines were waved through under the Emergency Use Authorization provision?”
It means that the vaccines were not required to meet the same rigorous standards or follow the same protocols as previous vaccines. It means that, by definition, these vaccines are not safe. It means that normal precautionary regulations were suspended in order to put these vaccines into service as fast as possible. Isn’t that worth mulling over before rolling up your sleeve?
There are a number of extremely promising treatments, therapies and medications for Covid, and many more are on their way. (See: Sharyl Attkisson: “Full Measure”, Vaccines and Treatments, You Tube) But the mRNA vaccine is not among these promising medications. The mRNA vaccine is a grave threat to one’s health and safety. It should never have been approved.
And who is promoting these vaccines that do not stop the transmission of Covid, do not prevent Covid, and which will have no meaningful impact on the rapidly-declining fatality rate? Who is pushing these potentially-lethal injections? Is it the reputable scientists, virologists, epidemiologists and other medical experts who don’t have a stake in the outcome and who base their judgements on the science alone, or is it the conflicted state bureaucrats, the public health toadies and the billionaire activists who control the media and whose shadowy and sinister motives are still not clear?
Most people know the answer to that question already. It’s obvious.
And why have the views of the naysayers, the contrarians and the critics been painstakingly scrubbed from the MSM and social media? If the efficacy and safety of these vaccines is so unassailable, then why must all public debate be prevented?
Ask yourself this: Has the Covid vaccine roll-out been the biggest and most extravagant Madison Avenue “product launch” in American history?
Indeed, it has. The media, Hollywood, the public health authorities, big pharma, global elites and the entire political establishment have joined the full-throated, public relations blitz that is aimed at cajoling every man, woman and child into doing something that could trigger an agonizing medical condition or dramatically shorten their lives.
Why are they doing this? Why have they quashed all debate and silenced their critics? Why are they taking advantage of public hysteria to intensify their mass-vaccination campaign? Why have they obfuscated the truth on so many issues related to Covid including masks, asymptomatic transmission, school closures, lockdowns etc? Is there even one part of the official Covid narrative that “rings true” or that can withstand the scrutiny of critical analysis? Does it all have to be lies? Can’t we at least mix some truth in with the vast mountain of flagrant fabrications and disinformation?
The truth is, we don’t need a vaccine. The case numbers and fatalities are already dropping precipitously around the world. The virus is on its way out. Here’s how Pfizer’s former Vice President and Chief Scientist for Allergy & Respiratory Disease, Dr. Michael Yeadon, summed it up some months ago:
“There is absolutely no need for vaccines to extinguish the pandemic… You do not vaccinate people who aren’t at risk from a disease. You also don’t set about planning to vaccinate millions of fit and healthy people with a vaccine that hasn’t been extensively tested on human subjects.”
He’s right, isn’t he? And, yet, even now– when the vast majority of people are fully aware that cases and deaths are falling like a stone– they’re still rushing-off to their local public health facility to get vaccinated. Explain that to me? Why would anyone willingly get vaccinated when the infection is already dying out and the number of susceptible hosts is rapidly decreasing? What sense does that make?
Do you realize that we have no data on the long-term adverse effects of these new mRNA vaccines? None. So, the question is: Why would a public health official put a vaccine into service without knowing what the long-term effects of that vaccine might be?
He wouldn’t, unless he was pressured into doing so, because that would be irresponsible and a violation of his oath to “Do no harm.”
Even so, these are the very same vaccines that well-known billionaire activists want to use on all 7 billion people on Planet Earth. Do these “do goodie” billionaires have any idea of the carnage and suffering their mass-vaccination campaign is likely to generate? Or is that the goal, a world with fewer people?
Let’s cut to the chase: What readers really want to know is how these vaccines will impact their health. “How is this going to affect me”, that’s the bottom line. But since we have no long-term data, (since there were no long-term trials) we have to depend on the analysis of professionals who have a sense of where the potential problems might arise. Check out this blurb from an article by Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, lung specialist and former head of the public health department, and Dr. Michael Yeadon, ex-Pfizer head of respiratory research. Here are some of their concerns:
“The formation of so-called “non-neutralizing antibodies” can lead to an exaggerated immune reaction, especially when the test person is confronted with the real, “wild” virus after vaccination.”
– The vaccinations are expected to produce antibodies against spike proteins of SARS-CoV-2. However, spike proteins also contain syncytin-homologous proteins, which are essential for the formation of the placenta in mammals such as humans. It must be ruled out that a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 could trigger an immune reaction against syncytin-1, as it may otherwise result in infertility of indefinite duration in vaccinated women.
– The mRNA vaccines from Pfizer/BioNTech contain polyethylene glycol (PEG). 70% of people develop antibodies against this substance. This means that many people can develop allergic, potentially fatal reactions to the vaccination.
– The much too short duration of the study does not allow a realistic estimation of the late effects. As in the narcolepsy cases after the swine flu vaccination, millions of healthy people would be exposed to an unacceptable risk if an emergency approval were to be granted and the possibility of observing the late effects of the vaccination were to follow.” (“That Was Quick”, Lockdown Skeptics)
Let’s summarize:
The new messenger RNA vaccines could make recipients more susceptible to serious illness or death. (The vaccine could pave the way for autoimmune disease or ADE Antibody-dependent Enhancement.)
Spike proteins can “trigger an immune reaction” that will “result in infertility.”
The new vaccines contain polyethylene glycol (PEG) which can be “potentially fatal.”
The trials were not long enough to determine whether the vaccines are safe or not. FDA approval does not mean “safe”. Quite the contrary. The FDA is “captured” in the same way the FAA is captured.
Naturally, the analysis of Yeadon and Wodarg has appeared nowhere in the MSM. (Also, Yeadon was recently removed by Twitter.) Experts in their field of learning are no longer allowed to candidly discuss their concerns in a public forum if their conclusions do not jibe with the official narrative. The push to censor opposing points of view is greater now than any time in our 245-year history. The people who now insist that you get vaccinated, are the very same people who are doing everything in the power to prevent you from knowing the truth about their vaccines.
And what is the truth?
The truth is that ‘universal vaccination’ factors quite large in the elitist restructuring agenda that has nothing to do with global pandemic and everything to do with social control. At its heart, Covid is a political phenomenon more than it is a public health emergency. One is merely a fig leaf for the other.
Have you ever heard of Prion disease?
The CDC describes Prion diseases as “a family of rare progressive neurodegenerative disorders that affect both humans and animals. They are distinguished by long incubation periods, characteristic spongiform changes associated with neuronal loss, and a failure to induce inflammatory response.
The causative agents of TSEs are believed to be prions. The term “prions” refers to abnormal, pathogenic agents that are transmissible and are able to induce abnormal folding of specific normal cellular proteins called prion proteins that are found most abundantly in the brain….. The abnormal folding of the prion proteins leads to brain damage and the characteristic signs and symptoms of the disease. Prion diseases are usually rapidly progressive and always fatal.” (CDC)
Is this what the future holds for millions of recipients of the mRNA vaccine?
We think it is very likely.
In an earlier article, we posted an excerpt from an interview with Dr. Chris Shaw, Ph.D, Specialist in Neuroplasticity and Neuropathology. Shaw described this very condition that could emerge as a reaction to agents in the mRNA vaccine that find their way into the brain. Here’s what he said:
“The mRNA lipid-coated PEG-construct– by Moderna’s own study–does not stay localized but spreads throughout the body including the brain. Found in animal studies in bone marrow, brain, lymph nodes, heart, kidneys liver, lungs etc Doctors are saying that the vaccine does NOT cross the blood-brain barrier, but that is NOT true. …If it reaches the brain there will be an auto immune response that will cause inflammation What characterizes virtually all neuro-degenerative diseases is this misfolded protein that is characteristic to Lou Gerrigs disease, to Alzheimer’s, to Parkinsons to Huntington’s etc. They are different proteins, but they tend to form these sheets of misfolded proteins called Beta Sheets. Now you are asking cells in various parts of the body–including the brain– to make a lot of these proteins and release them to the outside, and , are we sure that’s what’ it’s all doing? Are you getting clusters of misfolded proteins inside neurons? That would be a bad thing to do.. So, you’d like to know where it is, how much of it there is, and which groups of neuronal groups its targeted. .and those are the kinds of questions you like the companies to have solved long before they got authorization and discovered some years later that they have a problem.”
“This is a vast experiment that should have been done in the lab on animals and now it is being done on people ..The potential is that you are going to harm a lot of people while you do this experiment.” (“NEUROSCIENTIST’S CONCERNS ABOUT COVID VACCINES”, Chris Shaw, Ph.D, Specialist in Neuroplasticity and Neuropathology)
Is this what we should expect in the future, a sharp uptick in neurological disorders like Lou Gehrig’s disease, Alzheimer’s and Parkinson?
Apparently, so. Check out this longer excerpt from a research paper by Dr. J. Bart Classen:
“Vaccines have been found to cause a host of chronic, late developing adverse events. Some adverse events like type 1 diabetes may not occur until 3-4 years after a vaccine is administered[1]…. Given that type 1 diabetes is only one of many immune mediated diseases potentially caused by vaccines, chronic late occurring adverse events are a serious public health issue....
RNA based vaccines offers special risks of inducing specific adverse events. One such potential adverse event is prion-based diseases caused by activation of intrinsic proteins to form prions. A wealth of knowledge has been published on a class of RNA binding proteins shown to participating in causing a number of neurological diseases including Alzheimer’s disease and ALS….
… In the current paper the concern is raised that the RNA based COVID vaccines have the potential to cause more disease than the epidemic of COVID-19. This paper focuses on a novel potential adverse event mechanism causing prion disease which could be even more common and debilitating than the viral infection the vaccine is designed to prevent. …….
The current analysis indicates … RNA based COVID-19 vaccine contains many of these RNA sequences that have …. have the potential to induce chronic degenerative neurological diseases....
Genetic diversity protects species from mass casualties caused by infectious agents. One individual may be killed by a virus while another may have no ill effects from the same virus. By placing the identical receptor, the spike protein, on cells of everyone in a population, the genetic diversity for at least one potential receptor disappears. Everyone in the population now becomes potentially susceptible to binding with the same infectious agent….
… The results indicate that the vaccine RNA has specific sequences that may induce TDP-43 and FUS to fold into their pathologic prion confirmations…The folding of TDP-43 and FUS into their pathologic prion confirmations is known to cause ALS,… Alzheimer’s disease and other neurological degenerative diseases. The enclosed finding as well as additional potential risks leads the author to believe that regulatory approval of the RNA based vaccines for SARS-CoV-2 was premature and that the vaccine may cause much more harm than benefit. (“Covid-19 RNA Based Vaccines and the Risk of Prion Disease”, J. Bart Classen, MD., Microbiology and Infectious Diseases.”)
Dr. Classen’s analysis is disturbing, but in no way, comprehensive. The new regime of mRNA vaccines fails on a great many levels which we will discuss in future articles. These “gene editing” vaccines are not medicine, they are strange and menacing hybrid cocktail that was created to achieve an elusive political objective of which we still know very little. If there was ever a time to stand back from the crowd, resist groupthink, and employ one’s own critical thinking skills to decide whether the risks of vaccination far outweigh the benefits; this is it. The choice is yours to make.
In this interview, which was initially banned by YouTube before it was even published (but now reversed), Spiro is joined by Attorney Ana Garner of New Mexico. Garner represents her client Isaac Legaretta, an officer at the Doña Ana County Detention Center and a military veteran, who is suing the county over its new policy for first responders to receive the COVID-19 vaccinations or face termination.
Attorney Garner explains the significance of this case and what is at stake, as it is the first of its kind and may set a new standard for legal precedent regarding mandatory vaccination. Garner says she is prepared to take this case to the Supreme Court if necessary.
Spiro and Ana Garner also discuss another case of hers that is ongoing currently. A case that challenges not only the Governor of New Mexico, but the emergency itself.
You can see this important interview on the free speech platform BitChute below:
The flaws of vaccine trials in general are really highlighted by current COVID-19 vaccine studies, one of the most egregious ones being the fact that vaccine makers rarely use inert placebos (such as a saline shot), which is the gold standard for drug trials.
As noted in a January 25, 2021, article in The Defender,1 vaccine developers typically assess the safety of a new vaccine against another vaccine, and by so doing, they effectively hide side effects as most vaccines have side effects and risks.
As just one example, the Oxford/AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine is being tested against a meningitis vaccine,2 which just so happens to share many of the side effects reported from COVID-19 vaccines. As reported by the National Vaccine Information Center:3
“According to the CDC, at least 50% of individuals receiving meningococcal vaccines targeting meningococcal serogroups A, C, Y, and W-135 (Menactra or Menveo) experience mild side effects …
Adverse events reported by Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics (GlaxoSmithKline) in the pre-licensing clinical trials of Menveo vaccine include … headache; joint and muscle pain; malaise; nausea; chills … acute disseminated encephalomyelitis … pneumonia … suicidal depression and suicide attempts.”
Long-Term Safety Analysis Tossed By The Wayside
Now, Pfizer and Moderna have started offering placebo recipients in their trials the real mRNA gene therapy, which means it will be even more difficult to tease out which side effects are actually caused by the shot and which ones aren’t, over the long term. As reported by NPR, February 17, 2021:4
“Tens of thousands of people who volunteered to participate in the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccine studies are still participating in follow-up research, though that’s somewhat hampered because many people who had been given a placebo shot opted to take the vaccine instead.”
In fact, according to Dr. Carlos Fierro, who runs the clinical trial for the Moderna vaccine in Lenexa, Kansas, virtually all of the 650 volunteers who initially received the placebo have now opted to get the real vaccine, which means he had “essentially no comparison group left for the ongoing study,” which was slated to run for two full years.
As Dr. Steven Goodman at Stanford University told NPR,5 getting rid of the initial control groups makes it far more difficult to assess the safety and effectiveness of the COVID vaccines since they won’t have anything to compare the vaccine recipients against.
Justification For Elimination Of Controls Is Flimsy At Best
Ironically, both the use of an active placebo and the elimination of control groups are being justified on “moral grounds” by pro-vaccine advocates who say it’s unethical to not provide volunteers with something of value, such as another vaccine in the case of active placebos, or a vaccine they know is effective in the case of giving placebo recipients the real McCoy.
Both of these arguments are beyond questionable. As mentioned, no vaccine is 100% safe, so getting an active vaccine placebo comes with risk, not merely benefit, and when it comes to the novel mRNA technology used in COVID-19 vaccines, historical data are troubling to say the least, and the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) is rapidly filling up with COVID-19 vaccine-related injury reports and deaths.
As reported in “COVID-19 Vaccine To Be Tested on 6-Year-Olds,” as of February 4, 2021, VAERS had received 12,697 injury reports and 653 deaths following COVID-19 vaccination.6 Even more telling, between January 2020 and January 2021, COVID-19 vaccines accounted for 70% of the annual vaccine deaths, even though these vaccines had only been available for less than two months!
What’s more, previous research7 by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services found fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are ever reported to VAERS, so in reality, we may be looking at more than 1 million COVID-19 vaccine injuries within the first two months of their release.
In my view, the data are far from assuring overall, which makes the elimination of long-term control groups — flawed as they may be due to active placebo use — all the more troubling.
All Previous Coronavirus Vaccines Failed Upon Challenge
Historically, previous attempts to create a coronavirus vaccine have all failed miserably, as they ended up creating devastating immune enhancement. This is why any and all short-cuts taken in the COVID-19 vaccine development is so troubling.
In my May 2020 interview above with Robert Kennedy Jr., he summarized the history of coronavirus vaccine development, which began in 2002, following three consecutive SARS outbreaks. By 2012, Chinese, American and European scientists were working on SARS vaccine development, and had about 30 promising candidates.
Of those, the four best vaccine candidates were then given to ferrets, which are the closest analogue to human lung infections. In the video above, which is a select outtake from my full interview, Kennedy explains what happened next.
While the ferrets displayed robust antibody response, which is the metric used for vaccine licensing, once they were challenged with the wild virus, they were overtaken by a cytokine storm response, known as paradoxical immune enhancement, became severely ill and died.
The same thing happened when they tried to develop a respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccine in the 1960s. RSV is an upper respiratory illness that is very similar to that caused by coronaviruses.
At that time, they had decided to skip animal trials and go directly to human trials. The RSV vaccine was tested on about 35 children, with identical results. Initially, they developed a robust antibody response, but when challenged with the wild virus, all became ill and two died. The vaccine was abandoned.
Yes, We Really Do Need Placebo Arms
Despite such dire failures, some still argue that placebo arms aren’t needed in COVID-19 vaccine trials. In an opinion piece in STAT News,8 Kent Peacock, a professor of philosophy, and John Vokey, a professor of psychology, both from the University of Lethbridge, compare the use of placebo control groups with giving out dummy parachutes during wartime.
“Giving the real treatment to 100% of the volunteers removes one of the major ethical barriers to challenge trials: the high probability of harmful side effects or death to members of a control group,” they say, completely ignoring the fact that volunteers in the vaccine arm may be put at grave unknown risks, not just in the short term but in the long term as well.
This entire argument hinges on the idea that the vaccine being tested is KNOWN to be safe, which it absolutely is not at this point, and won’t be for many years. They even argue that “not using a placebo … would be less ethically questionable to test the vaccine on older participants.”
Well, they published that article in early September 2020, and now we can more or less conclusively state that they are wrong on this point, as older vaccine recipients have been dropping like flies.
‘We’re Dealing With Homicide,’ German Attorney Says
As reported by Brian Shilhavy, editor of Health Impact News, February 19, 2021:9
“Earlier this week we published10 the English translation of a video in German that attorney Reiner Fuellmich published with a whistleblower who works in a nursing home where several residents were injected with the experimental COVID mRNA shots against their will, and where many of them died a short time later.
Since that interview was published, other whistleblowers in Germany who work in nursing homes have also stepped forward, some with video footage showing residents being held down and vaccinated against their wish …
Fuellmich … stated: ‘We are getting more and more calls from other whistleblowers form other nursing homes in this country, plus we’re getting information from other countries, Sweden for example, Norway … Gibraltar … here are also incidents in England and in the United States that match these descriptions …
It means that people are dying because of the vaccines. What we are seeing in this video clip is worse than anything we ever expected. If this is representative for what’s going on in other nursing homes, and in other countries, then we have a very serious problem.
And so do the people who make the vaccines, so do the people who administer the vaccines. It looks more and more as though we’re dealing with homicide, and maybe even murder.’”
Novel MRNA Gene Therapy Is Not Harmless
It’s important to realize what mRNA and DNA COVID-19 vaccine actually are. They are not traditional vaccines made with live or attenuated viruses. They’re actually gene therapies. They don’t even meet the medical or legal definition of a vaccine, as detailed in “COVID-19 mRNA Shots Are Legally Not Vaccines.” This novel, never before used therapy has a long list of potential problems, including the following:
The messenger RNA (mRNA) used in many COVID-19 vaccines are synthetic. Your body sees these synthetic particles as non-self, which can cause autoantibodies to attack your own tissues. Judy Mikovits, Ph.D., explained this in her interview, featured in “How COVID-19 Vaccines May Destroy the Lives of Millions.”
Your body also views free mRNA as a warning signal to your immune system, as they drive inflammatory diseases. This is why making synthetic mRNA thermostable, meaning it doesn’t break down as easily as it normally would by encasing the mRNA in lipid nanoparticles is likely to be problematic.
COVID-19 vaccines use PEGylated lipid nanoparticles, and PEG is known to cause anaphylaxis.11
Previous attempts to develop an mRNA-based drug using lipid nanoparticles failed because when the dose was too low, the drug had no effect, and when dosed too high, the drug became too toxic.12
The synthetic RNA influences, in part, the gene syncytin. According to Mikovits, when syncytin is aberrantly expressed in the brain, you can develop multiple sclerosis. Expression of the syncytin gene also inflames and dysregulates communication between the brain microglia, which are critical for clearing toxins and pathogens in the brain. It also dysregulates your immune system and your endocannabinoid system, which is the dimmer switch on inflammation.
The synthetic mRNA also has an HIV envelope expressed in it, which can cause immune dysregulation.
Symptoms Of COVID-19 Vaccine Damage
Commonly reported side effects among recipients of the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines include… continue reading
Increasingly, there are serious questions being asked about the factual basis for declaring a pandemic and the growing number of mitigation policies being implemented by governments and corporations. When is a COVID-19 “case” really a case? Moreover, do the case numbers and death numbers that have been touted over the last 12 months by governments in UK, EU, USA, and numerous governments around the world, accurately reflect actual COVID cases and COVID deaths?
In fact, the World Health Organization (WHO) itself has admitted that the entire basis for collating “case” numbers since the beginning of this ‘global pandemic’ is effectively null and void. In its directive published in late January, the organization stated that medical professionals should not be using PCR Testing with high Cycle Threshold (CT) levels due to the high likelihood of generating false positives in people, and also that the PCR Test should not be used as the sole metric for diagnosing and should be accompanied by a professional clinical diagnosis. In other words: the PCR Test cannot rightly be used as a medical diagnostic tool, and yet, it has been widely used as such for the last 12 months. This admission should have grave implications for every public health official, politician and media editor on the planet, but the silence is deafening – as most are simply ignoring this fact.
Description of the problem: WHO requests users to follow the instructions for use (IFU) when interpreting results for specimens tested using PCR methodology.
Users of IVDs must read and follow the IFU carefully to determine if manual adjustment of the PCR positivity threshold is recommended by the manufacturer.
WHO guidance Diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 states that careful interpretation of weak positive results is needed (1). The cycle threshold (Ct) needed to detect virus is inversely proportional to the patient’s viral load. Where test results do not correspond with the clinical presentation, a new specimen should be taken and retested using the same or different NAT technology.
WHO reminds IVD users that disease prevalence alters the predictive value of test results; as disease prevalence decreases, the risk of false positive increases (2). This means that the probability that a person who has a positive result (SARS-CoV-2 detected) is truly infected with SARS-CoV-2 decreases as prevalence decreases, irrespective of the claimed specificity.
Most PCR assays are indicated as an aid for diagnosis, therefore, health care providers must consider any result in combination with timing of sampling, specimen type, assay specifics, clinical observations, patient history, confirmed status of any contacts, and epidemiological information.
In addition, from the beginning of the ‘pandemic,’ arbitrary and broad guidelines for symptom diagnosis for COVID were being encouraged, and not surprisingly this corresponded with a complete disappearance of season influenza.
Former Minnesota state legislator, Dr Scott Jensen MD, explains why this is absolutely crucial and how we’ve all been played over the last 12 months. Watch:
Almost three years ago science entered a new dark age.
Jay Bhattacharya, a professor of medicine at Stanford University and co-author of the Great Barrington Declaration, seems to agree. He has been compiling a list of the examples of anti-science we have unfortunately become used to.
I have listed his thoughts so far but the list is continually expanding... continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
Aletho News
Aletho News 