On mRNA/Gene Therapy

[Belligerent Savant]

You know, people with school-aged children draw all sorts of conclusions from what they read, some of them leading to totally opposite choices. Same with people who have carreers that are adequate for continued movement through Internet.

Not sure what you're prattling on about here.
I sense alot of specious presumption.

I interact with all sorts of folks. One of my brothers is a single lad, lives alone, as are a number of my friends.
There is markedly more to my present and past than whatever may be inferred, or attempted to be inferred, by my typed words here.

[Belligerent Savant]

.

So the argument by those that continue to insist these "vaccines" are beneficial is that VAERS numbers are 'flawed'. But -- hypothetically -- what if they're not?

Because if these numbers are NOT flawed -- or worse,
UNDER-reported -- then this is very much no bueno.

But go ahead and hold on to the "reporting is flawed" narrative. That's the hope: the reporting is just all wrong. And with that, a portion of the populace won't dig any further.



It should be noted the other vaccines listed in the chart have been in distribution for years. It's only been ~6 months so far for the COVID shots.



https://wonder.cdc.gov/controller/datar ... 93250E5433

[dada]

"Not sure what you're prattling on about here. I sense alot of specious presumption."

I was saying that kids and careers are not what determines the way one reads. Thinking about the words, it wasn't anything said in relation to you.

But prattle and specious presumption is just schoolyard name-calling. If we really must go there, I'd hope we could be more creative than that.

[DrEvil]

.

So the argument by those that continue to insist these "vaccines" are beneficial is that VAERS numbers are 'flawed'. But -- hypothetically -- what if they're not?

Because if these numbers are NOT flawed -- or worse,
UNDER-reported -- then this is very much no bueno.

But go ahead and hold on to the "reporting is flawed" narrative. That's the hope: the reporting is just all wrong. And with that, a portion of the populace won't dig any further.



It should be noted the other vaccines listed in the chart have been in distribution for years. It's only been ~6 months so far for the COVID shots.



https://wonder.cdc.gov/controller/datar ... 93250E5433

Fuck's sake. The numbers aren't flawed, they're just not accurate, and they were never meant as an accurate tally. That's not what the VAERS database is for.

Best case it's a ballpark number, worst case people are extra vigilant about reporting right now and a lot of old people who would have died anyway but just happened to get the vaccine prior got reported as adverse reactions.

Hypothetically the numbers are reasonably accurate, and hypothetically they're not. Who the fuck knows? And that's my whole point. I don't know and you don't know, so stop treating the numbers as established fact.

Straight from the horse's mouth:

When evaluating data from VAERS, it is important to note that for any reported event, no cause-and-effect relationship has been established. Reports of all possible associations between vaccines and adverse events (possible side effects) are filed in VAERS. Therefore, VAERS collects data on any adverse event following vaccination, be it coincidental or truly caused by a vaccine. The report of an adverse event to VAERS is not documentation that a vaccine caused the event.

https://vaers.hhs.gov/data/dataguide.html

[Belligerent Savant]

.

It's not advisable to blindly swallow anything coming out of a horse's mouth.

That aside, even taking into account the commentary from the horse's ass/mouth, what are your thoughts on those figures? However one may attempt to discount it, or ignore it, the initial returns (Re: near-term side effects) are not looking good. Even if they're, say, 1,000 less than reported, it's STILL ALARMING.
Also, keep in mind the above charts are only depicting DEATHS, not those that survived mild or serious side-effects. Those figures are much higher, of course.

Or are you just going to hang your hat on the horse's mouth?


You do you.


Separately, anyone else see prelim reports about mRNA vaccine "shedding"? Reportedly, inhalation or skin contact with a vaccinated person can transmit disease through spike protein pathogen to the non vaccinated. More digging on this will be required.

[Karmamatterz]

The American media is not covering this topic very well, but why would they? Many women who get the Rona vax are reporting heavy vaginal bleeding. This topic is almost non-existent in U.S. media outlets if you do a standard Google search for information.

Here are a few links:

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.pr ... -1.9754865
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/som ... -1.9550291
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/08/heal ... blood.html
https://www.bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n958/rr-2

Some lost their babies, this warrants more reading.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2104983

Does anybody care?

In 1976 there were alarm bells when only 3 people died and the swine flu vaccine was halted in some places. How many people have to die for the Corona vaccines to be halted? It was super cool and trendy to mourn the loss of strangers when people allegedly died from Covid. Bells tolled, flags lowered, the out pouring of grief on social media. Reporters teary eyed on TV. But when people die or how harmed from these new experimental vaccines you all don't give two fucks. You make excuses and rationalize it away.

Look at this headline from 1976:

https://www.nytimes.com/1976/10/13/archives/swine-flu-prograrm-is-halted-in-9-states-as-3-die-after-shots.html

[stickdog99]

COVID-19 alters human genes, explaining mystery behind coronavirus ‘long haulers’
https://www.studyfinds.org/covid-alters ... g-haulers/

gene "therapy" every-which-way but out

https://www.studyfinds.org/covid-alters ... g-haulers/

Specifically, scientists reveal the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2, the virus causing COVID-19, creates long-lasting changes to human gene expression. These tiny spikes cover the surface of coronavirus cells. They allow the virus to bind to certain receptors on human cells and hijack their functions — leading to COVID infection. Once the spike cuts into a patient’s cells, the virus releases its own genetic material into the cell so it can replicate.

“We found that exposure to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein alone was enough to change baseline gene expression in airway cells,” explains Nicholas Evans, a master’s student at the Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, in a media release. “This suggests that symptoms seen in patients may initially result from the spike protein interacting with the cells directly.”

Spikes make long-term changes to human lung cells

Researchers examined how exposure to spike protein impacts cultured human airway cells in lab experiments. They also compared the results to studies using cell samples from actual COVID-19 patients.

The team notes culturing human airway cells requires time and specific conditions which help the cells mature. This allows the lab cells to develop into the different cells living in a real human airway. To do this, study authors refined a culturing technique called air-liquid interface so they could more closely simulate the conditions in an actual patient’s lungs.

After culturing, scientists exposed the cells to low and high concentrations of purified spike protein. The results reveal differences in gene expression which remained in the cells even after the infection passed. The most affected genes include ones controlling the body’s inflammatory response.

“Our work helps to elucidate changes occurring in patients on the genetic level, which could eventually provide insight into which treatments would work best for specific patients,” Evans explains.

Hmmmm. So maybe it's not the safest idea to inject people with "vaccines" designed to program their cells to manufacture this spike protein?

[Belligerent Savant]

.

Why are young people -- the LEAST at risk -- taking this experimental shot? Conditioning and Propaganda. and Lies (but I repeat myself).
They've (or their stupid parents) been cajoled into believing the narrative that taking this shot helps others. It doesn't. it's outright bullshit.

[Belligerent Savant]

[conniption]

Americas Frontline Doctors

IDENTIFYING POST-VACCINATION COMPLICATIONS & THEIR CAUSES: AN ANALYSIS OF COVID-19 PATIENT DATA

April 26, 2021
Dain Pascocello

An AFLDS Issue Brief for Citizens, Policymakers and Physicians

STATEMENT OF POSITION

After several months dealing with capacity-related issues in COVID-19 vaccine administration, US states are set to find themselves with a supply of Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson immunizations outstripping demand for the experimental shots. According to a recent report by the Kaiser Family Foundation, by about mid-May states will reach a “tipping point where demand for rather than supply of vaccines is our primary challenge.” One official with the American Public Health Association put it this way: “Anybody who’s ever done a public health program knows that the last 20-30% of your target is the hardest.” Perhaps anticipating the challenge, the Biden administration dedicated $48 billion in its stimulus legislation to “implement a national, evidence-based strategy for testing, contact tracing, surveillance, and mitigation with respect to SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19.” By means of comparison, the National Intelligence Program budget, which includes the CIA and parts of the FBI, will spend about $62 billion in the current year – just 29% more than a single COVID-related line item in the president’s “American Rescue Plan.”

On April 24, state health authorities in Indiana, New York, Virginia, Missouri, and Michigan resumed administering Johnson & Johnson’s COVID vaccine following an 11-day federal “pause” on the single-shot inoculation. According to published reports, a review by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) advisory committee, known as ACIP, uncovered 15 cases of vaccine side effects involving potentially fatal blood clots. All were women, most under 50 years old. Three died and seven remain hospitalized. ACIP ultimately decided to lift the pause and recommended attaching a warning label to the experimental injection, to which J&J’s chief medical officer agreed to add at a later date.

The CDC’s early warning system for vaccine side effects, its 30-year-old Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, or VAERS, has captured thousands of other “adverse events” since the COVID-19 vaccination effort began in late 2020. Yet these complications have received a fraction of the attention paid to J&J’s blood-clotting controversy. Why? America’s Frontline Doctors (AFLDS) opposes attempts by state and federal jurisdictions to mandate vaccination for COVID-19 and supports further study by independent health officials before the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) replaces its conditional “emergency use authorization” (EUA) for the immunizations with full approval, known as a biologics license, a decision which could come as early as April or May 2021. This AFLDS Issue Brief is intended to provide additional information for concerned citizens, health experts, and policymakers about adverse events and other post-vaccination issues resulting from the three experimental COVID-19 vaccines currently administered under EUA. As always, potential vaccine recipients should weigh the available evidence on medical side effects against their particular needs free of third-party coercion, intimidation, and threats.

TAKING PATIENT EXPERIENCES SERIOUSLY

Drugmaker Pfizer expects to collect $15 billion in 2021 from sales of its mRNA experimental COVID vaccine. There is an irrepressible economic incentive among pharmaceutical companies for childhood COVID vaccines, boosters, and the like. Public health experts should stop and assess data on possible vaccine side effects and related post-vaccination questions before it is too late. Here are some major categories of concern as-yet publicly unaddressed by either the FDA or CDC. AFLDS believes these patient concerns ought to be taken more seriously by health regulators in the United States and abroad. Failing to consider these and other “known unknowns” is a dereliction of basic medical research.

1. Why is there concern surrounding this particular vaccine?

The COVID-19 vaccines are still experimental. They are currently being used on an “emergency” basis and are not FDA approved. It takes years to be sure something new is safe. The vaccines are new as is the technology they employ. This new biotechnology introduces something called a “spike protein” instead of the traditional attenuated antigen response in a conventional vaccine. No one knows definitively the long-term health implications for the body and brain, especially among the young, related to this spike protein. In addition, if documented problems with the protein do arise, there will never be any way to reverse the adverse effects in those already vaccinated.

2. What about the reported neurological issues?

There are two major neurological concerns related to the COVID vaccines. These are the spike proteins and the lipid nanoparticles which carry the mRNA into the cell. They are both capable of passing through the “blood-brain barrier” which typically keeps the brain and spinal cord completely insulated from entrants into the body. There simply has not been enough time to know what brain problems and how often a brain problem will develop from that. There is concern amongst many scientists for prion disease (neurodegenerative brain disease).

Traditional vaccines do not pass through the blood-brain barrier. Crossing the blood-brain barrier places patients at risk of chronic inflammation and thrombosis (clotting) in the neurological system, contributing to tremors, chronic lethargy, stroke, Bell’s Palsy and ALS-type symptoms. The lipid nanoparticles can potentially fuse with brain cells, resulting in delayed neuro-degenerative disease. And the mRNA-induced spike protein can bind to brain tissue 10 to 20 times stronger than the spike proteins that are (naturally) part of the original virus.

3. Can the unvaccinated get sick from contact with the vaccinated?‍

The vaccine produces many trillions of particles of spike proteins in the recipient. Patients who are vaccinated can shed some of these (spike protein) particles to close contacts. The particles have the ability to create inflammation and disease in these contacts. In other words, the spike proteins are pathogenic (“disease causing”) just like the full virus. What is most worrisome is that a person’s body is being suddenly flooded with 13 trillion of these particles and the spike proteins bind more tightly than the fully intact virus. Because of the biomimicry (similarity) on the spike, shedding appears to be causing wide variety of autoimmune disease (where the body attacks its own tissue) in some persons. Worldwide cases of pericarditis, shingles, pneumonia, blood clots in the extremities and brain, Bell’s Palsy, vaginal bleeding and miscarriages have been reported in persons who are near persons who have been vaccinated. In addition, we know the spike proteins can cross the blood brain barrier, unlike traditional vaccines.

4. What about interaction between unvaccinated children and vaccinated adults?

AFLDS is concerned that some children will become COVID symptomatic after their parents and teachers get vaccinated. This concern does not relate to risk from infection. Indeed, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association, approximately “1.6% of children with a known case of COVID-19 have been hospitalized and 0.01% have died.” Rather, public health bureaucrats might use these cases of breakthrough transmission or symptoms to speculate that a child's illness is related to a SARS-CoV-2 “variant,” when in reality it is a reaction to the vaccine. Our other concern is that children could develop long-term chronic autoimmune disease including neurological problems due to the fact that children have decades ahead of them and trillions of the spike proteins mentioned above.

5. Is there a post-vaccination menstrual bleeding risk?

AFLDS is aware of thousands of reports involving vaginal bleeding, post-menopausal vaginal bleeding, and miscarriages following COVID-19 vaccination as well as anecdotal reports of similar adverse events among those in close contact with the vaccinated. We cannot comment definitively on the close contacts yet, other than to say we have heard reports of this worldwide. But there is so much reporting of vaginal bleeding post-vaccination that it is clear a connection between the vaccine and irregular bleeding exists. Despite this clear-cut evidence, menstrual-cycle changes were not listed among the FDA’s common side effects in its phase-three clinical participants. Women’s reproductive health needs to be taken seriously rather than waved away by agenda-driven public health officials.

CONCLUSION

The continued rollout of COVID-19 vaccines moves along without due consideration of patient side effects and post-inoculation complications. AFLDS calls on state and federal health regulators to release more adverse-event-related data and conduct additional follow-up studies before the FDA fully licenses any of the vaccines currently administered under emergency use authorization. The growing body of evidence is too compelling to ignore.

https://www.americasfrontlinedoctors.or ... tient-data

[DrEvil]

.

It's not advisable to blindly swallow anything coming out of a horse's mouth.

That aside, even taking into account the commentary from the horse's ass/mouth, what are your thoughts on those figures? However one may attempt to discount it, or ignore it, the initial returns (Re: near-term side effects) are not looking good. Even if they're, say, 1,000 less than reported, it's STILL ALARMING.
Also, keep in mind the above charts are only depicting DEATHS, not those that survived mild or serious side-effects. Those figures are much higher, of course.

Or are you just going to hang your hat on the horse's mouth?


You do you.


Separately, anyone else see prelim reports about mRNA vaccine "shedding"? Reportedly, inhalation or skin contact with a vaccinated person can transmit disease through spike protein pathogen to the non vaccinated. More digging on this will be required.

So, VAERS can't be trusted, except when they say things that fit your narrative. Can you spell confirmation bias?

My thoughts on the numbers are that they are preliminary and not accurate. I have no idea if they're close to the truth or not, and neither do you, and that's the point I've been trying to make all along.

One thing I do think is worth considering is that these numbers came in after mass vaccinations of the elderly population.

[conniption]

off-guardian

COVID Vaccines: Necessity, Efficacy and Safety

Doctors for Covid Ethics
May 5, 2021

This paper was originally hosted on the Doctors for Covid Ethics Medium account, but the platform censored the expert group and removed the paper, claiming the post was “under investigation”:
An archived version is still available here.

*

Abstract: COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers have been exempted from legal liability for vaccine-induced harm. It is therefore in the interests of all those authorising, enforcing and administering COVID-19 vaccinations to understand the evidence regarding the risks and benefits of these vaccines, since liability for harm will fall on them.

In short, the available evidence and science indicate that COVID-19 vaccines are unnecessary, ineffective and unsafe.

Necessity: Immunocompetent individuals are protected against SARS-CoV-2 by cellular immunity. Vaccinating low-risk groups is therefore unnecessary. For immunocompromised individuals who do fall ill with COVID-19 there is a range of medical treatments that have been proven safe and effective. Vaccinating the vulnerable is therefore equally unnecessary. Both immunocompetent and vulnerable groups are better protected against variants of SARS-CoV-2 by naturally acquired immunity and by medication than by vaccination.
Efficacy: Covid-19 vaccines lack a viable mechanism of action against SARS-CoV-2 infection of the airways. Induction of antibodies cannot prevent infection by an agent such as SARS-CoV-2 that invades through the respiratory tract. Moreover, none of the vaccine trials have provided any evidence that vaccination prevents transmission of the infection by vaccinated individuals; urging vaccination to “protect others” therefore has no basis in fact.
Safety: The vaccines are dangerous to both healthy individuals and those with pre-existing chronic disease, for reasons such as the following: risk of lethal and non-lethal disruptions of blood clotting including bleeding disorders, thrombosis in the brain, stroke and heart attack; autoimmune and allergic reactions; antibody-dependent enhancement of disease; and vaccine impurities due to rushed manufacturing and unregulated production standards.

The risk-benefit calculus is therefore clear: the experimental vaccines are needless, ineffective and dangerous. Actors authorising, coercing or administering experimental COVID-19 vaccination are exposing populations and patients to serious, unnecessary, and unjustified medical risks.

1. The vaccines are unnecessary

1. Multiple lines of research indicate that immunocompetent people display “robust” and lasting cellular (T cell) immunity to SARS-CoV viruses [1], including SARS-CoV-2 and its variants [2]. T cell protection stems not only from exposure to SARS-CoV-2 itself, but from cross-reactive immunity following previous exposure to common cold and SARS coronaviruses [1,3-10]. Such immunity was detectable after infections up to 17 years prior [1,3]. Therefore, immunocompetent people do not need vaccination against SARS-Cov-2.

2. Natural T-Cell immunity provides stronger and more comprehensive protection against all SARS-CoV-2 strains than vaccines, because naturally primed immunity recognises multiple virus epitopes and costimulatory signals, not merely a single (spike) protein. Thus, immunocompetent people are better protected against SARS-CoV-2 and any variants that may arise by their own immunity than by the current crop of vaccines.

3.The vaccines have been touted as a means to prevent asymptomatic infection [11], and by extension “asymptomatic transmission.” However, “asymptomatic transmission” is an artefact of invalid and unreliable PCR test procedures and interpretations, leading to high false-positive rates[12-15]. Evidence indicates that PCR-positive, asymptomatic people are healthy false-positives, not carriers. A comprehensive study of 9,899,828 people in China found that asymptomatic individuals testing positive for COVID-19 never infected others[16].

In contrast, the papers cited by the Centre for Disease Control[17,18] to justify claims of asymptomatic transmission are based on hypothetical models, not empirical studies; they present assumptions and estimates rather than evidence. Preventing asymptomatic infection is not a viable rationale for promoting vaccination of the general population.

4. In most countries, most people now have immunity to SARS-CoV-2[19]. Depending on their degree of previously acquired cross-immunity, they will have had no symptoms, mild and uncharacteristic symptoms, or more severe symptoms, possibly including anosmia (loss of sense of smell) or other somewhat characteristic signs of the COVID-19 disease. Regardless of disease severity, they will now have sufficient immunity to be protected from severe disease in the event of renewed exposure. This majority of the population will not benefit at all from being vaccinated.

5. Population survival of COVID-19 exceeds 99.8% globally[20-22]. In countries that have been intensely infected over several months, less than 0.2% of the population have died and had their deaths classified as ‘with covid19’. COVID-19 is also typically a mild to moderately severe illness. Therefore, the overwhelming majority of people are not at risk from COVID-19 and do not require vaccination for their own protection.

6. In those susceptible to severe infection, Covid-19 is a treatable illness. A convergence of evidence indicates that early treatment with existing drugs reduces hospitalisation and mortality by ~85% and 75%, respectively[23-27]. These drugs include many tried and true anti-inflammatory, antiviral, and anticoagulant medications, as well as monoclonal antibodies, zinc, and vitamins C and D.

Industry and government decisions to sideline such proven treatments through selective research support[24], regulatory bias, and even outright sanctions against doctors daring to use such treatments on their own initiative, have been out of step with existing laws, standard medical practice, and research; the legal requirement to consider real world evidence has fallen by the wayside[28].

The systematic denial and denigration of these effective therapies has underpinned the spurious justification for the emergency use authorisation of the vaccines, which requires that “no standard acceptable treatment is available”[29]. Plainly stated, vaccines are not necessary to prevent severe disease.

2. The vaccines lack efficacy

1. At a mechanistic level, the concept of immunity to COVID-19 via antibody induction, as per COVID-19 vaccination, is medical nonsense. Airborne viruses such as SARS-CoV-2 enter the body via the airways and lungs, where antibody concentrations are too low to prevent infection. Vaccine-induced antibodies primarily circulate in the bloodstream, while concentrations on the mucous membranes of lungs and airways is low.

Given that COVID-19 primarily spreads and causes disease by infecting these mucous membranes, vaccines miss the immunological mark. The documents submitted by the vaccine manufacturers to the various regulatory bodies contain no evidence that vaccination prevents airway infection, which would be crucial for breaking the chain of transmission. Thus, vaccines are immunologically inappropriate for COVID-19.

2. Medium to long-term vaccine efficacy is unknown. Phase 3, medium-term, 24-month trials will not be complete until 2023: There is no medium-term or long term longitudinal data regarding COVID-19 vaccine efficacy.

3. Short term data has not established prevention of severe disease. The European Medicines Agency has noted of the Comirnaty (Pfizer mRNA) vaccine that severe COVID-19 cases “were rare in the study, and statistically certain conclusion cannot be drawn” from it[30]. Similarly, the Pfizer document submitted to the FDA[31] concludes that efficacy against mortality could not be demonstrated. Thus, the vaccines have not been shown to prevent death or severe disease even in the short term.

4. The correlates of protection against COVID-19 are unknown. Researchers have not yet established how to measure protection against COVID-19. As a result, efficacy studies are stabbing around in the dark. After completion of Phase 1 and 2 studies, for instance, a paper in the journal Vaccine noted that “without understanding the correlates of protection, it is impossible to currently address questions regarding vaccine-associated protection, risk of COVID-19 reinfection, herd immunity, and the possibility of elimination of SARS-CoV-2 from the human population”[32]. Thus, Vaccine efficacy cannot be evaluated because we have not yet established how to measure it.

3. The vaccines are dangerous

1. Just as smoking could be and was predicted to cause lung cancer based on first principles, all gene-based vaccines can be expected to cause blood clotting and bleeding disorders [33], based on their molecular mechanisms of action. Consistent with this, diseases of this kind have been observed across age groups, leading to temporary vaccine suspensions around the world: The vaccines are not safe.

2. Contrary to claims that blood disorders post-vaccination are “rare”, many common vaccine side effects (headaches, nausea, vomiting and haematoma-like “rashes” over the body) may indicate thrombosis and other severe abnormalities. Moreover, vaccine-induced diffuse micro-thromboses in the lungs can mimic pneumonia and may be misdiagnosed as COVID-19. Clotting events currently receiving media attention are likely just the “tip of a huge iceberg”[34]: The vaccines are not safe.

3. Due to immunological priming, risks of clotting, bleeding and other adverse events can be expected to increase with each re-vaccination and each intervening coronavirus exposure. Over time, whether months or years[35], this renders both vaccination and coronaviruses dangerous to young and healthy age groups, for whom without vaccination COVID-19 poses no substantive risk. Since vaccine roll-out, COVID-19 incidence has risen in numerous areas with high vaccination rates[36-38].

Furthermore, multiple series of COVID-19 fatalities have occurred shortly after the onset vaccinations in senior homes[39,40]. These cases may have been due not only to antibody-dependent enhancement but also to a general immunosuppressive effect of the vaccines, which is suggested by the increased occurrence of Herpes zoster in certain patients[41].

Immunosuppression may have caused a previously asymptomatic infection to become clinically manifest. Regardless of the exact mechanism responsible for these reported deaths, we must expect that the vaccines will increase rather than decrease lethality of COVID-19 — the vaccines are not safe.

4. The vaccines are experimental by definition. They will remain in Phase 3 trials until 2023. Recipients are human subjects entitled to free informed consent under Nuremberg and other protections, including the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe’s resolution 2361[43] and the FDA’s terms of emergency use authorisation[29]. With respect to safety data from Phase 1 and 2 trials, in spite of initially large sample sizes the journal Vaccine reports that, “the vaccination strategy chosen for further development may have only been given to as few as 12 participants”[32].

With such extremely small sample sizes, the journal notes that, “larger Phase 3 studies conducted over longer periods of time will be necessary” to establish safety. The risks that remain to be evaluated in Phase 3 trials into 2023, with entire populations as subjects, include not only thrombosis and bleeding abnormalities, but other autoimmune responses, allergic reactions, unknown tropisms (tissue destinations) of lipid nanoparticles[35], antibody-dependent enhancement [43-46] and the impact of rushed, questionably executed, poorly regulated[47] and reportedly inconsistent manufacturing methods, conferring risks of potentially harmful impurities such as uncontrolled DNA residues[48]. The vaccines are not safe, either for recipients or for those who administer them or authorise their use.

5. Initial experience might suggest that the adenovirus-derived vaccines (AstraZeneca/Johnson & Johnson) cause graver adverse effects than the mRNA (Pfizer/Moderna) vaccines. However, upon repeated injection, the former will soon induce antibodies against the proteins of the adenovirus vector. These antibodies will then neutralize most of the vaccine virus particles and cause their disposal before they can infect any cells, thereby limiting the intensity of tissue damage.

In contrast, in the mRNA vaccines, there is no protein antigen for the antibodies to recognize. Thus, regardless of the existing degree of immunity, the vaccine mRNA is going to reach its target — the body cells. These will then express the spike protein and subsequently suffer the full onslaught of the immune system.

With the mRNA vaccines, the risk of severe adverse events is virtually guaranteed to increase with every successive injection. In the long term, they are therefore even more dangerous than the vector vaccines. Their apparent preferment over the latter is concerning in the highest degree; these vaccines are not safe.

4. Ethics and legal points to consider

Conflicts of interest abound in the scientific literature and within organisations that recommend and promote vaccines, while demonising alternate strategies (reliance on natural immunity and early treatment). Authorities, doctors and medical personnel need to protect themselves by evaluating the sources of their information for conflicts of interest extremely closely.

Authorities, doctors and medical personnel need to be similarly careful not to ignore the credible and independent literature on vaccine necessity, safety and efficacy, given the foreseeable mass deaths and harms that must be expected unless the vaccination campaign is stopped.

Vaccine manufacturers have exempted themselves from legal liability for adverse events for a reason. When vaccine deaths and harms occur, liability will fall to those responsible for the vaccines’ authorisation, administration and/or coercion via vaccine passports, none of which can be justified on a sober, evidence-based risk-benefit analysis.

All political, regulatory and medical actors involved in COVID-19 vaccination should familiarise themselves with the Nuremberg code and other legal provisions in order to protect themselves.

References:-

[1] Le Bert, N.; Tan, A.T.; Kunasegaran, K.; Tham, C.Y.L.; Hafezi, M.; Chia, A.; Chng, M.H.Y.; Lin, M.; Tan, N.; Linster, M.; Chia, W.N.; Chen, M.I.; Wang, L.; Ooi, E.E.; Kalimuddin, S.; Tambyah, P.A.; Low, J.G.; Tan, Y. and Bertoletti, A. (2020) SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell immunity in cases of COVID-19 and SARS, and uninfected controls. Nature 584:457–462. [back]

[2] Tarke, A.; Sidney, J.; Methot, N.; Zhang, Y.; Dan, J.M.; Goodwin, B.; Rubiro, P.; Sutherland, A.; da Silva Antunes, R.; Frazier, A. and al., e. (2021) Negligible impact of SARS-CoV-2 variants on CD4+ and CD8+ T cell reactivity in COVID-19 exposed donors and vaccinees. bioRxiv -:x-x.[back]

[3] Anonymous, (2020) Scientists uncover SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell immunity in recovered COVID-19 and SARS patients. [back]

[4] Beasley, D. (2020) Scientists focus on how immune system T cells fight coronavirus in absence of antibodies. Reuters, 10/07/2020. [back]

[5] Bozkus, C.C. (2020) SARS-CoV-2-specific T cells without antibodies. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 20:463. [back]

[6] Grifoni, A.; Weiskopf, D.; Ramirez, S.I.; Mateus, J.; Dan, J.M.; Moderbacher, C.R.; Rawlings, S.A.; Sutherland, A.; Premkumar, L.; Jadi, R.S. and al., e. (2020) Targets of T Cell Responses to SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus in Humans with COVID-19 Disease and Unexposed Individuals. Cell 181:1489–1501.e15. [back]

[7] Mateus, J.; Grifoni, A.; Tarke, A.; Sidney, J.; Ramirez, S.I.; Dan, J.M.; Burger, Z.C.; Rawlings, S.A.; Smith, D.M.; Phillips, E. and al., e. (2020) Selective and cross-reactive SARS-CoV-2 T cell epitopes in unexposed humans. [back]Science 370:89–94. [back]

[8] McCurry-Schmidt, M. (2020) Exposure to common cold coronaviruses can teach the immune system to recognize SARS-CoV-2. La Jolla Institute for Immunology. [back]

[9] Palmer, S.; Cunniffe, N. and Donnelly, R. (2021) COVID-19 hospitalization rates rise exponentially with age, inversely proportional to thymic T-cell production. J. R. Soc. Interface 18:20200982. [back]

[10] Sekine, T.; Perez-Potti, A.; Rivera-Ballesteros, O.; Strålin, K.; Gorin, J.; Olsson, A.; Llewellyn-Lacey, S.; Kamal, H.; Bogdanovic, G.; Muschiol, S. and al., e. (2020) Robust T Cell Immunity in Convalescent Individuals with Asymptomatic or Mild COVID-19. Cell 183:158–168.e14. [back]

[11] Drake, J. (2021) Now We Know: Covid-19 Vaccines Prevent Asymptomatic Infection, Too.[back]

[12] Bossuyt, P.M. (2020) Testing COVID-19 tests faces methodological challenges. Journal of clinical epidemiology 126:172–176. [back]

[13] Jefferson, T.; Spencer, E.; Brassey, J. and Heneghan, C. (2020) Viral cultures for COVID-19 infectivity assessment. Systematic review. Clin. Infect. Dis. ciaa1764:x-x. [back]

[14] Borger, P.; Malhotra, R.K.; Yeadon, M.; Craig, C.; McKernan, K.; Steger, K.; McSheehy, P.; Angelova, L.; Franchi, F.; Binder, T.; Ullrich, H.; Ohashi, M.; Scoglio, S.; Doesburg-van Kleffens, M.; Gilbert, D.; Klement, R.J.; Schrüfer, R.; Pieksma, B.W.; Bonte, J.; Dalle Carbonare, B.H.; Corbett, K.P. and Kämmer, U. (2020) External peer review of the RTPCR test to detect SARS-CoV-2 reveals 10 major scientific flaws at the molecular and methodological level: consequences for false-positive results. [back]

[15] Mandavilli, A. (2020) Your Coronavirus Test Is Positive. Maybe It Shouldn’t Be.[back]

[16] Cao, S.; Gan, Y.; Wang, C.; Bachmann, M.; Wei, S.; Gong, J.; Huang, Y.; Wang, T.; Li, L.; Lu, K.; Jiang, H.; Gong, Y.; Xu, H.; Shen, X.; Tian, Q.; Lv, C.; Song, F.; Yin, X. and Lu, Z. (2020) Post-lockdown SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid screening in nearly ten million residents of Wuhan, China. Nat. Commun. 11:5917.[back]

[17] Moghadas, S.M.; Fitzpatrick, M.C.; Sah, P.; Pandey, A.; Shoukat, A.; Singer, B.H. and Galvani, A.P. (2020) The implications of silent transmission for the control of COVID-19 outbreaks. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 117:17513–17515.[back]

[18] Johansson, M.A.; Quandelacy, T.M.; Kada, S.; Prasad, P.V.; Steele, M.; Brooks, J.T.; Slayton, R.B.; Biggerstaff, M. and Butler, J.C. (2021) SARS-CoV-2 Transmission From People Without COVID-19 Symptoms. JAMA network open 4:e2035057.[back]

[19] Yeadon, M. (2020). What SAGE got wrong. Lockdown Skeptics.[back]

[20] Ioannidis, J.P.A. (2020) Global perspective of COVID‐19 epidemiology for a full‐cycle pandemic. Eur. J. Clin. Invest. 50:x-x. [back]

[21] Ioannidis, J.P.A. (2021) Reconciling estimates of global spread and infection fatality rates of COVID‐19: An overview of systematic evaluations. Eur. J. Clin. Invest. -:x-x. [back]

[22] CDC, (2020) Science Brief: Community Use of Cloth Masks to Control the Spread of SARS-CoV-2. [back]

[23] Orient, J.; McCullough, P. and Vliet, E. (2020) A Guide to Home-Based COVID Treatment. [back]

[24] McCullough, P.A.; Alexander, P.E.; Armstrong, R.; Arvinte, C.; Bain, A.F.; Bartlett, R.P.; Berkowitz, R.L.; Berry, A.C.; Borody, T.J.; Brewer, J.H.; Brufsky, A.M.; Clarke, T.; Derwand, R.; Eck, A.; Eck, J.; Eisner, R.A.; Fareed, G.C.; Farella, A.; Fonseca, S.N.S.; Geyer, C.E.; Gonnering, R.S.; Graves, K.E.; Gross, K.B.V.; Hazan, S.; Held, K.S.; Hight, H.T.; Immanuel, S.; Jacobs, M.M.; Ladapo, J.A.; Lee, L.H.; Littell, J.; Lozano, I.; Mangat, H.S.; Marble, B.; McKinnon, J.E.; Merritt, L.D.; Orient, J.M.; Oskoui, R.; Pompan, D.C.; Procter, B.C.; Prodromos, C.; Rajter, J.C.; Rajter, J.; Ram, C.V.S.; Rios, S.S.; Risch, H.A.; Robb, M.J.A.; Rutherford, M.; Scholz, M.; Singleton, M.M.; Tumlin, J.A.; Tyson, B.M.; Urso, R.G.; Victory, K.; Vliet, E.L.; Wax, C.M.; Wolkoff, A.G.; Wooll, V. and Zelenko, V. (2020) Multifaceted highly targeted sequential multidrug treatment of early ambulatory high-risk SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19). Reviews in cardiovascular medicine 21:517–530. [back][back]

[25] Procter, {.B.C.; {APRN}, {.C.R.{.; {PA}-C, {.V.P.; {PA}-C, {.E.S.; {PA}-C, {.C.H. and McCullough, {.{.P.A. (2021) Early Ambulatory Multidrug Therapy Reduces Hospitalization and Death in High-Risk Patients with SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19). International journal of innovative research in medical science 6:219–221. [back]

[26] McCullough, P.A.; Kelly, R.J.; Ruocco, G.; Lerma, E.; Tumlin, J.; Wheelan, K.R.; Katz, N.; Lepor, N.E.; Vijay, K.; Carter, H.; Singh, B.; McCullough, S.P.; Bhambi, B.K.; Palazzuoli, A.; De Ferrari, G.M.; Milligan, G.P.; Safder, T.; Tecson, K.M.; Wang, D.D.; McKinnon, J.E.; O’Neill, W.W.; Zervos, M. and Risch, H.A. (2021) Pathophysiological Basis and Rationale for Early Outpatient Treatment of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) Infection. Am. J. Med. 134:16–22. [back]

[27] Anonymous, (2020) Real-time database and meta analysis of 588 COVID-19 studies. [back]

[28] Hirschhorn, J.S. (2021) COVID scandal: Feds ignored 2016 law requiring use of real world evidence.[back]

[29] Anonymous, (1998) Emergency Use of an Investigational Drug or Biologic: Guidance for Institutional Review Boards and Clinical Investigators. [back] [back]

[30] Anonymous, (2021) EMA assessment report: Comirnaty. [back]

[31] Anonymous, (2020) FDA briefing document: Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine. [back]

[32] Giurgea, L.T. and Memoli, M.J. (2020) Navigating the Quagmire: Comparison and Interpretation of COVID-19 Vaccine Phase 1/2 Clinical Trials. Vaccines 8:746. [back][back]

[33] Bhakdi, S.; Chiesa, M.; Frost, S.; Griesz-Brisson, M.; Haditsch, M.; Hockertz, S.; Johnson, L.; Kämmerer, U.; Palmer, M.; Reiss, K.; Sönnichsen, A.; Wodarg, W. and Yeadon, M. (2021) Urgent Open Letter from Doctors and Scientists to the European Medicines Agency regarding COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Concerns. [back]

[34] Bhakdi, S. (2021) Rebuttal letter to European Medicines Agency from Doctors for Covid Ethics, April 1, 2021. [back]

[35] Ulm, J.W. (2020) Rapid response to: Will covid-19 vaccines save lives? Current trials aren’t designed to tell us. [back][back]

[36] Reimann, N. (2021) Covid Spiking In Over A Dozen States — Most With High Vaccination Rates.[back]

[37] Meredith, S. (2021) Chile has one of the world’s best vaccination rates. Covid is surging there anyway.[back]

[38] Bhuyan, A. (2021) Covid-19: India sees new spike in cases despite vaccine rollout. BMJ 372:n854. [back]

[39] Morrissey, K. (2021) Open letter to Dr. Karina Butler. [back]

[40] Anonymous, (2021) Open Letter from the UK Medical Freedom Alliance: Urgent warning re Covid-19 vaccine-related deaths in the elderly and Care Homes. [back]

[41] Furer, V.; Zisman, D.; Kibari, A.; Rimar, D.; Paran, Y. and Elkayam, O. (2021) Herpes zoster following BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 vaccination in patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases: a case series. Rheumatology -:x-x. [back]

[42] Anonymous, (2021) Covid-19 vaccines: ethical, legal and practical considerations. [back]

[43] Tseng, C.; Sbrana, E.; Iwata-Yoshikawa, N.; Newman, P.C.; Garron, T.; Atmar, R.L.; Peters, C.J. and Couch, R.B. (2012) Immunization with SARS coronavirus vaccines leads to pulmonary immunopathology on challenge with the SARS virus. PLoS One 7:e35421. [back]

[44] Bolles, M.; Deming, D.; Long, K.; Agnihothram, S.; Whitmore, A.; Ferris, M.; Funkhouser, W.; Gralinski, L.; Totura, A.; Heise, M. and Baric, R.S. (2011) A double-inactivated severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus vaccine provides incomplete protection in mice and induces increased eosinophilic proinflammatory pulmonary response upon challenge. J. Virol. 85:12201–15. [back]

[45] Weingartl, H.; Czub, M.; Czub, S.; Neufeld, J.; Marszal, P.; Gren, J.; Smith, G.; Jones, S.; Proulx, R.; Deschambault, Y.; Grudeski, E.; Andonov, A.; He, R.; Li, Y.; Copps, J.; Grolla, A.; Dick, D.; Berry, J.; Ganske, S.; Manning, L. and Cao, J. (2004) Immunization with modified vaccinia virus Ankara-based recombinant vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome is associated with enhanced hepatitis in ferrets. J. Virol. 78:12672–6. [back]

[46]Czub, M.; Weingartl, H.; Czub, S.; He, R. and Cao, J. (2005) Evaluation of modified vaccinia virus Ankara based recombinant SARS vaccine in ferrets. Vaccine 23:2273–9 [back]

[47]Tinari, S. (2021) The EMA covid-19 data leak, and what it tells us about mRNA instability. BMJ 372:n627 [back]

[48] Anonymous, (2021) Interview with Dr. Vanessa Schmidt-Krüger, Hearing #37 of German Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee 30 January, 2021. [back]

https://off-guardian.org/2021/05/05/cov ... nd-safety/

_______

sample of current comments -
Comments
newest...

Dick
May 6, 2021 1:44 AM
There are three classes of people:
~~~ those who see
~~~ those who see when they are shown
~~~ those who do not see.
Leonardo da Vinci

les online
May 6, 2021 1:25 AM
Bioethicists – a profession dedicated, with a few exceptions, to getting the public used to what the scientists and bioentrepreneurs have in store for it… (CRISPR Madness – Counterpunch. 5 May 2021)

MaryLS
May 6, 2021 1:16 AM
This is concerning re vaccine safety. Apologies if someone has already posted this. The info re the significant number of deaths and adverse reactions is alarming, Additionally alarming is something called the “Trusted News Initiative.” which appears to be exactly the opposite — more of a “Hiding the Truth Initiative.
https://leohohmann.com/2021/04/30/highl ... ed-deaths/

Ooink
May 6, 2021 1:14 AM
As a layperson I don’t need to know anything about any scientific vax nuts and bolts, studies, graphs, expert opinion, expert fact, peer reviewed words on paper…nothing. All I need to know is that fully indemnified corporations working closely with State “authorities” are pushing injection with a kind of mouth frothing hawker’s desperation that would have the shonkiest B grade carpet salesmen standing in awe. You don’t have to be smart to smell a rat. You have to be off the charts gullible not to.

comments continue - https://off-guardian.org/2021/05/05/cov ... /#comments

[Belligerent Savant]

.

One more set of data points for the fools and aholes still trying to sell these "vaccines" to the populace. You're either complicit or outright dupes:

@RealJoelSmalley

Did you know almost 4,000 children have been vaccinated for COVID-19 in the States?
And that:
9 died within 28 days (0.2%)?
7 almost died?
3 were permanently disabled?
71 had to see a doctor or were admitted to hospital or had their stay prolonged?
Why isn't this headline news?

Note for the ubiquitous vaccine adverse effect deniers and trolls:

Raw data from VAERS obtained via the CDC website. Any errors in the data are the responsibility of VAERS and the CDC, official sources. You can fact check yourselves - https://wonder.cdc.gov/controller/datarequest/D8

Important to consider these risk statements from Pfizer too. The adverse reactions are not inconsistent with the reports so far on VAERS.

https://twitter.com/RealJoelSmalley/sta ... 81985?s=20

[dada]

"There are three classes of people:
~~~ those who see
~~~ those who see when they are shown
~~~ those who do not see.
Leonardo da Vinci"

It's funny, because the words are like a test. Those who do not see what Leonardo is actually saying here, read it as those who see are wise, and those who do not are ignorant, blind. As if he's showing you that those who see are at the top, those who do not are at the bottom. Those who are shown are at the bottom, too, but they get better when they are shown, and move up.

He's actually saying much more than that, though. The clue is in putting "those who see," first. So those who see are innocent, those who are shown are learning, and those who do not see are wise.

Now, by the mixing of the "obvious" reading and the "actual" reading, the three classes of people begin to look like three distinct classes, so that there are those who see less, and those who see more, those who are shown tv shows and movies, and those who are shown visions inside the mind, those who do not see much, and those who do not see with the eyes.

When the distinction between classes is made, though, they are no longer seen to imply value judgement within the set. Now being shown is reception, and both seeing and not seeing are considered as active processes, the production of the act of seeing, or if not seeing, then "making it up."

By mixing distinct classes in this way, we arrive at a better understanding of what Leonardo is saying. That there is active seeing, and passive seeing. The mixture is now a combination of the two. Not equal, in stasis, though, but two parts active, one part passive. Leonardo's recipe for creative vision.

So it's really just about momentarily withholding value judgement. Allowing the distinct classes to become solid. Now, when the value judgement is made, the best is clearly those who do not see with the eyes.

[dada]

So to translate it into consumer culture language, maybe "There are three distinct classes of social identifiers, those who do not see with the eyes, those who see by production, and those who see through blind faith, or 'seeing is believing.'"