Body Sovereignty - My Body My Choice

I would like to begin this article with the statement that I am not anti intervention. I am pro informed consent. 

I will share my reasons that I am declining this intervention. All my reasons will have corresponding scientific papers and rationale throughout and also at the end of this article. 

I am going map out what informed consent is and why it is important. I will then take you through some of the research path that lead me to my decision.

My main points will be first for those of you that aren’t readers! Then all the deeper research will take longer to read but well rounded evidence and statistically significant data cannot be put in a Tik Tok.

If my conclusions from my own research are incorrect in the future, none of my concerns come to pass and I see just cause to have it, I would consider changing my mind and receiving this intervention. I am fully respectful of everyone’s choices. I have no need for anyone else to agree with me. I can only know what is right for my body, values and beliefs. I would never presume to tell anyone what action to take for themselves. Free will and free thought must stay absolutes in our human lives in order to be free.

Before you begin...

Take a moment and breathe. Place your hand over your chest area, near your heart. Breathe slowly into the area for about a minute, focusing on a sense of ease entering your mind and body.

My Reasons For Declining From A Position Of Informed Consent

• This is the first ever mRNA gene therapy ‘vaccine’ brought to market for humans and we skipped animal trials. I wish to wait for long term data

• This does not fit the criteria of a vaccine in the dictionary. It is an FDA unapproved experimental gene therapy. At the earliest, they may be licensed two years from now, at the completion of the follow-up studies. I want to wait for the longer term data and also participant reported issues.

• The only evidence on safety of mRNA vaccines comes from small phase I and phase II trials by the pharmaceutical companies manufacturing the products, with follow-up typically less than two months. The short duration of the studies do not allow a realistic estimation of the later effects.

• There is no long term inert placebo group as all control group participants were vaccinated after 3 months, rendering future data totally non reliable.

• This is a tort liability free product meaning the companies are not liable for any damage to recipients of this product.

• The demographics of the trial participants do not reflect the demographics of the US population, based on health, age, ethnicity, chronic conditions, etc, so I would like to see data emerge over time as we know historically there are ethnic and health/illness related variances in vaccine immune responses.

• It does not prevent infection or transmission, as confirmed by the manufacturers and real world data. It only prevents severe symptoms in the recipient (at 1% absolute efficacy, the 95% efficacy was a relative efficacy measure, which is non indicative of a real world setting)

• There are evidence based risks associated with mRNA vaccines including “enhanced” inflammation and auto-immune reactions, where the body’s cells are inadvertently programmed to attack critical proteins required for normal health (such as hormones). From, “mRNA vaccines — a new era in vaccinology,” published in Nature Reviews Drug Discovery in 2018, authored by Norbert Pardi and colleagues. I have an history of autoimmunity that is now healed so this is not an acceptable risk to me.

• Typically, when mRNA is present outside of a cell, it degrades relatively quickly. In order to prevent this from happening, scientists encapsulated the mRNA in a lipid nanoparticle. How long the mRNA remains in the body to continue being translated into the viral spike protein, is unknown. This is not an acceptable risk to me.

• There was a warning issued by an ex VP of Pfizer amongst others about the vaccine having the risk of blocking a protein needed to form placenta. 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 absolutely ruled out that a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 could trigger an immune reaction against syncytin-1.

• Many thousands of women are experiencing sudden, sometimes very severe changes in their menstrual cycle after vaccination and from being around vaccinated people. Scientists have verified this but do not know yet to what extent this will impact women longer term. This is not an acceptable risk to me and I wish to wait for long term data. More than this, I wish to listen to women as historically women have been underrepresented in trials and their reproductive health not considered.

• The mRNA vaccines from BioNTech/Pfizer 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 companies making these products have been caught in multiple cases of deception and fraud previously and fined billions. Moderna has never brought a product to market before - this is its first. This is also BioNTech’s first commercialised product. Therefore I do not default trust in their short term science for their own products.

• Adverse events reported in VAERS are already high. Unfortunately, an HHS study found that less than 1% of vaccine adverse events are actually reported to VAERS. This is only the first initial side effects - not the longer term possible effects we see in longer trials

• 94% of cv19 deaths were people with co morbid conditions mostly related to metabolic health. This is a total failure of the food industry, medical industry and the state; to provide adequate education and access to nutrition to those most vulnerable. These same institutions are the ones pushing this intervention. This is problematic for me because poverty is by design not accident so I will not subscribe to the model that perpetuates that whilst leaving people without basic building blocks of true health

• The profits this year alone for this intervention would be enough to change the foundation health of those most at risk - but instead they are being left with the same baseline metabolic ill health and other considerable concurrent risk factors (poverty, food insecurity, trauma etc) that are much more statistically likely to kill them than this pandemic. Being given a liability free experimental injection is being touted as the ‘only’ choice. This is not acceptable ‘health’ policy to me so I have ethical concerns about joining in this experiment on these grounds.

• As the vaccine does not prevent infection or transmission, and only suppresses symptoms, then herd immunity is not possible with this vaccine, even if 100% of the population receives it. This is precisely why Dr. Fauci and others have stated that regardless of whether or not you receive the vaccines, you will still be expected to wear masks, social distance, avoid gatherings, etc. This is not enough benefit versus risk for me. Update July 2021 - it is now confirmed that viral load is the same in vaccinated and unvaccinated people with SARS-CoV-2, hence why masks indoors are back.

• Importantly, many of the theoretical side effects of an mRNA vaccine would not become apparent until months or years after the initial injection. These adverse events are likely to be systemic, not acute, and would not become apparent in short-term clinical trials. This is a critical issue to grasp, as short-term clinical trials leave open the possibility of long-term unintended side effects that were not anticipated by vaccine manufacturers or FDA regulators. This is not an acceptable risk for me

• The formation of so-called “non-neutralising antibodies” can lead to an exaggerated immune reaction, especially when test persons are confronted with the real, “wild” virus after vaccination. This so-called antibody-dependent amplification, ADE, has long been known from experiments with corona vaccines in cats, for example. In the course of these trials, all cats that initially tolerated the vaccination well died after being infected with real corona viruses. This overreaction is further encouraged by potentiators. Failure of SARS and MERS vaccines in animal trials involved pathogenesis consistent with an immunological priming that could involve autoimmunity in lung tissues due to previous exposure to the SARS and MERS spike protein. Exposure pathogenesis to SARS-CoV-2 in COVID-19 could lead to similar outcomes. Worryingly in prior studies, the elderly are highly at risk of this.

• Immunogenic peptides in viruses or bacteria that match human proteins are good candidates for pathogenic priming peptides (similar to the more diffuse idea of "immune enhancement").

• Another potential safety issue could derive from the presence of extracellular RNA during mRNA vaccination. Extracellular naked RNA has been shown to increase the permeability of tightly packed endothelial cells and may thus contribute to oedema. Another study showed that extracellular RNA promoted blood coagulation and pathological thrombus formation. Data has shows this already in adverse events so I would like to see more data over time.

• The real possibility that vaccinating persons with pre-existing SARS-CoV-2 viral antigens in their tissues could cause that subset of people grave immunological harm — and especially the frail with cardiovascular disease. JULY 2021 UPDATE - THIS IS ACTUALLY IMPACTING TEENAGERS MOST OF ALL, GIVING THEM PERICARDITIS AND MYOCARDITIS AS CONFIRMED BY THE CDC

• It doesn’t actually fit the criteria of a vaccine because it does not prevent transmission or getting sick. So it is actually a treatment. There are other treatments that are evidence based and carry lower risks that I would rather use and recommend to my community. There is no push to get people aware of these options. Why? Proven treatments include HCL+zinc or Ivermectin+zinc both proven through double blind placebos and used over 65 extensively years (look at Dr Zelenko’s work for more on this)

• Due to how the gene therapy works - top ups and new injections will be necessary for new variants. A third injection is already in the works. Natural immunity for RNA viruses is for years, not months like this intervention and provides immunity (if not full - partial due to B and T cells, which helps) from multiple variants. Let’s talk flu. Let’s talk any seasonal respiratory virus. Please read any basic immunology textbook to learn about your immune system for your own confirmation for this. It is the ultimate intelligent operating system if it is cared for.

• The PCR test has now been admitted by the WHO to have problems due to false positives from over amplification of the sample (more on this later). As of July 2021 it has now been recalled due to its unsuitability - remember this was the rationale for global lockdowns that have bankrupted countries and made a few people exceptionally rich and powerful. The PCR test is not supposed to be a diagnostic test as stated by its creator, due to it amplifying genetic material and this not being indicative of active infection. Therefore with case number now admitted to be unreliable - how can we be confident in a risk vs benefit analysis of an experiential intervention?

• Extensive basic research into RNA and lipid and polymer biochemistry has made it possible to translate mRNA vaccines into clinical trials and has led to an astonishing level of investment in mRNA vaccine companies (Table 4). Moderna Therapeutics, founded in 2010, has raised almost US$2 billion in capital with a plan to commercialize mRNA-based vaccines and therapies. They also had the highest IPO of any biotech firm ever, and at the time no one in the banking sector understood why they were so highly valued without any products. We need to look at the money too when considering what interests drive this push to vaccinate.

• Previous vaccine health issues; the SV40 contaminated polio injections given to millions that caused cancer. The H1N1 vaccine and narcolepsy. The swine flu vaccine and guillain barre syndrome. The use of Adenovirus and HIV susceptibility. Vaccine for Dengue fever showed ADE (a risk with the current intervention) and more than 600 children died before it was recalled. Issues with Gardisil. All these issues mean these companies do not have my trust and so I will wait for both data and adverse event reporting from consumers. This latter wish to hear from people is noteworthy as I will not gaslight people for their lived experience of adverse events. We need data from the companies yes, but also consumer data as we know from billions in fines that these companies regularly lie.

• My personal biggest concern has been something multiple prominent virologists have been warning the CDC about, which is using a poor neutralising ‘vaccine’ in a pandemic situation. The classic example of this is Marek’s disease in chickens where mutant variants were caused by a ‘leaky’ lei non neutralising vaccine. This month Janci Lindsay Ph.D (MD of Toxicology and Molecular Biology Toxicology, Rikmus consulting) and many others warned about this risk as it DIRECTLY leads to mutant variants being formed. My concern is that this will be blamed on the unvaccinated, but it is actually a defined mechanistic pathway that we have already seen in prior vaccines.

• According to a UBS report, the roughly 2,189 global billionaires now have $10.2 trillion. This is an estimated increase of $1.5 trillion during the 2020 pandemic looking at both UBS and Forbes billionaire data from 2019. In fact it is the largest redistribution of global wealth in World history. The process of billionaire enrichment feeds on economic and social chaos. The losers are the whole general population. I do not consent to being part of this enterprise by consuming this intervention.

• Part of my decision making process is also rooted in my values, beliefs and my own path. I believe that when we work in accordance with nature - we have grounded immune health. This technology and indeed this whole endeavour is not working in accordance with what I believe health is and how it is created. I also do not have a fear of death. I have a deep reverence for it that allows me to appreciate life and make my choices based on my core values - no matter where that takes me. I hope each person finds what is equally true for them and I support them no matter what that is.

Informed Consent - Why is it important?

Informed consent is the act of agreeing to allow something to happen, or to do something, with a full understanding of all the relevant facts, including risks, and available alternatives. 

That full knowledge and understanding is the necessary factor in whether an individual can give informed consent.

This type of consent applies to many situations in life, including making decisions about medical care and legal issues, as well as entering into contracts. 

It is highly relevant with considering an experimental gene therapy. As this phase of the rollout is still in experimental stage, it must also conform to the Nuremberg code:

1. Voluntary consent is essential

2. The results of any experiment must be for the greater good of society

3. Human experiments should be based on previous animal experimentation

4. Experiments should be conducted by avoiding physical/mental suffering and injury

5. No experiments should be conducted if it is believed to cause death/disability

6. The risks should never exceed the benefits

7. Adequate facilities should be used to protect subjects

8. Experiments should be conducted only by qualified scientists

9. Subjects should be able to end their participation at any time

10. The scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment when injury, disability, or death is likely to occur

I raise this because the goal of the Nuremberg code is to conduct ethical clinical trials and protect human subjects.

As a human subject - I am exercising my right to research and examine all information available to me, alongside my own medical history and knowledge of my body - to make a decision that is right for me and that takes into account others health too as part of this because I am part of community and wider global tribe.

Why Informed Consent Is Challenging At This Time

1. The Distracted Brain And The Tribal Brain

One of the issues of the digital age is that the majority of the population has a distracted brain. We are neurologically being conditioned to have a shorter and shorter attention span. Tik Tok, social media, endless notifications and phone checking (on average 96 times a day by the way) means that people are much less able to show discernment with incoming data and information. We are however also hardwired as humans to want more information. So in this era of stimulation and information saturation - our distracted brain just reaches for one source; for example fact checkers or mainstream media and our distracted brain takes that as ‘truth’. This is especially true if our resting state is one of fear because our brain’s decision making centre; the thalamus, does not work well when we are fearful. We rely on confirmation bias’s that we already hold as a quick work through instead of reasoning and critical thinking.

Instead, our fight flight brain centre takes over and we are anxious, can be irrational and we use emotional reasoning and bias instead of reason and discernment. Fear also activates the reptilian brain of pure physical survival instinct. This is where a climate of fear can become dangerous in society as tribalism can take hold…..and fear of running out of toilet paper of course.…..

By adopting an always-on, anywhere, anytime, any place behaviour, we exist in a constant state of alertness that scans the world but never really gives our full attention to anything. In the short term, we adapt well to these demands, but in the long term the stress hormones adrenaline and cortisol create a physiological hyper-alert state that is always scanning for stimuli, provoking a sense of addiction temporarily assuaged by checking in. Adrenaline and cortisol are designed to support us through bursts of intense activity, but in the long term cortisol can knock out the feel-good hormones serotonin and dopamine in the brain, which help us feel calm and happy, affecting our sleep and heart rate and making us feel jittery. Constant, high levels of circulating stress hormones have an inflammatory and detrimental affect on brain cells, suggests the psychiatrist Edward Bullmore, who has written about the link between inflammation and depression in his latest book, The Inflamed Mind. Depression, along with anxiety, is a known factor in knocking out concentration.

The average American spends nearly four hours a day on computers and mobile devices — and nearly a quarter of that time on social media. We are being conditioned to take data that is presented to us at face value. Brandishing tweets like pitchforks, we’re swept into virtual mobs. Our digitally enhanced tribalism upends political norms, sways health choices, cancels others opinions, and can change election outcomes.

Our mammalian brain is hardwired to excel at telling “us” from “them.” When we interact with in-group members, a release of dopamine gives us a rush of pleasure, while out-group members may trigger a negative response. Getting online “likes” only intensifies the experience. Amid the onslaught of our insatiable online munchies, we rely on ingrained biases to decide which data deserve our attention. The result: herd thinking and echo chambers. “Finding information that’s consistent with what I already believe makes me a better member of my in-group,” is how this bias works. “I can go to my allies and say, ‘Look, here’s the evidence that we’re right!’ ” The surest way to combat digital tribalism is to be wary of bias, embrace critical thinking and encourage others to do the same. This is part of the work I teach as we work on focus, attention, and peeling away conditioning and bias in the mind. We must all do this work to find a choice point of informed consent.

The distracted brain doesn’t think about things deeply - so we end up as a society that outsources their thinking to fact checkers and authority figures.

Critical thinking asks us to think about information from different perspectives, consider where the data is coming from, what the motive is behind sharing the data, where it can be true and not true, the context of the data (sample size, age, health, denominator etc) and many other facets too lengthy to go into here.

If we take things at face value - we are not engaged enough to have true informed consent. Again - my informed consent outcome can be entirely different to someone else’s.

2. Censorship

Thousands of respected scientists, economists, epidemiologists, lawyers and doctors are being censored for having differing points of view and for raising concerns. Many have been totally removed from social media platforms.

All of them are warning of risks to health, freedom and the economy. Why are they being censored? Are we not adults that can critically think if given access to all the possible information and risks?

Measures taken against these people can be extreme. Several medical doctors who oppose the COVID consensus or the vaccine have been arrested. In December, “Jean-Bernard Fourtillan, a retired university professor known for his opposition to the COVID-19 vaccine was arrested “by law enforcement officers under military command, and forcibly placed in solitary confinement at the psychiatric hospital of Uzès.” Fourtillan is known as “longtime critic of vaccines that use dangerous adjuvants”

’Science’ means nothing unless all science is allowed equal space at the table and all science is held in the scrutiny of how it was funded, why it was undertaken, was methodology sound, sample size, demographics, was it inert placebo tested and long term (very different to placebo that is another intervention) and what did the data really show. Data does not mean anything without context

The Great Barrington Declaration is a declaration written by a group of scientists and doctors that are opposed to the lockdowns on legal, medical and ethical grounds. The declaration has an impressive list of renowned scientists who have come on board as co-signers and has now been signed by more than 50,000 doctors and scientists. They have been censored and their views and evidence denied and not allowed as part of discussions to guide what is best for all. Why?

Dr. Kamran Abbasi, a recent executive editor of the prestigious British Medical Journal, editor of the Bulletin of the World Health Organization, and a consultant editor for PLOS Medicine. He is editor of the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine and JRSM Open. He recently published a piece in the BMJ, titled “Covid-19: politicization, “corruption,” and suppression of science.” This is worth reading if you would like to understand the cost to us all of suppressing science and of censorship.

This directly links with informed vaccine consent as this intervention is being touted as the only way to come out of lockdowns. However, the science does not support lockdowns as an effective measure. Indeed it is entirely the opposite, causing catastrophic effects as detailed in this report by experts from John Hopkins, Harvard and Duke. So why are we being pushed so hard to accept this intervention as our ‘way out’? again - it shows the importance of open conversation with ALL the science.

Internationally, the lockdowns have placed 130 million people on the brink of starvation, 80 million children at risk for diphtheria, measles and polio, and 1.8 million patients at risk of death from tuberculosis. The lockdowns in developed countries have devastated the poor in at risk countries. The World Economic Forum estimates that the lockdowns will cause an additional 150 million people to fall into extreme poverty, 125 times as many people as have died from Covid. The evidence of the effectiveness of lockdowns is also not robust. Surely all this information and science is worth discussing? “V the virus” is presented as the Threat. But the Virus has no direct impact on key economic variables. The economy responds to government policy - and that is being driven by one sided conversations that lockdowns and vaccines are the only options. Science is about exploring many options - but science is only as good as the questions being asked of it.

How might science be safeguarded in these exceptional times? The first step is full disclosure of competing interests from government, politicians, scientific advisers, and appointees, such as the heads of test and trace, diagnostic test procurement, and vaccine delivery. The next step is full transparency about decision making systems, processes, and knowing who is accountable for what. But even that approach retains public and professional trust only if science is available for scrutiny and free of political interference, and if the system is transparent and not compromised by conflicts of interest.

3. Peer and Authority Pressure

We are mammals. We forget this sometimes. We have a mammalian brain that likes to be part of our tribe and registers pain when we are not. 

Our brain is set up to help us avoid pain and rewards us for staying with our tribe, so coming outside of the accepted way of thinking and behaving can be tough for us as previously mentioned. It can provoke anxiety and a feeling of unsafety. In addition to this, we are steeped in the language of judgment in our society, which cultivates and propagates this effect.

To maintain domination structures in society, you teach people from a young age a kind of language where they get disconnected from their own power, feelings and needs

This is a language that is static, which uses the verb ‘to be’ in ways to judge people; their behaviour, their appearance, their intelligence and worthiness. It describes what people are; whether they are good or bad, right or wrong, normal or abnormal, woke or sheep etc. In addition to this language of judgement and domination; it is also important to teach people the idea of retributive justice.

This basically says if you are judged as bad by authority/others then you deserve to suffer for it and feel guilt and shame. And if you are positively judged by authority/others then you deserve to be rewarded with virtue and feeling ‘good’ about your self

This combination of teaching people to think in a static separated way of good, bad, right, wrong, mixed with the concept or retributive justice based on punishment and reward; is at the heart of violence on our planet.

This language of blame is taught so that people are forever looking outwards to authority to see if they are getting the ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ answer or judged as ‘good’ or ‘bad’

In this way we are held in a perpetual childlike state of wanting to be judged as ‘good’, and fearing being ‘bad’. This fear feeds into our primal hardwired survival need to be part of our tribe and not be rejected. Our psyche and brain will do anything to protect us from the pain of guilt, shame, and rejection - so when this programmed guilt and shame is unhealed - it will project outwards in outrage, virtue signalling, shaming, labelling, othering and profound judgment - that will in turn create more violence and separation

We can become trapped in a childlike state constantly looking to authority and the herd to ensure that we are ‘good’ by doing what we ‘should’. We need neither submit nor rebel when we are connected to our feelings and needs and values. From there - we can choose from self sovereignty. 

If we choose our actions from a fear based state of being (fearful of microbes, of death, of loss, of censure, judgement), it is a default choice made by a mind conditioned to submit to an authority outside of us. We are the highest authority on our own individual health. Always. My feelings, needs and values are different to many people’s - and I respect this fully.

Suggested reading on static language of dominance and its opposite, true language of activism, which is actually a state of consciousness - nonviolent communication. This is important to learn at this time as much of today’s activism is still rooted in static language of dominance and thus still reinforces violence in the world. It also helps us treat ourselves well. When violence within ceases - it doesn’t need to be projected into the world.

Now let’s move onto looking at this intervention, its risks and benefits and also at alternatives because that too is part of informed consent. 

Overview of the intervention and the technology

Firstly, the term “vaccine” is actually a misnomer. The mRNA approach doesn’t infect the body with a weakened (“attenuated”) virus as per the dictionary definition of a vaccine but rather commands the body’s cells to manufacture specific molecules that trick the immune system into thinking a pathogen is present (these are called antigens in this context).

If the antigens are structured in a way that resembles the targeted viral pathogen — such COVID19 (which still has not been isolated but let’s roll with it for now) — the body’s immune response should offer protection against the actual coronavirus.

With mRNA vaccines, what’s injected into the body isn’t a weakened virus or even selected antigens but rather protein coding instructions that tell your body’s cells how to make the antigens on their own. (That process is called “translation.”) It’s sort of like writing down and delivering to someone a set of instructions for building a catapult to protect the castle. Instead of building catapults and delivering them to the castle, you’re telling the inhabitants inside the castle how to build their own catapults to fend off invaders. Here’s a simplified diagram of this process from Curevac.com, one of the many companies pursuing mRNA vaccines against the coronavirus.

As Curevac explains on its website: With our mRNA technology, we instruct the human body to activate its own defense mechanism. To that, we use the natural messenger substance mRNA that contains the construction manual needed to produce proteins. We program this messenger substance with the information about one protein of the coronavirus and inject it into the human body. The body recognizes the protein produced by our cells as something unknown and activates its immune cells to produce antibodies and T-cells against it. In this way, we imitate the natural viral infection and activate the endogenous defense system.

Why They Are Being Developed

In theory, mRNA vaccines offer extraordinary advantages over traditional vaccines. They’re safer to manufacture and a lot faster to make. They’re clean (i.e. they will not contain latent viruses found in the animals used to grow traditional vaccines) and typically require no adjuvants or other toxic additives in order to work as intended. Furthermore, they can direct the body to manufacture almost any protein imaginable. That’s how it works in theory, of course.

But they also present risks that need to be understood and assessed in light of a risk/benefit analysis for each one of us.

The Bigger Picture

An initial big picture problem with mRNA vaccines is that human biochemistry is incredibly complex, and the body’s synthesis of tens of thousands of different proteins is remarkably delicate and easy to throw out of balance. Many people don’t realize this, but proteins are not merely structural components of the body (such as muscle tissue), they are also messengers (such as hormones), transport vehicles, enzymes, antibodies and many other types of molecules necessary for good health.

Injecting the body with mRNA strands — which are essentially protein synthesis instructions — could theoretically unleash unintended consequences in the body, which could include causing destructive self-reinforcing feedback loops that either diminish necessary protein synthesis or cause runaway excessive protein synthesis. These side effects can potentially lead to at least five negative outcomes (we are already seeing some in adverse events reported - more on this later):

1) Sudden onset of autoimmune disorders that cause the body’s immune system to attack its own cells.

2) Heightened inflammation in the body, resulting in a hyper-inflammatory response in some people, leading to secondary effects such as neurological damage, organ failure or cancer. This is also sometimes called an “enhanced” inflammatory response.

3) A heightened risk of blood clotting in response to mRNA strands circulating in the blood outside the body’s cells. This can lead to potentially fatal episodes of stroke or serious cardiovascular events. We are seeing this already on a large scale.

4) Immune response interference due to the presence of unintended RNA fragments being translated into unintended proteins, leading to a vast array of negative possible outcomes including molecular deficiencies that can result in various diseases and syndromes including hormonal / endocrine disorders, infertility, cardiovascular disease, neurological disorders and many more.

5) In the case of self-replicating mRNA vaccines using viral components, an inability to stop a runaway process that’s replicating out of control in the body. This could theoretically occur when the mRNA snippets are pushed into cells via virus replicon particles (VRP), for example, or using other viral delivery methods that rely on viral replication machinery. On the other hand, self-replicating mRNA vaccines allow for injection doses to be incredibly small, since the mRNA coding material is self-replicating, and this could lead to safer vaccines with far smaller dosing requirements compared to traditional vaccines.

In addition to these five major risks, there are also enormously important questions about mRNA vaccines and some of the problems they might engender in the body:

1) What happens if the desired protein folding goes awry? Without proper folding, the proteins never achieve their desired functionality. In the case of antigens, improper folding would render the structure useless and would not impart immunity. The mRNA translation into a protein is only part of the process of building a protein. The “folding” of the protein is another big part. Perhaps this has already been resolved by the very capable scientists working on this platform, but it’s a question that deserves further exploration.

2) How do the antigens produced inside the cell efficiently get transported to the outer membrane of the cell? This answer seems to be confidently answered by experts in this area, but it raises a second round of questions regarding cell membrane permeability which we already know is altered by electromagnetic exposure from sources such as 5G signals from cell towers. Notably, mRNA vaccine researchers are well aware of the phenomenon known as “electroporation,” because it is used alongside “gene gun” approaches in an attempt to insert self-replicating RNA payloads into cells, as you can see mentioned in this study on mRNA vaccines.

3) What happens if the mRNA snippets get fragmented and only partial instructions are delivered to the ribosomes, resulting in translation of partial proteins? This could, in theory, cause the body to see these partial proteins as pathogenic invaders, even when portions of those proteins might match critical molecules the body needs, such as hormones or enzymes. The end result could be that the immune system gets activated against the body’s own necessary molecules or cells. In other words, this is the autoimmune disorder scenario mentioned in the list above, and it opens up a Pandora’s Box of consequences that might be impossible to anticipate.

What can We Learn From Previous Mrna vaccines for a coronoavirus?

In the development of vaccines against coronaviruses like SARS-COV-1 and MERS in the early 2000’s, researchers found evidence of a serious problem. Teams of U.S. and foreign scientists vaccinated animals with the four most promising vaccines. At first, the experiment seemed successful as all the animals developed a robust antibody response to coronavirus. However, when the scientists exposed the vaccinated animals to the wild virus, the results were horrifying. Vaccinated animals suffered hyper-immune responses including inflammation throughout their bodies, especially in their lungs. This is known as Antibody-Dependent Enhancement. As noted by the authors of that International Journal of Clinical Practice paper, previous coronavirus vaccine efforts — for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV), Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) — have revealed a serious concern: the vaccines have a tendency to trigger antibody-dependent enhancement.

What exactly does that mean? In a nutshell, it means that rather than enhance your immunity against the infection, the vaccine actually enhances the virus’ ability to enter and infect your cells, resulting in more severe disease than had you not been vaccinated

This issue is well known. Early in the COVID-19 scenario, Dr. Peter Hotez, of Baylor College of Medicine, testified before Congress about the dangers of accelerating coronavirus vaccine development, saying “(The) unique safety problem of coronavirus vaccines” was discovered 50 years ago while developing the Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) vaccine.” He went to register that this “‘paradoxical immune enhancement phenomenon’ means vaccinated people may still develop the disease, get sicker and die.”

Researchers had seen this same “enhanced immune response” during human testing of the failed RSV vaccine tests in the 1950s. The vaccines not only failed to prevent infection; 80% of the children infected required hospitalization, and two children challenged with the RSV died (see Openshaw, 2005). In April of 2020, Hotez told CNN, “If there is immune enhancement in animals, that’s a showstopper.” This was an embarrassment to the FDA

Are these new vaccines free of this known and evidence based risk?

There’s been a serious terminology problem with this issue. The problem, of course, is not “immune enhancement,” which sounds like something helpful to the immune system. In fact, it is quite the opposite. The problem is, in reality “disease enhancement”; in fact, that is what it was called in the original RSV study. Disease enhancement now appears to be caused by initial exposure to a pathogen’s proteins, or parts of proteins, which primes the body to autoimmunity. That is “pathogenic priming.” In COVID-19, every protein in the SARS-CoV-2 has at least one epitope that matches human proteins someplace in the human body. About one-third of the epitopes in SARS-CoV-2 virus that match human proteins match immune system proteins.

The Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee Briefing Document on the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine contains disturbing indications that might be a safety signal on pathogenic priming, especially in older adults. Before those are reviewed, there are fundamental issues with the classification of serious adverse events that reflect the short-term thinking and externalization-of-cost mindset of the vaccine safety science paradigm.

The first issue is the categorization of “Serious vs. Non-Serious” adverse events in the study and in the report. To a person experiencing neurologic adverse events including Bell’s Palsy, neuroinflammatory and thrombotic events, these events are not “non-serious” and can, over time, develop into life-threatening conditions that require continuous medical intervention and repeated billable office visits for care. The short-term study excludes any means of detecting whether the initial exposure may play a fundamental root cause role in setting up patients for life-long chronic illness. The vaccine adverse events themselves seen in the Pfizer study may be indicative of pathogenic priming, especially since more serious adverse events were seen with the second dose.

The second issue is that the design and analysis set-up of the study are biased against finding adverse events. The report states: Among non-serious unsolicited adverse events, there was a numerical imbalance of four cases of Bell’s palsy in the vaccine group compared with no cases in the placebo group, though the four cases in the vaccine group do not represent a frequency above that expected in the general population.”

The comparison to baseline rates is meaningless because other vaccines are in use in the population. Thus, any risk due to the COVID-19 vaccine adds to or multiplies existing risk present in the population from other vaccines.

Among the 18-55 year-old participants, there were 370 solicited serious adverse events (SSAEs) in the vaccinated group and 73 in the unvaccinated. Of the vaccinated, 18% experienced SSAEs; in the placebo group, only 3% did, implying that SSAEs can be expected at a rate five times greater in the vaccinated compared to the unvaccinated.

These included severe fatigue, headache, chills, vomiting, diarrhea, muscle and joint pain. Whether these conditions represent instances of pathogenic priming, identifying individuals who are now at higher risk of serious morbidity and mortality if they become infected with SARS-CoV-2 is unknown, but given past studies, seems likely. In the over 55 group, which was a smaller group, there were 60 SSAEs in the vaccinated group and 24 in the unvaccinated. Of the vaccinated, 6.5% experienced SAEs, compared to 1.4% in the unvaccinated, implying a 4.46 times increased risk overall of SSAEs due to vaccination.

However, in the older group, the vaccinated group was 10 times more likely to have a SSAE upon receipt of the second vaccine dose than the first dose compared to the 1:1 ratio in the unvaccinated. In the younger group, the vaccinated were only 3.61 times more likely to have second-dose SSAEs than the age-matched placebo group, which had about as many SSAEs in the first and second dose. The patients in the study reviewed were healthy — and thus the spectrum of adverse events is not representative of those that might occur if the vaccine comes to market. In the previous animal trials, the first dose was a vaccine, but the second was natural infection, leading to severe injury and often death. In these human trials, both doses were from the vaccine, so it is also not reassuring that these adverse events did not include the more serious and deadly conditions that afflicted animals.

These human trials did not rule out pathogenic priming in any way. Both the Moderna and Pfizer animal studies, which used non-human primates, failed to examine organ sites other than lung, and while they studied potential markers of pathogenic priming, they failed to measure one: interleukin-5 (IL-5), which had been found in prior coronavirus studies to be elevated in conjunction with pathogenic priming-induced disease enhancement.

Recalling that animal studies conducted on prior COVID vaccines found pathogenic priming leading to disease enhancement in older animals more than younger animals, older adults may be at highest risk of serious chronic illness due to autoimmunity resulting from vaccine-induced pathogenic priming. Dr. Anthony Fauci has informed the public that these vaccines do not stop transmission. Therefore, the next dose of the viral proteins in the form of a natural infection for these study participants — a SARS-CoV-2 infection leading to COVID19 — may be their last. The study should be extended to long-term follow up, including any further vaccination or exposure to SARS-CoV-2 viral proteins by infection. So why have the world’s top vaccine promoters, like Paul Offit and Peter Hotez, been warning us frantically about the unique dangers inherent in developing a coronavirus vaccine?

In this video footage, Offit, Hotez and even Fauci (in an unguarded moment), warn that any new coronavirus vaccine could trigger lethal immune reactions, “vaccine enhancement,” when vaccinated people come in contact with the wild virus. Instead of proceeding with caution, Fauci made the choice to fast track vaccines, partially funded by Gates, without critical animal studies before moving into human clinical trials that could provide early warning of runaway immune responses. Gates (in this video) is so worried about the danger of adverse events that he says vaccines shouldn’t be distributed until governments agree to indemnify against lawsuits. On Feb. 4, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) website, there were only 11 active CV cases in the U.S., yet the U.S. quietly pushed through federal regulations giving coronavirus vaccine makers full immunity from liability.

This risk is sufficiently obscured in clinical trial protocols and consent forms for ongoing COVID-19 vaccine trials that adequate patient comprehension of this risk is unlikely to occur, obviating truly informed consent by subjects in these trials.

Post vaccination immunity

If you read a college level immunology textbook, you will learn that how our innate immune response works, gives us long term protection again multiple variants of virus’s. Not only antibodies, but also T cell immunity. I do recommend learning about our immune response as this seems to have been forgotten recently, and we really are incredible self regulating and self regenerating mammals when nourished physically, emotionally and spiritually.

Due to the mRNA essentially hacking our operating system and producing a spike protein against just one variant, we do not have protection to others. Research is emerging that this could put vaccinated people more at risk from variants.

A team from Tel Aviv University and Clalit Health Services found that the prevalence of the South Africa variant among patients who received both doses of the vaccine was around eight times higher than those unvaccinated – 5.4% versus 0.7%. (this is not yet peer reviewed so I will link it once it is)

In addition - due to being protected by the antibody to just one variant, top ups are needed for additional variants. Antibody protection is being estimated to last a few months - necessitating more top ups.

Since 1986 it has been known that T-cells, not antibodies, are paramount in producing immunity.  The natural defense against viruses, antibodies, are directed against the immune system.  The virus attaches to white blood cells (monocytes, macrophages).  Antibodies normally bind to viral surface proteins and block entry into cells.  However, COVID-19 infected antibodies can worsen damage in the lungs.  If a vaccine induces high levels of potentially neutralizing antibodies they will reduce viral replication but this could also result in lung damage.  The structure and concentration of these antibodies determines their destructiveness.

Human respiratory coronaviruses do not induce durable total immunity.  Reinfections are common.  This is another reason why vaccines against coronaviruses have never been licensed.  Antibody responses and protective immunity are fleeting and only modestly effective.Antibodies against the antecedent SARS-CoV-1 virus that erupted in 2002 in China were not long lasting.  They plunged after two years. B cells didn’t remain but memory T-cells did endure.

Theoretically, a coronavirus like COVID-19 can cause endless cycles of disease, which would be a bonanza for vaccine makers.  Fashioning vaccines against COVID-19 would then be like chasing the wind. We know this from decades of immunology research into virus’s. Why is this not part of the opportunity to protect our at risk communities, by supporting their innate immunity?

The justification of the warp speed intervention is based on urgent need due to deaths from COVID-19.  Let us look at this in a different way too, not just death numbers. Currently we have over 130 million people who have survived COVID-19 infections, and a huge percentage with no symptoms. How are these people surviving? How are so many recovering? How are so many having no symptoms?

The answer is very simple and and is being entirely overlooked. Their immune system did what it is designed to do. This supposition is borne out by the data. The single highest risk factor for severe COVID-19 and death is metabolic illness. Only 12% of the US population are metabolically healthy. 

Manipulating cell technology like it is an operating system is clever yes, but it is not take in to account the laws of nature that our cells are ruled by. For example, part of what controls each cell in our body are the circadian clocks embedded in each of them. These are functional genes and proteins that control other genes and proteins. Meaning they determine your health every single second. These functional genes have a total need for you to get movement, sleep at appropriate times, feel healthily, and nourish the cell appropriately to build and maintain the cell. When we do not adhere to the laws of nature - the cell cannot work. Dysfunction, inflammation and disease will manifest - as your signal to get back into alignment with the laws of your being and of nature. When we continue to try and improve on and own nature; our health both mental and emotional suffer.

Clinical Trials - Analysis of methodology and efficacy of Pfizer and Johnson & Johnsons

I am going to borrow someone else’s analysis here to save me typing my notes out. Theirs is also superior to mine. There is one for the Pfizer study and one for Johnson & Johnson.

When reading their studies I came to these same conclusions. I however encourage you to read and form your own. I am always glad to hear differing analysis

https://everlyreport.com/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-covid-vaccine/

https://everlyreport.com/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-johnson-johnson-covid-vaccine/

In November — just before the FDA issued its initial Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for Pfizer’s COVID vaccine — Doshi cautioned the public that Pfizer’s and Moderna’s efficacy results seemed dramatic only because the companies derived them from relative risk data.

Absolute risk, simply explained, is “the likelihood that an outcome will occur.” Relative risk “compares the risk of a health event … among one group with the risk among another group.”

Pfizer told the FDA that eight (of approximately 22,000) volunteers in its vaccine group developed a PCR-confirmed case of COVID-19, versus 162 of 22,000 volunteers in the placebo group. Moderna reported a similar spread — five out of 15,000 in the vaccine group versus 90 out of 15,000 in the placebo group.

When one does the math, the Pfizer clinical trial numbers showed: “The risk reduction in absolute terms [was] only 0.7%, from an already very low risk of 0.74% [in the placebo group] to a minimal risk of 0.04% [in the vaccine group].” (Dividing 0.7 — the difference between the two groups — by 0.74 is the mathematical calculation that produced the touted “95% effective” number). Although the eight versus 162 PCR-confirmed COVID cases in the Pfizer trial may sound like a big difference to the casual reader, Peter Doshi subsequently alerted the public to the fact that Pfizer skewed its analysis by excluding more than 3,400 individuals with non-PCR-confirmed symptoms of COVID — individuals split almost evenly across the vaccine and placebo groups.

As Doshi wrote in The BMJ: “With 20 times more suspected than confirmed cases, this category of disease cannot be ignored simply because there was no positive PCR test result. Indeed this makes it all the more urgent to understand.”

Factoring in both the suspected and confirmed cases, Doshi noted, would drop the 95% relative risk figure down to 19%.

In 2019, the author of a pre-COVID paper, “How to Communicate Evidence to Patients” (quoted in a post-COVID blog), explained that relative risks “can exaggerate the perception of difference” between groups — especially, as in the case of COVID vaccines and many other medical interventions, “when the absolute risks are very small.”

Other researchers agree the concealment of “underlying absolute risks” (and the tendency to “overestimate” effects presented in relative terms) are a “major weakness” of relative risk data. For these reasons, many researchers insist that one risk measure “cannot be interpreted without the other.”

“When relative risks are used for the presentation of effects of a treatment, this can make the treatment seem better than it actually is. For example, investigators may claim that a certain treatment reduces mortality by 50% when the intervention reduces death rates from 0.002% to 0.001%, an improvement the clinical relevance of which may be questioned.”

Efficacy Of Coronavirus vaccines over time - Variants

We have already seen the extremely high mutation rate of RNA viruses, which includes SARS-CoV2. The rate is impressively demonstrated by the website CoV-Glue, ” Amino acid analysis for the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic“, which shows that for SARS-CoV2 the mutation rate is very high in a very short period of about 4 months.

· 7237 non-synonymous, i.e. amino acid changing mutations (replacements),

· 6 insertions (inserting additional bases) and

· 87 deletions (loss of bases in the gene sequence) in found gene sequences. .

That is for a genome that itself consists of only about 30,000 bases an enormous number of mutations, insertions and deletions in a very short time. And these are only the data of a few thousand SARS-CoV2 viruses that have been sequenced. Nature knows many, many more. Non-synonymous mutations cause other amino acids to be inserted into the virus’ proteins. These thus change the chemical properties of these proteins. These mutations accumulate within weeks(!), as the data show. Insertions and deletions are of special importance, because they can lead to a frame shift, where the whole subsequent chain is read differently. There are also synonymous mutations which, although they do not change the primary structure of the SARS-CoV2 proteins, can still play a role in diagnostics. In addition, there are still many open questions about further effects of synonymous mutations. 

It is absolutely certain that the SARS virus is also constantly and rapidly changing. And what good is a vaccination against something that has long since changed incalculably? Our immune system also reacts unpredictably. Cross-immunities? Immune memory? The specificity and significance of tests is quickly fading. So does the effect of a vaccine.

Thus if proof of immunity becomes law, what does it actually prove when pitted against a moving target? For the same reason, mass vaccinations against respiratory viruses are a risky and may cause bodily injury. With rapidly changing pathogens, as with influenza vaccination, success is a matter of luck. In addition - you can also increase your risk of getting other respiratory virus’s by getting the flu shot. Only afterwards can it be determined whether the vaccinated persons were better off than the non-vaccinated. This remains a good deal, since an evidence-based prior benefit assessment will of course never be possible without an inert placebo control group.

Proof of immunity to a moving target when other much larger risk factors like metabolic health are ignored, risks creating a totally pointless and dangerous two tier society that will feed into our innate ‘us’ and ‘them’ brain bias, will feed into the judgement division being propagated by systems of dominance, and will lead to more censorship of those that oppose these measures due to social norms being such powerful motivators of our mammalian drive to stay with the ‘in’ herd.

Are vaccines the only way through this pandemic? Are there alternatives? 

We are being told by our governments, makers and proponents of this intervention that it is our only way to re open economies, to travel, to be free.

These systems that are being trusted that this intervention is what is ‘best for us’ have allowed the following to happen and continue to benefit from it financially:

• 242,000,000 Americans are overweight or obese

• 130,000,000 Americans are diabetic or pre-diabetic

• 199,000,000 Americans have some form of heart disease

• 115,000,000 Americans are regularly sleep deprived

The number one cause of our poor state of health according to the American Medical Association is diet. But you will not see anything ANYWHERE about getting our communities healthier, or peer/social level pressure to push for change on this. Why not? 

In 2019 $4 trillion was spent in the US healthcare system, and we are the sickest nation in the world. 

If only a fraction of that was put into community education, wellness, social support and improved food accessibility - we will be living the solution we have needed all along for ALL conditions that are killing our precious population. Remember, 650,000 die of heart attacks and 605,702 die of cancer (1.8 million diagnosed). It isn’t very sexy like a new operating system injected into the body, but it is is the truth that metabolically and emotionally healthy humans have a robust immune system to cope with ALL disease.

A  December 2020 CDC report confirms that 94% of the deaths attributed to Covid have “comorbidities”,(i.e. deaths dues other causes). For 6% of the deaths, COVID-19 was the only cause mentioned. For deaths with conditions or causes in addition to COVID-19, on average, there were 2.6 additional conditions or causes per death. Our current state of ill health in the Western World is giving us a message. We are still not hearing it. Who benefits from the current healthcare approach and pharmaceutical solutions? The data answers this easily; our health and wellbeing is not benefiting at all.

What actually underlines our current state of ill health is poverty, poor nutrition (linked to the former in many cases) toxicity, deficiency, pollution, stress, artificial light, EMF, lack of education on health foundations, lack of sleep, poor regulatory standards for food and drug industries, and trauma on an individual, ancestral and societal level. All these are propagated and perpetuated by the very systems of dominance promoting this intervention.

There is a conversation amongst highly qualified scientists that encompasses risk factors discussed above and in different risk categories. It is very important that this level of nuanced conversation is heard and propagated.

Alternative Treatments

We have many alternative treatments that were not used in 2020. One was banned (HCQ) due to a sham study that was later retracted, and there are many other treatments available that I will write about next week as the scope of how we can support our systems is vast.

***Important to note though is that chloroquine monotherapy causes damage to red blood cells in people with glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency. Glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency is the most common hereditary genetic defect worldwide, with a frequency of up to 20-30% in Africa. Many people are currently being treated with hydroxychloroquine, a drug which they do not tolerate, now being used all over the world to fight Covid-19. If this practice does not end soon, there is a risk of widespread deaths. We do not know how this has impacted treatment so far, which is worrying considering the ethnic risks and prior mortality number in severe COVID.

I wanted to mention it as 1) it highlights important genetic and ethnic considerations for ALL treatment interventions. If this is true of so many drugs, and also in other types of vaccinations - surely this is important to look into for this new gene therapy. 2) There has been no discussion of this issue among those responsible in the WHO and in governments. There is also a frightening lack of knowledge and sense of responsibility among doctors who are accountable for the treatment of Covid-19 patients or for the staff treating them. Once again: This connection applies not only to Africa, but also to large parts of Asia, South and Central America, Arabia and the Mediterranean region. I actually have this expression. My dad’s genetic ancestry is North African and South Arabian (we are from Cyprus)

Early Outpatient Treatment

If you would like a copy of some recommended outpatient treatments to empower your household you can download the booklet here:

https://aapsonline.org/covidpatientguide/

Evidence based inpatient and outpatient protocols created by scientists and doctors with very high efficacy can be found on this specially created site

There is a great senate hearing on the topic of an evidence based alternative treatment called Ivermectin if you are interested

As noted by Dr. Peter McCullough during a recent Texas state Senate Health and Human Services Committee hearing, data shows early treatment could have prevented up to 85% (425,000) of COVID-19 deaths.17 Yet early treatments were all heavily censored and suppressed.

McCullough, in addition to being a cardiologist and professor of medicine at the Texas A&M University Health Sciences Center, also has the distinction of having published the most papers of any person in the history of his field, and being an editor of two major medical journals. Despite that, his video, in which he went through a paper he’d published detailing effective early treatments, was summarily banned by YouTube in 2020.

Alternate Vaccine Potential

Also note worthy is a different type of vaccine currently in trials for COVID19 that does not carry the same risks as Mrna gene therapy: This is the BCG vaccine and I suggest looking into initial results and following its progress. Still, even with a safe and effective vaccine, all vaccines rely on an intact functioning immune system.  The objective for those individuals who have been immunized with an RNA virus is to normalize their immune response.  Certain essential nutrients are required to thwart the development of ADE if you are among the millions who have already been vaccinated with an RNA virus.

Why We Are Told That We Need This Intervention

Mortality

On March 11, 2020: the WHO officially declared a Worldwide pandemic at a time when there were  44,279 cases and 1440 deaths outside China out of a population of 6.4 billion (Estimates of confirmed cases based on the PCR test).. 

Immediately following the March 11, 2020 WHO announcement, confinement and lockdown instructions were transmitted to 193 member states of the United Nations. Unprecedented in history, applied almost simultaneously in a large of number countries, entire sectors of the World economy have been destabilized. Small and medium sized enterprises have been driven into bankruptcy. Unemployment and poverty are rampant.

We are told as a result of this that the gene therapy is necessary. At the start of the pandemic with models projecting millions of deaths in the US alone, and the PCR test providing so many positive tests, the fear levels understandably were high.

Fortunately we have more data now on risk. Ironically, the data we now have no longer support a mass vaccination mandate, considering the lethality of COVID-19 is lower than the flu for those under the age of 60.20 If you’re under the age of 40, your risk of dying from COVID-19 is just 0.01%, meaning you have a 99.99% chance of surviving the infection. And you could improve that to 99.999% if you’re metabolically flexible and vitamin D replete (back we go to the deeper unnecessary risk factors).

Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, M.D., Ph.D. of the Stanford University School of Medicine in California appeared on a JAMA (The Journal of the American Medical Association) Network conversation alongside Mark Lipsitch, DPhil and Dr. Howard Bauchner who interviews leading researchers and thinkers in health care about their JAMA articles.

“During the conversation, Dr. Bhattacharya said that the survival rate from Covid-19, based on approximately 50 studies that have been published providing sero-prevalence data, for people over 70 years of age is 95 percent. For people under the age of 70, the survival rate of Covid-19 is 99.95 percent. He went on to state that the flu is more dangerous than Covid-19 for children, and that [America] had more flu deaths in children this year than Covid deaths.

And we have to remember that the seriously ill COVID-19 patients, are mostly very old people, many of whom are ill, 40 percent of whom come from nursing homes in need of the highest degree of care, and in Italy, out of 2,003 deaths, only three patients have been without serious pre-existing conditions. So it is a group that has usually and until now always received more palliative care than intensive care, and now a new disease is diagnosed and all these patients become intensive care patients.

Annals of Internal Medicine September 2, 2020 DOI: 10.7326/M20-5352

Although utterly tragic for those affected and this cannot be bypassed, the fact remains that this is not the modelled numbers we were told would happen. Once again the modelling failed. Risks are there and we must never bypass this, but we have to look at ALL the data and risks in order to make a successful risk benefit analysis. Everyone is not at equal risk of severe outcome if infected. This is a key omission and this omission has driven much fear. Indeed, the public still does not understand this critically important distinction. The vast majority of people are at little if any risk of severe illness. We need an understanding of the nuances and how this relates to our own unique situation for informed consent.

Case Numbers

Case numbers too were a major driver of this warp speed intervention. This has been used as a reason to lockdown, to vaccinate, and now to deny re entry to society for those that do not want this intervention.

The Real Time Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction (rRT-PCR) test was adopted by the WHO on January 23, 2020 as a means to detecting the  SARS-COV-2 virus, following the recommendations of  a Virology research group (based at Charité University Hospital, Berlin), supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. 

(For Further details see the Drosten Study Exactly one year later on January 20th, 2021, the WHO retracts. The contentious issue pertains to the number of amplification threshold cycles (Ct). According to Pieter Borger, et al. The number of amplification cycles [should be] less than 35; preferably 25-30 cycles. In case of virus detection, >35 cycles only detects signals which do not correlate with infectious virus as determined by isolation in cell culture…(Critique of Drosten Study). The World Health Organization (WHO) tacitly admits one year later that ALL PCR tests conducted at a 35 cycle amplification threshold (Ct) or higher are INVALID. But that is what they recommended in January 2020, in consultation with the virology team at Charité Hospital in Berlin.

If the test is conducted at a 35 Ct threshold or above (which was recommended by the WHO), segments of the SARS-CoV-2 virus cannot be detected, which means that ALL the so-called confirmed “positive cases” tabulated in the course of the last 14 months are invalid. According to Pieter Borger, Bobby Rajesh Malhotra, Michael Yeadon, et al, the Ct > 35 has been the norm “in most laboratories in Europe & the US”.

The WHO’s carefully formulated “Retraction” can be seen here: Diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 and states that careful interpretation of weak positive results is needed. 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. 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.

“Invalid Positives” is the Underlying Concept. This is not an issue of  “Weak Positives” and “Risk of False Positive Increases”. What is at stake is a “Flawed Methodology” which leads to invalid estimates.

What this admission of the WHO confirms is that the estimate of covid positive from a PCR test (with an amplification threshold of 35 cycles or higher) is invalid. In which case, the WHO recommends retesting:  “a new specimen should be taken and retested…”.

The WHO calls for “Retesting”. Think about how many millions of tests have been done over a year that make this impossible and how much action has been taken by governments globally as a result of these tests:

• lockdown

• closure of economic activity

• poverty and mass unemployment

• bankruptcies

• social distancing

• face mask

• curfew

• the vaccine

• the health passport
  

1. Diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2020, WHO reference number WHO/2019-nCoV/laboratory/2020.6.

2. Altman DG, Bland JM. Diagnostic tests 2: Predictive values. BMJ. 1994 Jul 9;309(6947):102. doi: 10.1136/bmj.309.6947.102.

Update - As of July 2021 this test has now been recalled

Asymptomatic Spread

We have been told that we risk our elders and loved ones through asymptomatic spread.

A study of almost 10 million people in Wuhan, China, asymptomatic spread of COVID-19 did not occur at all. Not at all! In other words, people displaying no symptoms did not spread the disease at all. Not at all. This undermines the need for lockdowns, which are built on the premise of the virus being unwittingly spread by infectious, asymptomatic people (people without any symptoms). Published in November in the scientific journal Nature Communications, the paper was compiled by scientists from the Huazhong University of Science and Technology in Wuhan, as well as from scientific institutions across China, the U.K. and Australia. It focused on the residents of Wuhan, ground zero for COVID-19, where 9,899,828 people took part in a screening program between May 14 and June 1, which provided clear results as to the possibility of any asymptomatic transmission of the virus.

The study stated that out of the nearly 10 million people in the study, “300 asymptomatic cases” were found. Contact tracing was then carried out and of those 300. No cases of COVID-19 were detected in any of them. None! “A total of 1,174 close contacts of the asymptomatic positive cases were traced, and they all tested negative for the COVID-19.”

Both the asymptomatic patients and their contacts were placed in isolation for two weeks, and after the fortnight, the results remained the same. “None of detected positive cases or their close contacts became symptomatic or newly confirmed with COVID-19 during the isolation period.” For those of you dubious about China’s figures, Sweden and Finland have more data regarding their choice to keep schools open. They found that the closure or not of schools had no measurable direct impact on the number of laboratory confirmed cases in school-aged children in Finland or Sweden.

The study in the ew England Journal points out that the number of deaths from any cause among the 1,951,905 children in Sweden (as of Dec. 31, 2019) who were 1 to 16 years of age was 65 during the pre-Covid-19 period of November 2019 through February of 2020 was 65, and 69 during four months of exposure to Covid-19 between March and June of 2020. The data shows that there was no significant difference here.

“When it comes to teachers, the study showed that ‘fewer than 10 preschool teachers and 20 schoolteachers in Sweden received intensive care for Covid-19 up until June 30, 2020 (20 per 103,596 schoolteachers, which is equal to 19 per 100,000). As compared with other occupations (excluding health care workers), this corresponded to sex- and age-adjusted relative risks of 1.10 (95 percent confidence interval [CI], 0.49 to 2.49) among preschool teachers and 0.43 (95 percent CI, 0.28 to 0.68) among schoolteachers.’

A reminder here that flu is statistically far more dangerous for our young ones than COVID19 , yet schools stay open throughout annual flu season.

Zero Liability

Under the United States Prep Act, Pfizer and other COVID vaccine manufacturers were granted liability immunity from adverse events resulting from the administration of their vaccines.

This means that if you are harmed by a COVID vaccine, you cannot sue the manufacturer.

Adverse Events Already Reported

You can look at some adverse events at VAERS, the vaccine adverse event site. From Dec 14th to 23rd April, 118,902 adverse events were reported.

An HHS study found that less than 1% of vaccine adverse events are actually reported to VAERS. Did you know you can report events? Not many people do. This is only the first initial side effects - not the longer term possible effects described above that we may see over time

Up until the end of March - 19% of deaths were related to cardiac disorders.

• 45% of those who died were male, 43% were female and the remaining death reports did not include gender of the deceased.

• The average age of those who died was 77.7 and the youngest death was an 18-year-old.

• As of March 26, 341 pregnant women had reported adverse events related to COVID vaccines, including 104 reports of miscarriage or premature birth.

• Of the 578 cases of Bell’s Palsy reported, 63% of cases were reported after Pfizer-BioNTech vaccinations — almost twice as many as reported (36%) following vaccination with the Moderna vaccine. Seven cases of Bell’s Palsy were reported with Johnson & Johnson (J&J) vaccine (1%).

• There were 2,578 reports of anaphylaxis, with 53% of cases attributed to the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, 44% to Moderna and 3% to J&J vaccine, which was rolled out in the U.S. on March 2.

• Using a broadened search for any reference to anaphylaxis in chart notes resulted in 15,193 reports, with 52% of cases attributed to Pfizer’s COVID vaccine, 45% to Moderna and 3% to J&J. With each vaccine, nearly 42% of anaphylactic reports occurred in people aged 17-44.

Longer term effects are also a known issue. We of course will not have visibility of this until data longer than 3 months is released. However this future data is deeply compromised by the lack of inert placebo as a control group. Not all science is equal and unfortunately these trials and their data are now rendered unreliable due to this (and other factors discussed in the analysis given above)

Chronic Diseases with Delayed Onset After Vaccinations and Infections https://sites.kowsarpub.com/jamm/articles/12285.html

Transverse myelitis and vaccines: a multi-analysis https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19880568/

Macrophagic myofaciitis a vaccine (alum) autoimmune-related disease https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20882368/

HHS-funded study on VAERS https://digital.ahrq.gov/sites/default/files/docs/publication/r18hs017045-lazarus-final-report-2011.pdf

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/ebiom/article/PIIS2352-3964(17)30046-4/fulltext

Types of adverse events already seen. 

This first one concerns me a great deal as women’s health is a passion of mine. Infertility is rocketing in our society already due to poor health, poor nutrition, deficiency, toxicity, and stress. Women have historically not been listened to by the medical industry, not adequately included in trials, not included with sex specific data and their reproductive health not understood or monitored from trials. It wasn’t until 1993 that a federal law mandated the inclusion of women in government-funded research, which may account for why so little is known about how new drugs and treatments affect women’s health.

Thousands of women have reported hemorrhagic bleeding with clots, delayed or absent periods, sudden pre-menopausal symptoms, month-long periods and heavy irregular bleeding after being vaccinated with one or both doses of a COVID vaccine.

“In terms of why women would have a heavier cycle, I think clearly we don’t know the answer to that,” Dr. Heather Huddleston, a reproductive endocrinologist at University of California, San Francisco, told ABC7News.

“However, we do know in addition to hormones being really important in a menstrual cycle, that there is a role for the immune system in the uterus,” she said. Huddleston suggested “if there are changes, perhaps due to a vaccine, maybe that would subtly affect the behavior of the immune system in the uterus.”

When the body mounts an immune response, either to an illness or to a vaccine, it can extend to the uterus and affect immune cells that help control menstruation. A number of doctors have explained how this might work, including fertility specialist Dr. Natalie Crawford. “We know that the COVID vaccine causes an immune response to make antibodies very similarly to how a COVID infection would in your body, and there is actually a study talking about COVID infection and what it does to your period,” To find out whether the COVID vaccine truly disrupts the menstrual cycle, experts say there would need to be a controlled study with a placebo group. Currently, clinical trials omit tracking menstrual cycles, so there’s no evidence to put the women’s reports in context.

“Menstruation is something we don’t know enough about,” said Dr. Hugh Taylor, chair of the department of obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive sciences at Yale School of Medicine. “It’s an important indicator of a person’s health, like any other bodily function.” If so many factors can affect periods, and periods are such an important indicator of health, why don’t we know more about how vaccines affect menstruation? It’s part of a long history of medicine not taking women’s bodies seriously, Lu-Culligan and Epstein said.

Rather than treat menstrual cycles as unimportant or too complicated, researchers should view tracking periods in future studies as a potential opportunity, they said. Clinical trials should track and document menstrual changes as they do other possible side effects.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4800017/ 

There are some doctors discussing the spike protein being able to be transmitted as a possible way this is happening to women (it is detectible in saliva post vaccination). I am not comfortable posting their views yet - I will wait for more robust science. I will however not gaslight women and tell them their lived experience isn’t real. It must be combined with scientific method.

Immune Response resulting in other viral expressions

Herpes zoster following BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 vaccination in patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases: a case series

Victoria Furer, Devy Zisman, Adi Kibari, Doron Rimar, Yael Paran, Ori Elkayam

Blood Clotting

Although researchers found a significantly higher incidence of blood clots in people who were infected with COVID, the incidence of blood clots following vaccines was still much higher than the background incidence of 0.41, a strong signal that the vaccines pose this specific risk.

This was one of the risks spoken about and warned off before the release of these products.

“These findings are consistent with what we know about how vaccine-induced spike proteins can on their own cause cell signaling through interactions with the ACE-2 receptors,” said Lyn Redwood, RN, MSN, president emerita of Children’s Health Defense. “When this happens, it can result in inflammation and a host of other potentially pathological events in the epithelial lining of the blood vessels which can then trigger pro-inflammatory cytokines capable of activating coagulation systems and down-regulating anticoagulant pathways resulting in clot formation.”

You can also view these reactions in the VAERS reports and many have been in the news globally due to deaths and the subsequent suspension of the J & J product.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7522626/#:~:text=Conclusions,volume%20decrease%20or%20cycle%20prolongation.

Heart Issues

Widespread issues of cardiac inflammatory response in young healthy participants

https://www.unite4truth.com/post/myocarditis-occurring-post-pfizer-moderna-covid19-vaccination-10-000s-cardiac-events-us-uk-europe

Due Diligence - Who Is Selling The Product

When we go out to eat, we often check out reviews for the restaurant beforehand. When we look for a new job, we often check out the company ethics. We check ingredients on our food. It is reasonable to check out the companies involved in making these products before we consume them. Are they ethical? Have they contributed to health in the country? What are their goals and motivations?

Pfizer paid $2.3bn to settle criminal and civil liabilities for illegal promotion of their drugs. Healthcare providers received payments for prescribing these drugs to patients for off-label use.

Pfizer has paid more than $ 4.7 billion in fines over the past 20 years for 80 different crimes and violations, including off-label or unapproved promotion of medical products, foreign corrupt practices, bribery, government-contracting-related offenses and drug or medical equipment safety violations. These are only identified and proven cases.

Among the Pfizer’s main products is Prevnar 13 for pneumococcal pneumonia and meningitis, which is not only the company’s best selling vaccine but also its best selling drug. Sales of Prevnar 13, alone, have generated about $23.4 billion in profits for Pfizer since 2015. One product.

Johnson & Johnson paid $485m as a criminal fine and $1.72bn civil settlements to settle misconduct charges in 2013. The company was found guilty of off-label marketing of prescription drugs, including anti-psychotic drugs. It was charged with offering payments to healthcare providers for their unlawful marketing targeting elderly patients with dementia. There’s too many more to list so you can look yourself here.

Notably they are part of what has driven the opioid crisis in the USA. Oklahoma's attorney general accused Johnson & Johnson of a "multi-billion-dollar brainwashing campaign" to get doctors to overprescribe opioids, downplaying the addiction risks. They were fined $572 million.

Let me put that amount into context by giving you last year’s annual revenue for Johnson & Johnson: $84.214B

Moderna has not sold any products before to generate revenue. This is its first ever product to market. It has relied upon collaboration revenue from other companies and grants to fund its research, which is in Mrna technology.

An anti-corruption watchdog group is urging the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to investigate top executives at Moderna for allegedly manipulating the stock market. “This misconduct was particularly egregious because it involved not only financial fraud and manipulation of the financial markets, but also because it exploited widespread fears surrounding the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic," wrote Kyle Herrig, who heads Accountable.US, in a letter to the SEC. "I strongly urge the SEC to investigate these matters."

The group's concerns center on insider trading activity at Moderna after the company last month announced positive results in Phase 1 trials of its coronavirus vaccine. The news pushed up the company's stock price 30% to an all-time high of $87. In the days following the announcement, Moderna's CEO, other executives and funds controlled by the chairman of its board sold about $90 million worth of company shares.

$1 billion in revenue per year for the company is projected from the C19 vaccine. Not a bad first product launch.

For those aware of financial markets (this is my former career, I was trader) feel free to check out this analysis of how Moderna has been valued comparative to other comparative companies. It is interesting.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckjones/2020/05/23/buyer-beware-covid-19-vaccine-maker-moderna-is-valued-in-the-stratosphere/?sh=6a1fd8706c60

For those with an interest in financial markets and their movements over the pandemic, in February 2020, the covid crisis was accompanied by a major crash of financial markets. There is evidence of financial fraud. A massive concentration of corporate wealth accumulation is ongoing. This is very easily tracked by looking at the wealth transfer from SME’s (small and medium enterprises) to big corporate money. It is actually the biggest wreath transfer in history, which is notable. I will write a separate article on this as financial markets are my former field and the market analysis throughout this time is important for each one of us to understand as it has a deep bearing on our futures.

Ingredients

A key technical challenge is to get the vaccines’ bulky RNA “payload” into the cells intact—without it breaking down prior to arriving at its destination. In other words, mRNA vaccines will not work without an in-built delivery mechanism that enables the mRNA to shove its way into a cell’s cytoplasm. The chosen solution is to use trendy biotech “carrier systems” involving lipid nanoparticles (LNPs). LNPs encapsulate the mRNA constructs to protect them from degradation and promote cellular uptake” and, additionally, rev up the immune system (a property that vaccine scientists tamely describe as LNPs’ “inherent adjuvant properties”). The LNP formulations in the three Covid-19 vaccines are also “PEGylated,” meaning that the vaccine nanoparticles are coated with a synthetic, nondegradable and increasingly controversial polymer called polyethylene glycol (PEG).

In the corporate prospectus supporting Moderna’s stock market launch in late 2018 (an initial public offering that set a record for the biotech industry), the company was frank that its technical approach has numerous risks. Specifically, Moderna acknowledged the potential for its proprietary LNPs—and PEG—to produce “systemic side effects,” particularly given the scientific literature’s documentation of these types of side effects for other LNPs. In comments not generally seen by the public, Moderna stated (p. 33):

‘There can be no assurance that our LNPs will not have undesired effects. Our LNPs could contribute, in whole or in part, to one or more of the following: immune reactions, infusion reactions, complement reactions, opsonation reactions, antibody reactions . . . or reactions to the PEG from some lipids or PEG otherwise associated with the LNP. Certain aspects of our investigational medicines may induce immune reactions from either the mRNA or the lipid as well as adverse reactions within liver pathways or degradation of the mRNA or the LNP, any of which could lead to significant adverse events in one or more of our clinical trials’

Far from expressing concern over clinical trial participants’ welfare, that section of the prospectus concluded that any one of these problems “could materially harm [the company’s] business, financial conditions, and prospects.”

Investigators who once assumed that the polymer was largely inert are now questioning its biocompatibility and warning about … adverse immune responses that include probably underdiagnosed life-threatening anaphylaxis…

Investigators who once assumed that the polymer was largely “inert” are now questioning its biocompatibility and warning about PEGylated particles’ promotion of tumor growth and adverse immune responses that include “probably underdiagnosed” life-threatening anaphylaxis (also called hypersensitivity).

Pre-Covid-19, researchers were also praising PEG as an inexpensive additive helpful for addressing vaccine storage challenges, particularly for vaccines that use genetically engineered adenoviruses; they noted that up to 80% of the cost of vaccination programs “is due to the cold chain problem (that is, keeping vaccines cold)” and that PEG can increase the vaccine half-life from seven to over 30 days at room temperature. Three of the Covid-19 vaccines undergoing clinical trials (Johnson & Johnson, Oxford and CanSino) are adenoviral vector vaccines.

Johnson & Johanson are using an Adenovirus envelope to deliver their intervention. Concern has been raised about this ingredient: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)32156-5/fulltext

Cell lines

Cells from aborted babies were used in the creation of Pfizer, Moderna and J & J’s intervention. Moderna and Pfizer used Van der Eb's original cell line, called HEK 293, in the testing of their coronavirus vaccines. J & J uses them in production too. J&J used fetal cells as tiny "factories" that produced the active ingredient in its vaccine. It was inside PER.C6 cells where a gene for the coronavirus' spike protein was attached to a modified adenovirus.

Summary

There is far more contained within the back history of health policy and pharmaceutical companies that I simply cannot encompass here. I would like to write a post next on natural immunity and what we do to ensure ours is robust. I would also like to write about our levels of fear and stress impacting our immunity, and also our poor relationship with death being a block to informed consent and to living a full life - so I’ll write these over the coming weeks.

I highly recommend a couple of books if you would like to further your own depth of informed consent and read around this more. If anyone has others please pop me a message:

Thinking, fast and slow

Critical Thinking

Fear of The Invisible - Janine Roberts **** highly recommended

Dissolving Illusions **** highly recommended

Tripping over the Truth: How the Metabolic Theory of Cancer

The changing face of childhood illness

How to lie with statistics

Propaganda

The Vaccine Papers

All works by Rudolf Steiner

I feel it is right that I declare my own cognitive biases here. I am human so of course I have them! I recovered from multiple incurable chronic illnesses. That journey took me dismantling a lot of my belief systems about healthcare, my body, systems of dominance, diagnostic labels, pharmaceuticals, the nature of my whole reality and what it is to be human. Consequently I have a default position of not believing authority just because it says so and of questioning everything. I appreciate modern medicine deeply for the miracle of acute care. But I do not value it at all for anything to do with true ‘health’ care, chronic illness, or preventative care. This is a type of bias of course as it is my default starting point. However I look to the data (I am science degree trained so I will always go to the data). I am as mindful as I can be of this bias and how it shows up in my judgments or cognitive distortions. I also work from belief systems about what the human body is capable of. I also work from my faith and no fear of death, instead deep reverence for our life cycle. I have many parts of me that make up the whole person that forms my evolving views and I am happy to change and shift as new evidence emerges. I am as fallible as everyone else. So I will be deeply glad and humble if none of my concerns come to pass. However at this time, to the best of my awareness, research, critical thinking, belief systems and values - this is my empowered choice. I fully respect everyone else’s choice too.

I have read all the studies for this intervention. I assessed them in light of methodology, sample size,  who was sponsoring this science, conflict of interest, what outcome measures were assessed, and how statistically significant was the data, risks versus benefit and alternative options and solutions for myself and also at risk populations. I researched globally for any concerns at a health, legal and epidemiological levels from prominent and respected experts in their field. I have largely stayed away from controversy around lockdowns and case numbers as it is beyond the scope of this article.

I looked at all of this from a macro perspective of the multiple systems involved in this push to get this intervention to market; the medical industry, government/state policy, legal systems and financial systems, risks and benefits to society

Along with a micro perspective for my own situation based on my unique genetics, physiology, beliefs, needs, values and knowledge of how my immune system works, risks and benefits to myself.

Blanket statements like ‘I trust science’ are a type of logical fallacy; appealing to authority figure dominance. This blocks critical thinking. We need ALL science at the table and to hold all of it up to scrutiny and dissemination. I will continue to monitor this new biotechnology and I may absolutely change my mind if longer term data proves this safe for all populations. Science is constantly here to evolve and be challenged. Science that cannot be challenged is doctrine. Science is NEVER settled - that’s why it is so exciting.

Health is how we live everyday, not something that comes in a shot or a pill. That our most vulnerable populations do not have access to the real building blocks of health is the real issue we all need to have outrage about. Only 12% of the US population is metabolically healthy. This is a true pandemic, which is borne out in the data by looking at comorbidities for those that died with covid. As we head worrying closer to a proposed two tier society of vaccinated versus unvaccinated - I hope we can all rally and realise our allies are one another and that we can fight together to bring the change needed to have grounded health in accordance to the laws of nature (our own true nature and our Mother Nature). As the consumer - the power really IS ours to change this and only we can. With no one consuming - systems of dominance no longer function. Divide and conquer left and right, white and black, rich and poor, vaccinated and unvaccinated is a game that only works if you continue to roll the dice.

Until then - I’m in the only inert placebo controlled group that exists for this global trial.

May the odds be ever in your favour 

Resources

https://scivisionpub.com/pdfs/covid19-rna-based-vaccines-and-the-risk-of-prion-disease-1503.pdf

Alberer, M. et al. Safety and immunogenicity of a mRNA rabies vaccine in healthy adults: an open-label, non-randomised, prospective, first-in-human phase 1 clinical trial. Lancet 390, 1511–1520 (2017).

Bahl, K. et al. Preclinical and clinical demonstration of immunogenicity by mRNA vaccines against H10N8 and H7N9 influenza viruses. Mol. Ther. 25, 1316–1327 (2017)

DeFrancesco, L. The 'anti-hype' vaccine. Nat. Biotechnol. 35, 193–197 (2017).

Bonehill, A. et al. Enhancing the T-cell stimulatory capacity of human dendritic cells by co-electroporation with CD40L, CD70 and constitutively active TLR4 encoding mRNA. Mol. Ther. 16, 1170–1180 (2008). This is a description of the TriMix mRNA adjuvant cocktail.

Pardi, N. et al. Administration of nucleoside-modified mRNA encoding broadly neutralizing antibody protects humanized mice from HIV-1 challenge. Nat. Commun. 8, 14630 (2017). This is the first study to demonstrate that directly injected, non-replicating mRNA encoding a monoclonal antibody protects animals against an infectious pathogen.

Emerging side effects after initial effects https://www.thelancet.com/journals/ebiom/article/PIIS2352-3964(17)30046-4/fulltext

Animal study side effects

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32292901/ - about pathogenic priming in animal studies with Mrna vaccines. Dr. Lyons-Weiler has, in the past, served as expert witness in the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.

2012 study: Immunization with SARS coronavirus vaccines leads to pulmonary immunopathology on challenge with the SARS virus.

2005 study: Openshaw PJ, Tregoning JS. Immune responses and disease enhancement during respiratory syncytial virus infection. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2005 Jul;18(3):541-55. doi: 10.1128/CMR.18.3.541-555.2005. PMID: 16020689; PMCID: PMC1195968.

Other studies

Deming D., Sheahan T., Heise M. Vaccine efficacy in senescent mice challenged with recombinant SARS-CoV bearing epidemic and zoonotic spike variants. PLoS Med. 2006;3(12):e525. 2006 Dec.

Weingartl H., Czub M., Czub S. Immunization with modified vaccinia virus Ankara-based recombinant vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome is associated with enhanced hepatitis in ferrets. J. Virol. 2004 Nov;78(22):12672–12676. 

Ahmed S.S., Volkmuth W., Duca J. Antibodies to influenza nucleoprotein cross-react with human hypocretin receptor 2. Sci. Transl. Med. 2015 Jul 1;7(294) doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aab2354. 294ra105.

Analysis of the Pfizer Clinical Trial and product

https://everlyreport.com/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-covid-vaccine/

Analysis of the J and J Clinical Trial and product

https://everlyreport.com/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-johnson-johnson-covid-vaccine/

Delayed Effects in older vaccines

Gulf war illness, post-HPV vaccination syndrome, and Macrophagic Myofasciitis. Similar disabling conditions possibly linked to vaccine-induced autoimmune dysautonomia (2020) https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1568997220301671

Severe manifestations of autoimmune syndrome induced by adjuvants (Shoenfeld’s syndrome) (2016) https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12026-016-8811-0 “The interval from exposition to severe manifestation was from 2 days to 23 years.”

ASIA syndrome and endocrine autoimmune disorders (2020) https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1521690X20300397 “…collecting together 54 cases of sub-acute thyroiditis, 2 cases of Hashimoto’s thyroiditis, 11 cases of primary ovarian failure/primary ovarian insufficiency, 13 cases of autoimmune diabetes type 1, and 1 case of autoimmune adrenal gland insufficiency occurred after exposure to adjuvants.”

Commentary 

https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w28304/w28304.pdf

https://noorchashm.medium.com/an-urgent-message-to-my-nurse-friends-and-colleagues-at-the-hospital-of-the-university-of-31538867b518

https://everlyreport.com/covid-vaccine-vaers-reports/

https://noorchashm.medium.com/a-letter-of-warning-to-fda-and-pfizer-on-the-immunological-danger-of-covid-19-vaccination-in-the-7d17d037982d

https://noorchashm.medium.com/the-safest-way-to-get-your-covid-19-vaccine-screenb4vaccine-d8a9b0bb7cbd
Legal - No liability. Read the Emergency Declaration under the law:

Analysis Of The Whole Pandemic

https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-2020-worldwide-corona-crisis-destroying-civil-society-engineered-economic-depression-global-coup-detat-and-the-great-reset/5730652