I receive a lot of information, but with the censorship that is currently occurring, with regard anything that goes against the governments agenda, many of the articles have disappeared when I try and return to them.
I have managed to put together some further information with regard the vaccine, some of the links I have included may not lead to the articles, by the time that you read them, but I have actually copied a couple.
One article that I was unable to find again was connected to the MRNA gene therapy technology, as it cannot be called a vaccine, affects a persons DNA and the 'god particle' disconnecting them the Creator. It is annoying that I cannot find this again, as my work is around an individuals connection to source and that the success of Agenda 21/30 is very much about disconnecting people from their spirit.
But anyway, some information for you to consider.
It is assumed by many people getting a vaccination that it is going to protect them from some sort of pathogen and that by doing so you are doing your bit for public health to protect other people. It would also seem that generally people believe that the governments and the health service have their best interests at heart and do not want to believe that they could have another agenda.
A vaccine by definition is a product that stimulates the persons immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease. What is being called a Covid vaccination is NOT a vaccination. It is a gene therapy technology. It cannot be mandated as a vaccine.
It is a synthetic fragment embedded into a fat carrier which is introduced into a cell, not to induce protection from an infection, not to block transmission, but to lessen symptoms of an illness with an SI spike protein, not even Covid itself.
Covid has not been isolated, in spite of many media claims.
The UK Government have admitted that it has not been isolated.
Scientists are realising that claims of the COVID-19 virus having been isolated and proven to exist are based on a made-up definition of “virus-isolation.”
In his latest article, Saeed Qureshi PhD, a former senior scientist at Health Canada, calls out the fakery and reveals what more experts are now confirming world wide. We have been scammed.
Dr Qureshi writes on his blog www.drug-dissolution-testing.com the following analysis to clear up the lies and confusion on this issue:
During a discussion on LinkedIn with one of the microbiologists, I came to know how they described virus isolation, which is as follows:
“A virus isolate is a virus isolated from an infected host. The process is called “isolation,” which separates viruses from the hosts.”
It means that for microbiologists and virologists, taking a swab sample, which separates virus from the host, is considered as “virus isolation.”
This interpretation does not reflect the correct meaning and understanding of the subject of isolation. But, they imply and promote the true meaning of the process of isolation, i.e., to obtain something by extraction, purification, and identification, reflected by well-known pretty pictures of the DNA/RNA, proteins, and viruses such as a spherical body with spikes (aka coronavirus).
The virologists’ version of the definition is incorrect and causing the problem. Wherever one looks for the virus, one always finds a suffix with it, e.g., “virus isolate,” “virus culture,” “virus lysate,” etc., (which are soups, mixtures or gunks), never “virus” alone; however, it is presented and promoted as pure “virus.”
The Made-Up Definition Of “Virus-Isolation” Makes The Story Of The SARS-CoV-2 Virus, Its Infection, And Pandemic Very Clear, I.E., Nothing Is Real About Them, But All Are Fake. No One Has Seen The Virus, Found It, Or Isolated It As Claimed. It Is All Bogus.
People might ask, then what about the PCR tests, DNA/RNA sequences, protein structures, etc.? They are all reflections of rituals, ignorantly using highly sophisticated and costly chemistry equipment, to make people believe science is being followed. However, nothing is real or relates to the virus.
To conduct such experiments accurately, scientists/technicians must-have reference samples or standards to calibrate the equipment and validate the tests. The reference standards can only come from independently isolated and thoroughly characterized pure virus.
However, as the pure virus has never been isolated, one cannot have reference standards and calibrators; hence all the claimed experimentation becomes scientifically null and void, reflecting a fraud.
Such requirements are not unique to virus isolation or assessment. These are standard and must requirement, referred to as validation, for product assessment by the authorities, such as FDA and USP. It is impossible to get products approved for marketing without this validation step. However, validation of tests and testing for viruses and their components are slipping through the regulatory oversight.
Currently, for the SARS-CoV-2 assessment, the work starts with the assumption that it exists. Without validating the techniques, some experiments are being conducted following ritualistic steps (SOPs) to generate “data” and pretty pictures to show that it exists. It is hard to believe that such deceptive practices can occur in modern-day science and escape authorities’ scrutiny and audit.
Like the virus’s assumed existence, it is further assumed that the associated disease (COVID-19) exists, is contagious, spreading uncontrollably, and potentially people are dying or will die in large numbers. There is no available scientific evidence to support these claims except counting the false-positive test results, obtained mostly from the non-validated and false, PCR test.
It is important to note that there is no scientific evidence showing that SARS-CoV-2 is causing the illness. It cannot be shown because the virus (SARS-CoV-2) is neither available nor exists, as noted above. Hence, its link to the disease cannot be established. It would be safe to confirm now that the COVID-19 is a hoax.
Therefore, considering the current flawed science practices, it becomes a fact that anyone diagnosed with COVID-19 should be regarded as a misdiagnosed case, and accordingly, the incorrect corresponding follow-up treatments.
Physicians need to examine patients without considering the presence of COVID-19 in all cases. They should be challenging the current “scientific” rationale of the COVID-19 diagnosis rather than following the media’s narrative or provided SOPs.
Patients who take a longer time to recover or died with COVID-19 diagnosis could very well be because of misdiagnosis and, by extension, mistreatment or no treatment (e.g., extended quarantine or isolation without treatment).
Similarly, as the virus does not exist, vaccine administration and development become irrelevant; hence, they need to discontinue.
So, a vaccine is a product that stimulates the persons immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, but they haven’t isolated the virus which it supposedly protects you from and on top of that they are now claiming that there are new versions of the virus.
And why are they calling it a vaccine when it is a gene therapy technology?
According to a study that examined how informed consent is given to COVID-19 vaccine trial participants, disclosure forms fail to inform volunteers that the vaccine might make them susceptible to more severe disease if they’re exposed to the virus.
The study,1 “Informed Consent Disclosure to Vaccine Trial Subjects of Risk of COVID-19 Vaccine Worsening Clinical Disease,” published in the International Journal of Clinical Practice, October 28, 2020, points out that “COVID-19 vaccines designed to elicit neutralizing antibodies may sensitize vaccine recipients to more severe disease than if they were not vaccinated.”
“Vaccines for SARS, MERS and RSV have never been approved, and the data generated in the development and testing of these vaccines suggest a serious mechanistic concern: that vaccines designed empirically using the traditional approach (consisting of the unmodified or minimally modified coronavirus viral spike to elicit neutralizing antibodies), be they composed of protein, viral vector, DNA or RNA and irrespective of delivery method, may worsen COVID-19 disease via antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE),” the paper states.
“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.
The specific and significant COVID-19 risk of ADE should have been and should be prominently and independently disclosed to research subjects currently in vaccine trials, as well as those being recruited for the trials and future patients after vaccine approval, in order to meet the medical ethics standard of patient comprehension for informed consent.”
What Is 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.
(Is this why there has been a link between those experiencing Covid and those who have received flu vaccination?)
This is the exact opposite of what a vaccine is supposed to do, and a significant problem that has been pointed out from the very beginning of this push for a COVID-19 vaccine. The 2003 review paper “Antibody-Dependent Enhancement of Virus Infection and Disease” explains it this way:3
“In general, virus-specific antibodies are considered antiviral and play an important role in the control of virus infections in a number of ways. However, in some instances, the presence of specific antibodies can be beneficial to the virus. This activity is known as antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) of virus infection.
The ADE of virus infection is a phenomenon in which virus-specific antibodies enhance the entry of virus, and in some cases the replication of virus, into monocytes/macrophages and granulocytic cells through interaction with Fc and/or complement receptors.
This phenomenon has been reported in vitro and in vivo for viruses representing numerous families and genera of public health and veterinary importance. These viruses share some common features such as preferential replication in macrophages, ability to establish persistence, and antigenic diversity. For some viruses, ADE of infection has become a great concern to disease control by vaccination.”
Previous Coronavirus Vaccine Efforts Have All Failed
In my May 2020 interview above with Robert Kennedy Jr., he summarized the history of coronavirus vaccine development, which began in 2002, following three consecutive SARS outbreaks. By 2012, Chinese, American, and European scientists were working on SARS vaccine development and had about 30 promising candidates.
Of those, the four best vaccine candidates were then given to ferrets, which are the closest analogue to human lung infections. In the video below, which is a select outtake from my full interview, Kennedy explains what happened next. While the ferrets displayed robust antibody response, which is the metric used for vaccine licensing, once they were challenged with the wild virus, they all became severely ill and died.
The same thing happened when they tried to develop an RSV vaccine in the 1960s. RSV is an upper respiratory illness that is very similar to that caused by coronaviruses. At that time, they had decided to skip animal trials and go directly to human trials.
“They tested it on I think about 35 children, and the same thing happened,” Kennedy said. “The children developed a champion antibody response — robust, durable. It looked perfect [but when] the children were exposed to the wild virus; they all became sick. Two of them died. They abandoned the vaccine. It was a big embarrassment to FDA and NIH.”
Neutralizing Versus Binding Antibodies
Coronaviruses produce not just one but two different types of antibodies:
· Neutralizing antibodies,4 also referred to as immoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies, that fight the infection.
· Binding antibodies5 (also known as non neutralizing antibodies) that cannot prevent viral infection.
Instead of preventing viral infection, binding antibodies trigger an abnormal immune response known as “paradoxical immune enhancement.” Another way to look at this is your immune system is actually backfiring and not functioning to protect you but actually making you worse.
Many of the COVID-19 vaccines currently in the running are using mRNA to instruct your cells
to make the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein (S protein). The spike protein, which is what attaches to the ACE2 receptor of the cell, is the first stage of the two-stage process viruses use to gain entry into cells.
The idea is that by creating the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, your immune system will commence production of antibodies, without making you sick in the process. The key question is, which of the two types of antibodies are being produced through this process?
Without Neutralizing Antibodies, Expect More Severe Illness
In an April 2020 Twitter thread,6 The Immunologist noted: “While developing vaccines … and considering immunity passports, we must first understand the complex role of antibodies in SARS, MERS and COVID-19.” He goes on to list several coronavirus vaccine studies that have raised concerns about ADE.
The first is a 2017 study7 in PLOS Pathogens, ”Enhanced Inflammation in New Zealand White Rabbits When MERS-CoV Reinfection Occurs in the Absence of Neutralizing Antibody,” which investigated whether getting infected with MERS would protect the subject against reinfection, as is typically the case with many viral illnesses. (Meaning, once you recover from a viral infection, say measles, you’re immune and won’t contract the illness again.)
To determine how MERS affects the immune system, the researchers infected white rabbits with the virus. The rabbits got sick and developed antibodies, but those antibodies were not the neutralizing kind, meaning the kind of antibodies that block infection. As a result, they were not protected from reinfection, and when exposed to MERS for a second time, they became ill again, and more severely so.
“In fact, reinfection resulted in enhanced pulmonary inflammation, without an associated increase in viral RNA titers,” the authors noted. Interestingly, neutralizing antibodies were elicited during this second infection, preventing the animals from being infected a third time.
According to the authors:
“Our data from the rabbit model suggests that people exposed to MERS-CoV who fail to develop a neutralizing antibody response, or persons whose neutralizing antibody titers have waned, may be at risk for severe lung disease on re-exposure to MERS-CoV.”
In other words, if the vaccine does not result in a robust response in neutralizing antibodies, you might be at risk for more severe lung disease if you’re infected with the virus.
And here’s an important point: COVID-19 vaccines are NOT designed to prevent infection. As detailed in “How COVID-19 Vaccine Trials Are Rigged,” a “successful” vaccine merely needs to reduce the severity of the symptoms. They’re not even looking at reducing infection, hospitalization, or death rates.
ADE in Dengue Infections
The Dengue virus is also known to cause ADE. As explained in a Swiss Medical Weekly paper published in April 2020:8
“The pathogenesis of COVID-19 is currently believed to proceed via both directly cytotoxic and immune-mediated mechanisms. An additional mechanism facilitating viral cell entry and subsequent damage may involve the so-called antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE).
ADE is a very well-known cascade of events whereby viruses may infect susceptible cells via interaction between virions complexed with antibodies or complement components and, respectively, Fc or complement receptors, leading to the amplification of their replication.
This phenomenon is of enormous relevance not only for the understanding of viral pathogenesis, but also for developing antiviral strategies, notably vaccines …
There are four serotypes of Dengue virus, all eliciting protective immunity. However, although homotypic protection is long-lasting, cross-neutralizing antibodies against different serotypes are short-lived and may last only up to 2 years.
In Dengue fever, reinfection with a different serotype runs a more severe course when the protective antibody titer wanes. Here, non-neutralizing antibodies take over neutralizing ones, bind to Dengue virions, and these complexes mediate the infection of phagocytic cells via interaction with the Fc receptor, in a typical ADE.
In other words, heterotypic antibodies at sub neutralizing titres account for ADE in persons infected with a serotype of Dengue virus that is different from the first infection.
Cross-reactive neutralizing antibodies are associated with decreased odds of symptomatic secondary infection, and the higher the titer of such antibodies following the primary infection, the longer the delay to symptomatic secondary infection …”
The paper goes on to detail results from follow-up investigations into the Dengue vaccine, which revealed the hospitalization rate for Dengue among vaccinated children under the age of 9 was greater than the rate among controls. The explanation for this appears to be that the vaccine mimicked a primary infection, and as that immunity waned, the children became susceptible to ADE when they encountered the virus a second time. The author explains:
“A post hoc analysis of efficacy trials, using an anti-non-structural protein 1 immunoglobulin G (IgG) enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) to distinguish antibodies elicited by wild-type infection from those following vaccination, showed that the vaccine was able to protect against severe Dengue [in] those who had been exposed to the natural infection before vaccination, and that the risk of severe clinical outcome was increased among seronegative persons.
Based on this, a Strategic Advisor Group of Experts convened by World Health Organization (WHO) concluded that only Dengue seropositive persons should be vaccinated whenever Dengue control programs are planned that include vaccination.”
ADE in Coronavirus Infections
This could end up being important for the COVID-19 vaccine. Hypothetically speaking, if SARS-CoV-2 works like Dengue, which is also caused by an RNA virus, then anyone who has not tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 might actually be at increased risk for severe COVID-19 after vaccination, and only those who have already recovered from a bout of COVID-19 would be protected against severe illness by the vaccine.
To be clear, we do not know whether that is the case or not, but these are important areas of inquiry and the current vaccine trials will simply not be able to answer this important question.
The Swiss Medical Weekly paper9 also reviews the evidence of ADE in coronavirus infections, citing research showing inoculating cats against the feline infectious peritonitis virus (FIPV) — a feline coronavirus — increases the severity of the disease when challenged with the same FIPV serotype as that in the vaccine.
Experiments have shown immunization with a variety of SARS vaccines resulted in pulmonary immunopathology once challenged with the SARS virus.
The paper also cites research showing “Antibodies elicited by a SARS-CoV vaccine enhanced infection of B cell lines in spite of protective responses in the hamster model.” Another paper,10 “Antibody-Dependent SARS Coronavirus Infection Is Mediated by Antibodies Against Spike Proteins,” published in 2014, found that:
“… higher concentrations of anti-sera against SARS-CoV neutralized SARS-CoV infection, while highly diluted anti-sera significantly increased SARS-CoV infection and induced higher levels of apoptosis.
Results from infectivity assays indicate that SARS-CoV ADE is primarily mediated by diluted antibodies against envelope spike proteins rather than nucleocapsid proteins. We also generated monoclonal antibodies against SARS-CoV spike proteins and observed that most of them promoted SARS-CoV infection.
Combined, our results suggest that antibodies against SARS-CoV spike proteins may trigger ADE effects. The data raise new questions regarding a potential SARS-CoV vaccine …”
A study11 that ties into this was published in the journal JCI Insight in 2019. Here, macaques vaccinated with a modified vaccinia Ankara (MVA) virus encoding full-length SARS-CoV spike protein ended up with more severe lung pathology when the animals were exposed to the SARS virus. And, when they transferred anti-spike IgG antibodies into unvaccinated macaques, they developed acute diffuse alveolar damage, likely by “skewing the inflammation-resolving response.”
SARS Vaccine Worsens Infection After Challenge With SARS-CoV
An interesting 2012 paper12 with the telling title, “Immunization with SARS Coronavirus Vaccines Leads to Pulmonary Immunopathology on Challenge with the SARS Virus,” demonstrates what many researchers now fear, namely that COVID-19 vaccines may end up making people more prone to severe SARS-CoV-2 infection.
The paper reviews experiments showing immunization with a variety of SARS vaccines resulted in pulmonary immunopathology once challenged with the SARS virus. As noted by the authors:13
“Inactivated whole virus vaccines whether inactivated with formalin or beta propiolactone and whether given with our without alum adjuvant exhibited a Th2-type immunopathologic in lungs after challenge.
As indicated, two reports attributed the immunopathology to presence of the N protein in the vaccine; however, we found the same immunopathologic reaction in animals given S protein vaccine only, although it appeared to be of lesser intensity.
Thus, a Th2-type immunopathologic reaction on challenge of vaccinated animals has occurred in three of four animal models (not in hamsters) including two different inbred mouse strains with four different types of SARS-CoV vaccines with and without alum adjuvant. An inactivated vaccine preparation that does not induce this result in mice, ferrets and nonhuman primates has not been reported.
This combined experience provides concern for trials with SARS-CoV vaccines in humans. Clinical trials with SARS coronavirus vaccines have been conducted and reported to induce antibody responses and to be ‘safe.’ However, the evidence for safety is for a short period of observation.
The concern arising from the present report is for an immunopathologic reaction occurring among vaccinated individuals on exposure to infectious SARS-CoV, the basis for developing a vaccine for SARS. Additional safety concerns relate to effectiveness and safety against antigenic variants of SARS-CoV and for safety of vaccinated persons exposed to other coronaviruses, particularly those of the type 2 group.”
The Elderly Are Most Vulnerable to ADE
On top of all of these concerns, there’s evidence showing the elderly — who are most vulnerable to severe COVID-19 — are also the most vulnerable to ADE. Preliminary research findings14 posted on the preprint server medRxiv at the end of March 2020 reported that middle-aged and elderly COVID-19 patients have far higher levels of anti-spike antibodies — which, again, increase infectivity — than younger patients.
Immune Enhancement Is a Serious Concern
Another paper worth mentioning is the May 2020 mini review15 “Impact of Immune Enhancement on COVID-19 Polyclonal Hyperimmune Globulin Therapy and Vaccine Development.” As in many other papers, the authors point out that:16
“While development of both hyperimmune globulin therapy and vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 are promising, they both pose a common theoretical safety concern. Experimental studies have suggested the possibility of immune-enhanced disease of SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV infections, which may thus similarly occur with SARS-CoV-2 infection …
Immune enhancement of disease can theoretically occur in two ways. Firstly, non-neutralizing or sub-neutralizing levels of antibodies can enhance SARS-CoV-2 infection into target cells.
Secondly, antibodies could enhance inflammation and hence severity of pulmonary disease. An overview of these antibody dependent infection and immunopathology enhancement effects are summarized in Fig. 1 …
Currently, there are multiple SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV vaccine candidates in pre-clinical or early phase clinical trials. Animal studies on these CoVs have shown that the spike (S) protein-based vaccines (specifically the receptor binding domain, RBD) are highly immunogenic and protective against wild-type CoV challenge.
Vaccines that target other parts of the virus, such as the nucleocapsid, without the S protein, have shown no protection against CoV infection and increased lung pathology. However, immunization with some S protein based CoV vaccines have also displayed signs of enhanced lung pathology following challenge.
Hence, besides the choice of antigen target, vaccine efficacy and risk of immunopathology may be dependent on other ancillary factors, including adjuvant formulation, age at vaccination … and route of immunization.”
Figure 1: Mechanism of ADE and antibody mediated immunopathology. Left panel: For ADE, immune complex internalization is mediated by the engagement of activating Fc receptors on the cell surface. Co-ligation of inhibitory receptors then results in the inhibition of antiviral responses which leads to increased viral replication. Right panel: Antibodies can cause immunopathology by activating the complement pathway or antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity (ADCC). For both pathways, excessive immune activation results in the release of cytokines and chemokines, leading to enhanced disease pathology.
Do a Risk-Benefit Analysis Before Making Up Your Mind
In all likelihood, regardless of how effective (or ineffective) the COVID-19 vaccines end up being, they’ll be released to the public in relatively short order. Most predict one or more vaccines will be ready sometime in 2021.
Ironically, the data17,18,19 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.
So, really, what are we protecting against with a COVID-19 vaccine? As mentioned, the vaccines aren’t even designed to prevent infection, only reduce the severity of symptoms. Meanwhile, they could potentially make you sicker once you’re exposed to the virus. That seems like a lot of risk for a truly questionable benefit.
To circle back to where we started, participants in current COVID-19 vaccine trials are not being told of this risk — that by getting the vaccine they may end up with more severe COVID-19 once they’re infected with the virus.
Lethal Th2 Immunopathology Is Another Potential Risk
In closing, consider what this PNAS news feature states about the risk of vaccine-induced immune enhancement and dysfunction, particularly for the elderly, the very people who would need the protection a vaccine might offer the most:21
“Since the 1960s, tests of vaccine candidates for diseases such as dengue, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) have shown a paradoxical phenomenon:
Some animals or people who received the vaccine and were later exposed to the virus developed more severe disease than those who had not been vaccinated. The vaccine-primed immune system, in certain cases, seemed to launch a shoddy response to the natural infection …
This immune backfiring, or so-called immune enhancement, may manifest in different ways such as antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE), a process in which a virus leverages antibodies to aid infection; or cell-based enhancement, a category that includes allergic inflammation caused by Th2 immunopathology. In some cases, the enhancement processes might overlap …
Some researchers argue that although ADE has received the most attention to date, it is less likely than the other immune enhancement pathways to cause a dysregulated response to COVID-19, given what is known about the epidemiology of the virus and its behaviour in the human body.
‘There is the potential for ADE, but the bigger problem is probably Th2 immunopathology,’ says Ralph Baric, an epidemiologist and expert in coronaviruses … at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
In previous studies of SARS, aged mice were found to have particularly high risks of life-threatening Th2 immunopathology ... in which a faulty T cell response triggers allergic inflammation, and poorly functional antibodies that form immune complexes, activating the complement system and potentially damaging the airways.”
The so-called vaccine has been rushed through without the usual testing procedures. The new MRNA technology has not been used before and is in its experimental stage only. Anyone receiving it now, is part of the trial, whether they realise it or not.
Once received into the body, you cannot go back and undo it.
Bear in mind
the survival rate is over 99.5%.
your body is an incredible thing which has been designed to protect and heal itself
you can boost your bodies natural immunity with Vitamin C, D & K, and zinc.
Neurological complications such as bells palsy and in some cases paralysis are known.
The vaccine companies have failed to provide information with regard fertility, but many experts believe that it will cause indefinite infertility and should not be given to people of childbearing age.
The vaccine companies have been removed from all liability.
The main stream media are not reporting the deaths and health issues that are occurring
following the receipt of a vaccine.
It is irrational to take an untested product from a company that has no liability for its product when the survival rate from the virus is 99.5% and those that have lost their life have had premorbidities, with the majority over the age of 80.
The vaccine companies admit that it does not stop you from catching the virus and it does not stop transmission.
• It is unlawful under the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 41 et seq., to advertise that a product or service can prevent, treat, or cure human disease unless you possess competent and reliable scientific evidence, including, when appropriate, well-controlled human clinical studies, substantiating that the claims are true at the time they are made.
• Definition of Vaccine: A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections but can also be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.
• Immunity: Protection from an infectious disease. If you are immune to a disease, you can be exposed to it without becoming infected.
• “The primary endpoint is the prevention of symptomatic COVID-19 disease. Key secondary endpoints include prevention of severe COVID- 19 disease and prevention of infection by SARS-CoV-2.”
• “As of this writing, no correlate of protection for SARS-CoV-2 has been established.”
• “No existing vaccines have been shown to be effective against infection with any betacoronavirus, the family that includes SARS-CoV-2, which causes Covid-19.” Polack FP, Thomas SJ, Kitchin N, et al. Safety and efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 vaccine. N Engl J Med 2020;383:2603-2615.
In Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905), the court held that the context for their opinion rested on the following principle:
“This court has more than once recognized it as a fundamental principle that ‘persons and property are subjected to all kinds of restraints and burdens in order to secure the general comfort, health, and prosperity of the state…”
The Moderna and Pfizer “alleged vaccine” trials have explicitly acknowledged that their gene therapy technology has no impact on viral infection or transmission whatsoever and merely conveys to the recipient the capacity to produce an S1 spike protein endogenously by the introduction of a synthetic mRNA sequence. Therefore, the basis for the Massachusetts statute and the Supreme Court’s determination is moot in this case.
From Iowa Code:
Vaccine means a specially prepared antigen which, upon administration to a person, will result in immunity.
“Vaccine” means a specially prepared antigen administered to a person for the purpose of providing immunity.
Pursuant to the authority of Iowa Code section 147.76, the Board of Pharmacy hereby gives Notice of Intended Action to amend Chapter 8, “Universal Practice Standards,” and to adopt new Chapter 39, “Expanded Practice Standards,” Iowa Administrative Code.
Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a), prohibits “unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce.” Further, misrepresentations or deceptive omissions of material facts constitute deceptive acts or practices prohibited by this section of the Act. Notably, Section 12(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 52(a), prohibits the dissemination of any false advertisement in or affecting commerce for the purpose of inducing, or which is likely to induce, the purchase of food, drugs, devices, services, or cosmetics. Supple is a “drug” as “drug” is defined in Section 15(c) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 55(c).
Hacked emails allegedly detail how EU drug regulator was pressured to approve Pfizer jab despite ‘problems’ with the vaccine — RT World News
Considering the COVID-19 Vaccine? FIRST Read these Reports of DEATHS & INJURIES - The Washington State Post
Copied As the number of people that have received the COVID vaccine" increases, so does the confusion. Many wonder why they are getting sick even though they have received the "vaccine". The way this new jab functions is not being explained to the public, so obviously people are not aware what they are getting themselves into. The purpose of this article is to explain in a simple and comprehensive way what the vaccine is doing in your body, so everybody can decide for themselves whether they want to take the risk or not. First of all, the jab is not really a vaccine. The definition of vaccine means an injection into the body of a weakened form of pathogen (virus), so that it does not cause any harm in the body, but the immune system will be triggered to start making antibodies against any protein of the pathogen. This way. antibodies will be ready and prepared for in case the real harmful pathogen arrives. The COVID vaccine does not work like this
The current "vaccine" is a synthetically constructed piece of genetic information called mRNA, which contains the genetic code to make a protein of the COVID virus.
To understand this, here is a very brief and simplified explanation about molecular biology: mRNA'S are biological molecules, present in every single cell of our body, that contain the instructions to make a protein.
As a human, we have mRNA's for every single protein that our body needs. Just to name a few examples: we have mRNA's that contain instructions to make the components of muscle fiber, hair, nails, blood vessels, digestive enzymes, neurotransmitters, etc. Within our cells, these mRNA's carry the information (like a recipe). and when we say the mRNA is being "translated it means that the cell reads the recipe" and produces the protein that corresponds to the information.
Our immune system is very well trained since the day we were born. It does not react to any of the proteins that are intrinsic to our own body (unless you have a condition of auto-immune disease). But the immune system detects when there is a protein present that is not normally present in our body: any "abnormal protein will cause the activation of a number of defense systems: our body will do all it can to search for the intruder", attack it, and destroy infected cells. Symptoms of this defense system are fever, inflammation. excessive productions of bodily fluids to facilitate excretion, etc. These typical flu-like symptoms are the result of our own immune system trying to get rid of the pathogen. Let's get back to the CovID vaccine". It is a piece of mRNA, that carries the recipe for a protein of the virus.
When this mRNA is injected, it will find its way into our cells, where it will be translated (like our cells do with any other mRNA), to make a protein. But the thing is that this protein that our own cells are making is not a human protein: it is a piece of the virus. On its own, this protein is just a small plece of the real virus, but nevertheless, because it is an "abnormal" protein, it triggers the reaction of our immune system.
These kind of "vaccines" (remember, they are not vaccines, but they are synthetically constructed pieces of genetic information) have not been used in the past. It is a completely new technique, where we can not know how fiercely it will trigger the immune defense system, how long it will keep on doing so, and what the consequences on the body will be on longer term. Once the mRNA has been injected in your body, you cannot stop it: your cells will start making the viral protein. And once your cells are producing this abnormal protein, it is possible that your immune system has a very strong reaction towards it. It can cause severe symptoms, or even worse, it can lead to an allergic shock and even be fatal.
A healthy body that is well nourished and in shape has a strong immune system. It is perfectly capable of dealing with infections in a natural and balanced way. Now that more and more people have already been submitted to the first injections, we are seeing an alarmingly high number of cases with severe reactions towards the vaccine. Symptoms are often far worse than what the real virus would have caused. It is up to you whether you want to take the risk. Dr. Sonia Van Kerckhoven PhD in Cellular and Molecular Biology MSc in Nutrition Expert in Medical Genetics
Will a vaccine to SARS-CoV-2 actually make the problem worse? Although not a certainty, all of the current data says that this prospect is a real possibility that needs to be paid careful attention to.
First, let’s set aside the debate surrounding the topic of whether vaccines work and the negative health consequences due to the components of the vaccine. No matter where you stand on the vaccine issue, I’m not asking anyone to capitulate on this point. I’m just asking that this issue be set aside, because in this instance this argument is completely irrelevant. Even without bringing any other issue into the vaccine debate, a coronavirus vaccine is a highly dangerous undertaking due to a peculiar trojan horse mechanism known as Antibody Dependent Enhancement (ADE). Regardless of someone’s conviction about vaccines, this point needs to be acknowledged. In the remaining portion of this article, I’m going to explain how ADE works and the future perils it may bring.
For a vaccine to work, our immune system needs to be stimulated to produce a neutralizing antibody, as opposed to a non-neutralizing antibody. A neutralizing antibody is one that can recognize and bind to some region (‘epitope’) of the virus, and that subsequently results in the virus either not entering or replicating in your cells.
A non-neutralizing antibody is one that can bind to the virus, but for some reason, the antibody fails to neutralize the infectivity of the virus. This can occur, for example, if the antibody doesn’t bind tightly enough to the virus, or the percentage of the surface area of the virus covered by the antibody is too low, or the concentration of the antibody is not high enough. Basically, there is some type of generic binding of the antibody to the virus, but it fails to neutralize the virus.
In some viruses, if a person harbors a non-neutralizing antibody to the virus, a subsequent infection by the virus can cause that person to elicit a more severe reaction to the virus due to the presence of the non-neutralizing antibody. This is not true for all viruses, only particular ones. This is called Antibody Dependent Enhancement (ADE), and is a common problem with Dengue Virus, Ebola Virus, HIV, RSV, and the family of coronaviruses. In fact, this problem of ADE is a major reason why many previous vaccine trials for other coronaviruses failed. Major safety concerns were observed in animal models. If ADE occurs in an individual, their response to the virus can be worse than their response if they had never developed an antibody in the first place.
An antibody can be rendered a non-neutralizing antibody simply because it doesn’t bind to the right portion of the virus to neutralize it, or the antibody binds too weakly to the virus. This can also occur if a neutralizing antibody’s concentration falls over time and is now no longer of sufficient concentration to cause neutralization of the virus. In addition, a neutralizing antibody can subsequently transition to non-neutralizing antibody when encountering a different strain of the virus.
What does ADE entail? The exact mechanism of ADE in SARS is not known, but the leading theory is described as follows: In certain viruses, the binding of a non-neutralizing antibody to the virus can direct the virus to enter and infect your immune cells. This occurs through a receptor called FcγRII. FcγRII is expressed on the outside of many tissues of our body, and in particular, in monocyte derived macrophages, which are a type of white blood cell. In other words, the presence of the non-neutralizing antibody now directs the virus to infect cells of your immune system, and these viruses are then able to replicate in these cells and wreak havoc on your immune response. One end of the antibody grabs onto the virus, and the other end of the antibody grabs onto an immune cell. Essentially, the non-neutralizing antibody enables the virus to hitch a ride to infect immune cells. You can see this in the picture above.
This can cause a hyperinflammatory response, a cytokine storm, and a generally dysregulation of the immune system that allows the virus to cause more damage to our lungs and other organs of our body. In addition, new cell types throughout our body are now susceptible to viral infection due to the additional viral entry pathway facilitated by the FcγRII receptor, which is expressed on many different cell types.
What this means is that you can be given a vaccine, which causes your immune system to produce an antibody to the vaccine, and then when your body is actually challenged with the real pathogen, the infection is much worse than if you had not been vaccinated.
Again, this is not seen in all viruses, or even in all strains of a given virus, and there is a great deal that scientists don’t understand about the complete set of factors that dictate when and if ADE may occur. It’s quite likely that genetic factors as well as the health status of the individual may play a role on modulating this response. That being said, there are many studies (in the reference section below) that demonstrate that ADE is a persistent problem with coronaviruses in general, and in particular, with SARS-related viruses. Less is known, of course, with respect to SARS-CoV-2, but the genetic and structural similarities between the SARS-CoV-2 and the other coronaviruses strongly suggests that this risk is real.
ADE has proven to be a serious challenge with coronavirus vaccines, and this is the primary reason many have failed in early in-vitro or animal trials. For example, rhesus macaques who were vaccinated with the Spike protein of the SARS-CoV virus demonstrated severe acute lung injury when challenged with SARS-CoV, while monkeys who were not vaccinated did not. Similarly, mice who were immunized with one of four different SARS-CoV vaccines showed histopathological changes in the lungs with eosinophil infiltration after being challenged with SARS-CoV virus. This did not occur in the controls that had not been vaccinated. A similar problem occurred in the development of a vaccine for FIPV, which is a feline coronavirus.
For a vaccine to work, vaccine developers will need to find a way to circumvent the ADE problem. This will require a very novel solution, and it may not be achievable, or at the very least, predictable. In addition, the vaccine must not induce ADE in subsequent strains of SARS-CoV-2 that emerge over time, or to other endemic coronaviruses that circulate every year and cause the common cold.
A major trigger for ADE is viral mutation. Changes to the amino acid sequence of the Spike Protein (which is the protein on the virus that facilitates entry into our cells via the ACE2 receptor) can cause antigenic drift. What this means is that an antibody that was once neutralizing can become a non-neutralizing antibody because the antigen has slightly changed. Therefore, mutations in the Spike protein that naturally occur with coronaviruses could presumably result in ADE. Since these future strains are not predictable, it is impossible to predict if ADE will become a problem at a future date.
This inherent unpredictability problem is highlighted in the following scenario: A coronavirus vaccine may not be dangerous initially. If the initial testing looks positive, mass vaccination efforts would presumably be administered to a large portion of the population. In the first year or two, it may appear that there is no real safety issue, and over time, a greater percentage of the world population will be vaccinated due to this perceived “safety”. During this interim period, the virus is busy mutating. Eventually, the antibodies that vaccinated individuals have floating around in their bloodstream are now rendered non-neutralizing because they fail to bind to the virus with the same affinity due to the structural change resulting from the mutation. Declining concentrations of the antibody over time would also contribute to this shift towards non-neutralization. When these previously vaccinate people are infected with this different strain of SARS-CoV-2, they could experience a much more severe reaction to the virus.
Ironically, in this scenario, this vaccine made the virus more pathogenic rather than less pathogenic. This is not something that vaccine producers would be able predict or test for with any level of real confidence at the outset, and it would only become evident at a later time.
If and when this does occur, who will be liable?
Does this vaccine industry know about this problem? The answer is yes, they do.
Quoting a Nature Biotechnology news article published on June 5th, 2020:
““It’s important to talk about it [ADE],” says Gregory Glenn, president of R&D at Novavax, which launched its COVID-19 vaccine trial in May. But “we can’t be overly cautious. People are dying. So we need to be aggressive here.””
And from the same article:
“ADE “is a genuine concern,” says virologist Kevin Gilligan, a senior consultant with Biologics Consulting, who advises thorough safety studies. “Because if the gun is jumped, and a vaccine is widely distributed that is disease enhancing, that would be worse than actually not doing any vaccination at all.””
The vaccine industry is aware of this problem. The degree to which they are taking it seriously, is another question.
While many vaccine developers are aware of the problem, some of them are approaching the problem with more Laissez-faire attitude. They see this problem as “theoretical,” and not guaranteed, with the idea that animal trials should rule out the potential of ADE in humans.
As a side note, it is not ethical to conduct “challenge” studies in humans. However, challenge studies are conducted in animals. In other words, a clinical trial for a vaccine does not include administering the vaccine to a person, and then exposing this person to the virus post-vaccination to monitor their reaction. In clinical trials, humans are only given the vaccine, they are not “challenged” with the virus afterward. In animal studies, they do conduct a challenge test to observe how the animals respond to being infected with the actual virus after being vaccinated.
Will conducting animal studies solve the issue and remove the risk?
Not at all.
Anne De Groot, CEO of EpiVax argues that testing for vaccine safety in primates does not guarantee safety in humans, mainly because primates express different major histocompatibility complex (MHC) molecules, which alters epitope presentation and the immune response. Animals and humans are similar, but they are also very different. In addition, as pointed out above, the development of different viral strains in subsequent years could present a major problem not noticeable during the initial safety trials in either humans or animals.
What about unvaccinated people who are naturally infected with the virus and develop antibodies? Could these people experience ADE to a future strain of SARS-CoV-2?
The ADE response is actually much more complicated than the picture I outlined above. There are other competing and non-competing factors in our immune system that contribute to the ADE response, many of which are not fully understood. Part of that equation is a variety of different types of T-cells that modulate this response, and these T-Cells respond to other portions (epitopes) of the virus. In a vaccine, our body is normally presented with a small part of the virus (like the Spike protein), or a modified (attenuated or dead) virus which is more benign. A vaccine does not expose the entirety of our immune system to the actual virus.
These types of vaccines will only elicit antibodies that recognize the portion of the virus which is present in the vaccine. The other portions of the virus are not represented in the antibody pool. In this scenario, it is much more likely that the vaccine-induced antibodies can be rendered as non-neutralizing antibodies, because the entire virus is not coated in antibodies, only the portion that was used to develop the vaccine.
In a real infection, our immune system is exposed to every nook and cranny of the entire virus, and as such, our immune system develops a panacea of antibodies that recognize different portions of the virus and, therefore, coat more of the virus and neutralize it. In addition, our immune system develops T-Cell responses to hundreds of different peptide epitopes across the virus; whereas in the vaccine the plethora of these T-Cell responses are absent. Researchers are already aware that the T-Cell response plays a cooperative role in either the development of, or absence of, the ADE response.
Based on these differences and the skewed immunological response which is inherent with vaccines, I believe that the risk of ADE is an order of magnitude greater in a vaccine-primed immune system rather than a virus-primed immune system. This will certainly become more apparent as COVID-19 progresses over the years, but the burden of proof rests on the shoulders of the vaccine industry to demonstrate that ADE will not rear its ugly head in the near term or the far term. Once a vaccine is administered and people develop antibodies to some misrepresentation of the virus, it cannot be reversed. Again, this is a problem that could manifest itself at a later date.
Although this article focused on the problem of ADE, it is not the only pathway or mechanism that could present a problem for people being infected after vaccination. Another pathway is governed by Th2 immunopathology, in which a defective T-cell response initiates an allergic inflammation reaction. A second pathway is based on the development of faulty antibodies that form immune complexes, which then activate the complement system a consequently damage the airways. These pathways are also potential risks for SARS-CoV-2.
Right now, the fatality rate of the virus is estimated to be approximately 0.26%, and this number seems to be dropping as the virus is naturally attenuating itself through the population. It would be a great shame to vaccinate the entire population against a virus with this low of a fatality rate, especially considering the considerable risk presented by ADE. I believe this risk of developing ADE in a vaccinated individual will be much greater than 0.26%, and, therefore, the vaccine stands to make the problem worse, not better. It would be the biggest blunder of the century to see the fatality rate of this virus increase in the years to come because of our sloppy, haphazard, rushed efforts to develop a vaccine with such a low threshold of safety testing and the prospect of ADE lurking in the shadows. I would hope (and this is a big hope), that this vaccine WILL NOT BE MANDATORY.
Hopefully, you now know a little more about the topic of Antibody Dependent Enhancement, and the real, unpredictable dangers of a coronavirus vaccine. In the end, your health should be your decision, not some bureaucrat’s that doesn’t know the first thing about molecular biology.
Biggest story of the day IMO is that the WHO quietly changed the covid-19 testing guidelines on Inauguration Day! As many scientists have been saying from the beginning, the PCR testing threshold for C-19 was way too high and thus way too sensitive. PCR cycle thresholds above 30 (they were going up to 45) are known in the virology community to be unreliable and cause false positives. This many cycles will pick up tiny inactive fragments of sars-cov 2 that your immune system already handled OR fragments of other harmless cold-causing corona viruses you’ve had in the past. And then they call you “positive for covid”. When I first read this in the CDC site back in March I knew we had a big testing problem brewing. Screenshot posted above. See for yourself here: https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cdc.gov%2Fcoronavirus%2F2019-ncov%2Ftesting%2Fserology-overview.html&data=04%7C01%7C%7C1f3f918e7794477c18e208d8bdfa2f5a%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637468229512100723%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=xhLZdUxDEx%2FWYG4R545am1BcRpm3NMxQylIWE8TNm1Y%3D&reserved=0 Remember there was a huge fear push for healthy people to get tested. (You might be an asymptomatic carrier!) And all we’ve heard for 9 months is cases, cases, and more cases on the news, all day every day. But here’s the real kicker. 50-90% of cases have been false positives. It’s a Casedemic. This August 29th NYT article explains it well: https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2020%2F08%2F29%2Fhealth%2Fcoronavirus-testing.amp.html&data=04%7C01%7C%7C1f3f918e7794477c18e208d8bdfa2f5a%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637468229512100723%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=en4cAA%2FHveaabaThmKST99XKrpIX39LzSPmb%2Fe0JNes%3D&reserved=0 Now the WHO is recommending a second test if a “positive” person isn’t showing symptoms and a lower PCR cycle threshold. The exact diagnostic criteria many doctors and scientists were calling for on day one. I predict the number of cases are going to drop dramatically as these new guidelines get rolled out. And Biden and the vaccine will get all the credit for ending the pandemic. How unbelievably coincidental and convenient! https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.who.int%2Fnews%2Fitem%2F20-01-2021-who-information-notice-for-ivd-users-2020-05%3Ffbclid%3DIwAR2ffVnz1zxOxnFmGPdHmTfpii52v93wAtswFjJmbXkkQnI1eAJJ6xzd5Cc&data=04%7C01%7C%7C1f3f918e7794477c18e208d8bdfa2f5a%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637468229512100723%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=CYffSwomoa7gWNfvr0Wnam2%2BsfVPYqbMZhYSpnfaruU%3D&reserved=0