‘For the second time in a week, top scientists have reported that “Omicron specific” Covid mRNA boosters are a $5 billion taxpayer-financed marketing gimmick.
The new shots work no better than the original mRNA shots to produce antibodies specifically targeting the Omicron variant.
And the Omicron shots are even WORSE than the original boosters in producing T-cells that target Omicron, according to the researchers, part of a group led by Dr. Dan Barouch, a highly respected virologist. This finding is of particular concern because T-cells, the second line of the immune system, keep infections from becoming too severe.
Boosters using the original mRNA formulation have been largely phased out, because – as public health bureaucrats now admit – they stop working against Omicron infection within weeks. In fact, real-world data from many countries suggest they increase the risk of infection within months.
The “Omicron-specific” boosters were supposed to solve that problem. Regulators approved them in August, despite a lack of any clinical trial evidence they reduced coronavirus infections or serious cases of Covid in people. The Federal government agreed to pay Pfizer and Moderna $5 billion for 171 million doses of them.
But both Dr. Barouch’s study and another last week from Dr. David Ho, another top virologist, found that Omicron-specific boosters work no better than the original boosters against Omicron. Both studies showed the antibodies our immune systems produce after the Omicron shot are more effective against the original and now essentially extinct version of Sars-Cov-2 than against Omicron variants.
This phenomenon is called “original antigenic sin” or “immune imprinting,” and can occur after any vaccination – or infection. But the mRNA shots appear particularly likely to cause it, probably because they stimulate such high levels of anti-spike antibodies when they are first given.
The findings help explain why so many people, including Centers for Disease Control director Dr. Rochelle Walensky, have recently tested positive shortly after being boosted.
But Dr. Barouch’s group went further than Dr. Ho’s, examining T-cells as well. It found the same problem; following both the Omicron and the old booster, T-cells focused much more on the original Sars-Cov-2 than Omicron variants.
T-cells are a crucial second line of immune defense, helping the body keep infections from becoming too severe. Because Omicron is not very dangerous to most people, so a weak T-cell response does not matter much against it. But if a future Sars-Cov-2 variant is more dangerous, the relative lack of a T-cell response could put vaccinated people may be at serious risk.
(Bivalent is a fancy word for “Omicron-specific.” Except the Omicron-specific booster isn’t Omicron-specific at all, which is why T-cells targeting Omicron hardly rise at all following the bivalent booster, while they more than double after the original booster.)
As the researchers concluded:
Our findings suggest that immune imprinting by prior antigenic exposure may pose a greater challenge than currently appreciated for inducing robust immunity to SARS-CoV-2 variants.
Such a polite way to say, we gave a billion-plus people mRNA shots that probably opened them to future Sars-Cov-2 infections forever.
No worries! Lessons learned and all that.’https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/another-new-study-yes-a-second-one/comments?publication_id=363080&post_id=81234239&isFreemail=true&comments=true
‘Whatever you may currently think about the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, it is a fact that more than 5.41 billion people worldwide have received a dose of some type of COVID-19 vaccine, equal to about 70.5 percent of the world population. In the United States as of October 17, 2022, 494.74 million “initial protocol doses” of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine have been administered, together with 138.16 million “booster” doses. 265.59 million US residents have received at least one dose, and 226.59 million have completed the initial vaccination protocol (see this link), out of a total population of 335.49 million (67.5%). In terms of the logistics of development, manufacturing and deployment of a novel injectable biologic product, this is undeniably a major achievement. Of the SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine doses administered in the United States as of October 19, 2022, 375.64 million were manufactured by Pfizer/Bio-N-Tech, and 237.61 doses by Moderna, for a total of 613.25 million mRNA vaccine doses administered. In the European Union, the corresponding numbers are 641.89M doses of Pfizer/Bio-N-Tech and 153.16M doses of Moderna for an EU total of 795.05M mRNA vaccine doses, and a grand total of 1 Billion, 408.3 million doses of mRNA vaccines in these two regions. All this involves a novel technology, product and large scale manufacturing process which was created, passed non-clinical and clinical development and was massively manufactured, distributed and globally deployed in less than three years.
At a meeting of the Special Committee of the European Union Parliament held on 11 October 2022 to discuss the findings regarding COVID-19 pandemic and recommendations for the future, a Pfizer executive confirmed that the vaccine had never been tested for its ability to prevent the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 virus before being put on the market. Data emerging since the introduction of the vaccine indicates that it is in fact unable to do so, thereby refuting the claim that the COVID-19 Passports provide any guarantee of protection. In other words, although governments throughout the world employed a wide range of propaganda and censorship methods to promote these products as both safe and effective at stopping the spread of SARS-CoV-2 infection, there were no studies performed prior to this distribution which even tested how well the products would prevent the spread of COVID-19 disease. It is not an exaggeration to state that this massive deployment has been the largest clinical experiment performed on human beings in the history of the world.
All of the mRNA vaccine doses administered in the United States (to both citizens and military personnel) have been provided under “Emergency Use Authorization” (EUA), which is to say that although the FDA has licensed the Pfizer/Bio-N-Tech and Moderna vaccines for some age cohorts, the firms have elected to not manufacture, distribute, or market these licensed products in the United States. The reason for this is not clear, but appears to relate to both liability issues as well as conditions placed by the FDA involving additional clinical studies, safety monitoring (pharmacovigilance) and product disclosures once the products begin to be marketed.
From the standpoint of the vaccine manufacturers, EUA is a preferred pathway for marketing their products. A single purchaser (the US Government) provides complete liability indemnification, a guaranteed market with very little oversight, and manages both the distribution and marketing. In the case of all unlicensed products, the manufacturers are prohibited from marketing them, but under EUA the US Government has been doing this for them, and has been acting in coordination with corporate media, social media, and large technology firms to suppress any discussion of risks or limitations of the products. From the standpoint of the vaccine manufacturers, this is all profit and no risk; a perfect business model. Why would they ever want to consider taking up the burden of actually producing and marketing the licensed version of these products?
EUA is a process defined by US federal law (21 U.S. Code § 360bbb–3 – Authorization for medical products for use in emergencies) which in the case of these mRNA-based products involves biological products which are not approved, licensed, or cleared for commercial distribution. Specifically, the statute authorizes “the introduction into interstate commerce, during the effective period of a declaration under subsection (b), of a drug, device, or biological product intended for use in an actual or potential emergency.” Continued “Emergency Use Authorization” of these vaccines requires “a determination by the Secretary of Homeland Security that there is a domestic emergency, or a significant potential for a domestic emergency, involving a heightened risk of attack with a biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent or agents”. Once the domestic emergency has passed (ergo “a determination by the Secretary, in consultation as appropriate with the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Secretary of Defense, that the circumstances described in paragraph (1) have ceased to exist”), “A declaration under this subsection shall terminate”. In other words, when there is no longer an emergency, the “Emergency Use Authorization” for the product will cease, and the vaccine products will return to their status as not approved, licensed, or cleared for commercial distribution. These products remain experimental, and are only to be used for a limited amount of time during an ongoing emergency.
Regarding the consequences for the incorporation of pseudouridine in mRNA as a drug for therapeutic or vaccine purposes, Borchardt et al conclude that:
“Pseudouridine likely affects multiple facets of mRNA function, including reduced immune stimulation by several mechanisms, prolonged half-life of pseudouridine-containing RNA, as well as potentially deleterious effects of Ψ on translation fidelity and efficiency.”
Based on the currently available information, it appears to me that the extensive random incorporation of pseudouridine into the synthetic mRNA-like molecules used for the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna SARS-CoV-2 vaccines may well account for much or all of the observed immunosuppression, DNA virus reactivation, and remarkable persistence of the synthetic “mRNA” molecules observed in lymph node biopsy tissues (Roltgen et al. 2022). Many of these adverse effects were reported by Kariko, Weissman et al in their 2008 paper “Incorporation of pseudouridine into mRNA yields superior nonimmunogenic vector with increased translational capacity and biological stability” (Kariko et al. 2008) and could have been anticipated by regulatory and toxicology professionals if they had bothered to consider these findings prior to allowing emergency use authorization and widespread (global) deployment of what is truly an immature and previously untested technology. Therefore, neither the FDA, NIH, CDC, nor BioNTech (which employs Dr. Kariko as a Vice President) nor Moderna can claim true ignorance. To my eyes, what we have seen is more appropriately classified as “willful ignorance”.
Based on my review of the scientific data, it is my opinion that the random and uncontrolled insertion of pseudouridine into the manufactured “mRNA”-like molecules creates a population of polymers which may resemble natural mRNA, but which have a variety of properties which are clinically relevant. These characteristics and activities may account for many of the unusual effects, unusual stability, and striking adverse events associated with this new class of vaccines. These molecules are not natural mRNA, and they do not behave like natural mRNA.
The question that most troubles and perplexes me at this point is why the biological consequences of these modifications and associated clinical adverse effects were not thoroughly investigated before widespread administration of random pseudouridine-incorporating “mRNA”-like molecules to a global population.
Biology, and particularly molecular biology, is highly complex and interrelated. Change one thing over here, and it is really hard to predict what might happen over there. That is why one must do rigorously controlled non-clinical and clinical research. Once again, it appears to me that the hubris of “elite” high status scientists, physicians and governmental “public health” bureaucrats has overcome common sense, well established regulatory norms have been disregarded, and patients have unnecessarily suffered as a consequence. These products do not use natural mRNA, and referring to them as mRNA vaccines is misleading. I recommend that, in the future, these products which employ a synthetic unnatural polymer which is not natural mRNA, should be designated using a different term, such as Ψ-mRNA genetic medicines.’https://rwmalonemd.substack.com/p/mrna-vaccines-and-eua?publication_id=583200&post_id=80795186&isFreemail=true
mRNA Vaccines: Fact Versus Fiction.
‘My purpose is not to overwhelm you with all of the various clips, newspaper clippings, scientific journal articles, et cetera, et cetera, but rather to help you to comprehend the technology and why it’s being pushed and how it’s being pushed. I’m going to present this as being focused on comprehension, not politics.
Now that may elicit some, “Oh, you’re just controlled opposition.” That seems to be a favorite theme that’s hitting me and Jordan Peterson and Peter McCullough and a number of others, which is extremely divisive right now and isn’t helping any of us. But just to set the record straight, two months ago in the Global COVID Summit Declaration IV we made unequivocal statements about the need to prosecute, that the need for accountability is there, that the vaccine should be stopped. They’re neither saved nor effective, et cetera. I just want to make it clear that I put out, and my colleagues in Global COVID Summit and the International Alliance of Physicians and Medical Scientists have been very clear about our position regarding these products. I won’t call them vaccines. I think that’s really not an appropriate term given their activity, but that’s not my purpose here. I’m hoping that by, if I can make the slides work, there we go, that by the time we’re through with this, you’ll kind of understand these core things. What are the drivers of COVID crisis response and the multiple truths behind them?
Looking at understanding the RNA technology as a way to start to make sense out of what we’ve all experienced. Paul has just given you another lens that through which you can view what has occurred. There are many others. He, for instance, just barely touched on the World Economic Forum and the World Health Organization, the collusion with the UN, et cetera. He hasn’t really talked about the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation initiatives. There is so many different ways that we can understand and begin to process what we’ve experienced over the last two and a half years. I speak about those various ways in different forums. But this one, I’m just going to focus on the RNA tech. It’s enough to handle that in the time we have here.
What was the unmet medical need that was being addressed? I think it’s important for us to understand at least those points of view of the other side that are comprehensible. There are clearly aspects that are nefarious, but I want you to understand at least some of the underlying rationale. Understand genetic vaccine technology, including mRNA. What is really the tech? It has been presented to a lot of people as a black box. It has this acronym that seems very intimidating to many people. I hope that when you leave here, you’ll feel that you have a good grasp of what the technology is, what its fundamentals are so that you can process information and read the papers and make your own decisions about what you think things mean.
I want you to understand the difference between the payload and the platform. We’re talking about the fundamentals of the pharmacology of this product category. I want you to understand how and why it’s being pushed. This is more about me trying to give you insight and understanding about what is going on here as seen through this one lens of the mRNA technology and the falsehoods and truths that are behind it. It is only one of many lenses. I’ve spoken about mass formation. I’ve spoken about the World Economic Forum. I’ve spoken about the administrative state. There’s so many variables going on here that we could talk for eight hours, but I’m just going to focus on the RNA.
Why mRNA vaccines? Why is this being pushed? There is this universal global, and understand what you’ve experienced here in Virginia is mirrored by the people that I was just speaking to at a conference in Padua, Italy about an hour and a half ago. The same things have been experienced in Brazil, all over the Western world. Why has this been pushed? What is the unmet need that’s being addressed? Now, I’m not placing a value on whether they’re right or wrong. I just want you to understand the underlying logic, at least at the surface of this.
The problem we have is that the technology to enable individuals to engineer bio-weapons has become so trivial that a college senior working out of their, or somebody of similar education level, they can self-train, working out of their garage with stuff they can get off of eBay, can easily recreate the most lethal pathogen combinations that our government came up with in the bio-warfare program that we ran for years. I’m not saying we’re not still running it. We do it under a different moniker. We call it defensive bio-weapons research, not offensive bio-weapons research. I’m not sure what the difference is, but that’s the language that’s imposed from the bio-warfare treaty that was signed. It leaks like a sieve.
But I want you to understand, and if you don’t mind keeping the slides up on the monitor because I need those because I’m of a certain age that I need these visual connections. Just to frame it, with traditional vaccine technology, we anticipate having vaccines, if everything goes well, for all of the bio-warfare agents deployed up until the end of World War II, that’s tularemia and smallpox and all those things. Vaccines for all of the warfare agents deployed up until the end of World War II, and we’ll have all those by the year 2050 if everything goes well.
Clearly, now we’re in an environment in which a young adult or a bad actor in any part of the world can create very potent bio-weapons. Clearly, we don’t have the capability to respond to that efficiently. That is the underlying unmet medical need. That’s the problem set. We need to be all clear about that. We get all wound up. I’m not defending in any way the way this has been deployed. I’m not saying that this solution is the best solution. I’m just saying there is an unmet medical need, which is there is a very significant threat. It is not trivial. It’s not a figment of Cheney’s imagination that bio-warfare agents can be engineered.
I’m convinced we have been doing most of the engineering up until this point, and the stuff that is going to come out in Bobby’s (Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.) next book is going to blow your circuits in terms of what we have done in Georgia and Ukraine. We’ll park that. These things are being done. The problem is that once they’re let loose, which we’ve all experienced over the last three years, it’s almost three years now really. It’s the end of September, the data shows that the beginning of the outbreak was at least September of 2019, if not earlier. We’ve got three years of experience now in what this means.
Once those things are let loose, they can sweep the world. The technology is now advanced to the point where pathogens can be engineered so they’re relatively specific for different ethnic groups based on their genetics. Pathogens can be engineered. I can tell you my friends, or what used to be my buddies at DTRA, Defense Threat Reduction Agency Chem Bio Division, are extremely acutely aware that agents can be engineered to target ethnic groups. That’s the battlefield. That’s the real environment we’re in. We have to have some technology to enable rapid response.
We have to have some technology to enable rapid response for special forces teams that are going to go in to wherever the bad guys are when we detect them and address that problem and take them out. Those special forces need to be protected. We need to have capabilities that can be deployed at the battalion level. We need to have capabilities that can be deployed at the population level. This RNA tech was one of the ones, together with monoclonal antibodies, that the government has long believed had huge potential to enable that type of rapid response.
They actually like monoclonal antibodies better. The idea behind monoclonal antibodies that they really like is you can administer these products to a special forces group. They go in theater, do their business, come back out, go see their wife, monoclonal antibody is gone. It’s cleared. Yay. The problem is that the technology just has not performed. The monoclonal antibody technology is too cludgy. It’s too cumbersome. What we’ve learned over the last three years is that viruses and pathogens can evolve to escape that fairly rapidly because they’re fairly specific. We’ve all seen the viral evolution in real time. We experienced it.
That’s the unmet medical need and the justification underlying this. That there is an unmet need for some technology, that will now allow rapid response to both emerging pathogens and engineered pathogens such as bio-warfare or terrorism-based pathogens. I think we can all agree that we would like such a technology to exist.
The truth is that DARPA, which is the operational development arm, basically the CIA, fell in love with the RNA technology over a decade ago. They decided to capitalize it and force it into the market space. For instance, they’re the ones that have capitalized through In-Q-Tel, their investment arm, the new RNA manufacturing facilities up in Canada. This is a CIA program. There’s no ambiguity here. I’m not telling state secrets.
The technology was basically pulled out of the trash can, because it had been suppressed by Merck after I developed it over 30 years ago. Then it was advanced very aggressively by DARPA. DARPA funded and basically built Moderna. They’re continuing to push all this. They’re pushing it through the government. What you’re seeing is the power of the intelligence community and the new bio-defense industrial complex that’s developed since the anthrax attacks and it really goes beyond that in being able to push their agenda through the government.
When you see all these circumventing of normal procedures and rules, that’s happening because largely our intelligence community is pushing that through the administrative state structure. Why are they doing it? I think if we just back up for a minute and say, “Okay, let’s try to give them the benefit of the doubt for a moment.” What I think they are believing is that they have to push this, they have to get acceptance for this technology because there are no alternatives. The threat is so severe, in their opinion, in their spooky world, the threat is so severe that something has …
spooky world. The threat is so severe that something has to exist, and this is something they’ve latched onto. Now, I’m saying this not to defend them. I’m saying this to try to help you to understand what you’ve been subjected to. DNA versus RNA vaccines. I had come up with both ideas back at the Salk in ’89. DNA can also be used for vaccine purposes. This is the core idea, the little brilliant insight that I had. I don’t think I’m being arrogant in saying that. This little thing that popped into my brain when I was at this gene therapy lab at the Salk, and I realized that we had a problem. The gene therapy wasn’t going to work because the new genes that are the good genes are seen by the immune system as just different. They’re producing different proteins, and your immune system doesn’t know whether it’s a good protein or a bad protein. It just knows that it’s a different protein. It will attack it.
And that turned out to be the logic flaw in gene therapy. And they still haven’t solved that. The only way to solve it is to put the genes into an immunocompromised compartment like the back of your eye or to immunosuppressed people. And I basically was there as a student passionately wanting to develop gene therapy, realized that the whole field that I’d committed my life to was never going to work. And came up with the idea, oh, well, it could be used to elicit a vaccine response. Gene therapy could be used for vaccines. Which is why I’ve said all the way through, these are not really vaccines. These are gene therapy technologies applied to vaccination. That includes the adenovirus vectors. It’s explicit.
And the first embodiment, I filed these patents, and they included use of mRNA in particular. I thought it had advantages, but also, DNA. And the world picked up on the DNA part because it worked in mice. Merck bought the rights, and they spent well over a billion dollars that could never make it work. And they just abandoned it until, like I said, the CIA basically picked up the RNA part out of the trash can and pushed it forward and made it work. So, that’s what’s happening here. It’s about the idea that we can use gene therapy technology, deliver genes into your body and cause your cells to become little manufacturing factories, to produce a part of a virus, a foreign protein, and generate an immune response, both a T-cell and a B-cell. So, cellular and humoral immunity against that foreign protein in a way that would be very similar as if you got infected by the virus. But there’s no virus. That was the logic.
The problem is like everything, it all sounds great on paper, and then, you got to make it work, and you got to deal with the consequences when things don’t go right. I just wanted you to understand that. The logic for why mRNA was because mRNA typically only lasts for a few hours or maybe half a day after it’s manufactured in your body. The idea that I had way back then was that this RNA could be used like a drug, administered, and that if somebody has a toxicity, a toxic reaction, it’ll be degraded and gone. Just like you clear most drugs. And then, a physician can decide, let’s not do that again. That was the idea behind RNA as opposed to DNA, which sticks around for a long, long time in your body once it’s in a cell. That’s where this started from.
Now, let’s talk about, remember, my goal is that you walk out of this understanding. This is not a focus on passing judgment. This is a focus on empowering you to comprehend what’s going on. And the starting point is you have to understand that DNA makes RNA, and RNA makes protein. Not everybody has been through modern biology and understands the central dogma, but that’s where this is going. mRNA is one of many different types of RNA. It’s an acronym. It sounds scary to some people. It means messenger RNA. There’s other kinds of RNA. Ribosomal RNA, transfer RNA. They do different things. RNA is just a molecule, a polymer that your body uses for many different things.
And one of them is to transfer information from DNA to the protein manufacturing machinery. And so, the idea of using mRNA as a drug is basically like hijacking the normal apparatus. If you think of RNA like a ticker tape to tell the little machine that makes protein what to make, you’re taking and sticking in a foreign molecule, a foreign RNA that’s not made from a copy of your DNA, and that’s going to make the protein manufacturing machinery make a different protein, protein from a virus. I just wanted you to understand that. And this is just a diagram of those different types of RNAs and the machinery. We don’t need to go into the molecular biology of it.
And we all know this virus now. Everybody’s become a virologist and an epidemiologist over the last three years. And the spike protein on the right, as you can see, has kind of two parts. One is a part that sticks into the cell. And by the way, it exists as a trimer. I like to think of it as a treble hook, anybody go fishing. It’s a trimer. And the little hook’s on the end, so the barbs or the receptor binding domain, and the part that you tie the string to is the S1 subunit that sticks itself into the cell when it’s being manufactured. That’s the basic structure of the virus and the protein. Now, these are images, and they’re hard to see from where you are. I’m going to talk to you about the tech, the formulation platform.
These are not liposomes. These are positively-charged fats, and RNA is negative. And you take these fats and you mix them with the RNA, and it all collapses into a glob. The problem with that is that when it collapses into a glob like this, it can stick to other globs. It produces very large aggregates. That’s why the people that are administering these vaccines have very strict guidelines. Once they open the bottle and they hydrate it, they need to use it within a short period of time because otherwise, it forms big aggregates. And those big aggregates can be toxic to people. And there is a technology used to keep this aggregation from happening. And it’s one of those different little parts that are in that upper panel that shows examples schematically of the chemicals that are used, these positively charged fats, and some of the other things that are added into the formulation, which includes cholesterol, among other things.
And one of those is polyethylene glycol. And polyethylene glycol is probably responsible for a lot of the short-term anaphylaxis. These are people that die within an hour or two after administration. Some people have hypersensitivity to polyethylene glycol. Polyethylene glycol is in there to keep these things from aggregating, and it’s specifically engineered in this case so that it falls off of the particle soon afterwards because otherwise, it would keep the particle from binding to cells and delivering the RNA. That’s kind of all I want to talk about, about the core idea. And as you can see from that little spiral, all of this aggregates and forms around a synthetic RNA that’s made in the test tube. It’s not really RNA. The stuff that’s being administered is not natural RNA. That’s another… Paul has his list of lies.
Another one of the lies is that the stuff that’s being injected with these vaccines is not truly RNA. It’s modified. One of the four parts, AUGC, that forms the bead, the string of pearls. Think of string of pearls with four different colors. That’s RNA. But one of those colors, the U, is actually a modified U. It’s pseudouridine. And it’s put in there because the RNA has two problems as a mechanism for vaccination, as a delivery mechanism.
One is that these formulations are incredibly inflammatory. They provoke… If you want to generate pus, take these formulations without all the bells and whistles they’ve had to put on them, and inject them into an animal. They are highly inflammatory, and they’re still inflammatory now. We know that now. We’ve experienced over the last three years. That’s always been the problem with the tech. And they tried to solve it by incorporating this modified U called pseudouridine, which depresses the immune response to the RNA and a lot of other things. And it makes the RNA last a much longer time so it can keep making protein.
Pseudouridine is what’s put all the way through this RNA rather than regular uridine. And because it has, it confers these activities, but it is not a natural RNA. It’s not what the ideas that I originally came up with. The stuff would only stick around for a few hours. Now, this is too small for me to read and probably is too small for you to read, but the bottom line, as I said, is that pseudouridine greatly modifies this whole equation in so many different ways. And when it was developed and patented at UPenn as a modification to the core patents and technology, it wasn’t really understood what it does.
The biology of pseudouridine is still not understood. And that’s part of the story of all of this is that folks have kind of gotten ahead of their skis all the way through. They’ve pushed the technology because they want it so badly because the unmet medical need is so profound. They’re so afraid of the risk, in part because we’re creating that risk. But that’s another story. And they wanted to have something that would be universal, that they could apply for any new pathogen and that could go straight from gene to vaccine. That’s the idea.
And what they did is they kind of rushed things without understanding it. Now, you’ll recall that we’re administering, we’re all receiving… Those that have received the vaccine, receive it in their deltoid. And what the FDA has told all the docs and Pfizer has told all the docs, is that that RNA, those complexes go to draining lymph nodes, and they do. The axillary lymph nodes that drain from that deltoid take that complex, it’s piped into there through the lymphatics, and a lot of it does go there. Unfortunately, the data show that it also goes all over the body. But back in the day when this was just getting started, three years ago, well, we could argue about that, but as these particular products were being developed, they were being sold, the technology was being sold that the formulations used would only go to those lymph nodes. Now, we know that that’s not true, but that’s how it was pitched.
Now, what happens when that’s done? The big story here underlying all this fraud and everything that Paul is talking about is the FDA did not do its job. FDA did not do its job, I think, because it was being pushed into a position of having to go along with what the intelligence community wanted and all of the push from the White House and everywhere else that we needed to have this technology, we needed to have this technology deployed globally. And so, we’re going to just allow a lot of corners to be cut.
Finally, at the beginning of this year, with this paper published in January, a group from Stanford University asked the questions. How long is the RNA there? How long is the protein, spike protein being made? How much spike protein is being made? Fundamental questions that should have been known at the very beginning. But the FDA did not force the pharmaceutical companies to do those tests because they justified it. They did a little hand waving.
… because they justified it, they did a little hand waving. They said, “These are not gene therapy products. These are vaccine products.” Now that’s a lie, a convenient lie, but that’s what they did and that allowed them to justify only applying the vaccine safety checklist at the FDA rather than also applying the gene therapy checklist. This is why when I first started talking about this and I said, “This is gene therapy.” I got so much blow back from all the fact checkers in the press, et cetera, is because they could not allow the narrative to come out that this is actually a gene therapy product applied for vaccine purposes. But we know that the manufacturers knew that to be the case because they had said so in their SEC filings before all this happened years ago, okay? So this is another one of the little slights of hand that was used.
But this group at Stanford went and finally did the work that should have been done before this was administered to all of us, and what did they find? Well, among other things they documented, this is one of the first key papers that immune imprinting is happening, which is why when you get multiply jabbed, and I think these boosters are going to make it even worse, you actually become more susceptible to the viral infection because your immune system is tuned to only responding to the historic strain, not the current strain.
But they found some other things in here, and I’m sorry this is too much text, so I’ll just tell you. What they found was that the levels of protein, these are actual patients, this isn’t animal models or anything else, this is patients that have received vaccine, the levels of spike protein in the blood of these patients were much higher than the levels of spike protein found after infection. With infection, the virus is slowly starting to replicate in your nose and your oral pharynx and your mouth and your upper respiratory tract and your immune system is kicking in and starting to neutralize that, and they’re having a fight as a gradual balance and it results in a slow growth in the amount of antigen.
With the RNA, when that young gentleman there that’s going to sleep gets his vaccine, which hopefully he didn’t take, what happens is his body gets a truckload of spike antigen that’s basically dumped into his bloodstream on a very short time course, very different from natural infection. And so when people say, “Well, why would you see toxicity with the spike protein from the vaccines and not see the same… Why would it be worse with the vaccines than with the infection?” Well, because of dosing, there’s so much more protein being produced, and by the way, it’s being produced for a long time, about 60 days or longer. They didn’t test beyond 60 days. Furthermore, the RNA doesn’t just go away after a few hours like real RNA, this RNA that has pseudouridine in it lasts for up to 60 days as long as they test it. Again, this is not theoretical, this is putting needles into patients axillary lymph nodes, taking a sample and asking is the RNA there and taking blood samples and asking how much protein is in those blood samples. So that explains a lot of what we’ve experienced.
Then there’s this issue, and this is part of the lies that Paul was talking about that we’ve all experienced, that natural immunity is not as good as vaccine-induced immunity. There are many, many papers out now that show that that’s not true. And from first principles it’s easy to understand why it’s not true. When they built these vaccines they chose to basically start with what had been done before and failed with MERS and SARS 1 vaccine development and only use a single protein, only used the spike protein and used the whole spike protein because they were in denial that the whole spike protein was a toxin and they still are, but they’re kind of starting to have to concede that point.
But they only used one antigen. When you get infected by the virus, you mount a antibody and a cellular immune response against a whole bunch of antigens, and so if the virus starts to evolve to evade immune surveillance on the spike protein, which is what’s happened in the face of all these jabs that everybody’s got all over the world, if it starts with a natural immunity, if it starts to evolve to escape that immune suppression, immune pressure on the spike, it can’t do that at the same time that it’s evolving to escape all the other forms of immune pressure that are there because of all the other proteins that it makes. This is fundamental. Everybody knows this in my field, but they’ve been in denial about this and this is this insistence that their approach is the best and is accurate and it won’t drive the immune escape, et cetera, et cetera. But the data are in now, natural immunity is more robust, longer lasting, more protective, and likely, results in much less [inaudible 00:33:50] development.
What are the risks? Let’s see if I can read them here. This is actually the Cumulative Analysis of Post-Authorization Adverse Event Report from Pfizer, this is from the data that was forced to be released by Pfizer by court order instead of being delayed for 7 years, like Paul was talking about. Central general disorders, nervous system disorders, musculoskeletal disorders, gastrointestinal disorders, respiratory disorders, skin disorders, infections, cardiac, vascular, psychiatric, blood and lymphatic, eye, immune, it goes on and on. In the Pfizer disclosure, it’s 11 pages, okay? They’ve known all this stuff. This isn’t what they thought might happen, this is coming from pharmaco vigilance at Pfizer with their licensed vaccines, because the stuff that’s here in the United States is not the licensed product, by the way. This is data coming from all over the world accumulated by Pfizer by the pharmaco vigilance team, and this is what they’re reporting to the FDA, which the FDA of course then denied was actually happening.
The list of adverse events is huge, it’s like nothing any of us have ever really seen with a product like this. I’ve certainly never seen anything like with this vaccine, let alone the mortality. And why our government and our regulatory agencies, both in the US and globally, aren’t willing to address that is another whole discussion about the politics and the corruption that’s gone on, and Paul kind of touched on that a little bit, but we could go on for hours.
Now, the last key thing I kind of want you to understand as we talk about this, we talk about these genetic vaccine technologies, and I guarantee they’re going to be deployed on you for years now, but you need to understand some of these fundamentals, platform versus payload, and everybody gets mixed up in this. There’s the platform technology, which has the potential to enable a whole new class of pharmaceuticals, therapeutics, customized treatments for individuals for their cancer, all kinds of good stuff, this is why these companies have their market cap, potentially to enable a new class of pharmaceuticals based on delivery of genetic information.
The idea, as I mentioned with the platform, is that you can go direct from genetic sequence to product and shorten the development time because the manufacturing is the same no matter what the sequence is. You just key it into the computer. That’s why they love it. They think that once they get one standard manufacturing process with all the characterization associated with it, they don’t have to do it again. They can just go to the computer, key it in, sequence whatever the thing is, make customized medicines for your wife because she’s got cancer or any new pathogen that’s come out of Central Africa or whatever the thing is. That’s their belief system.
The mRNA platform includes all of the things that are required to manufacture and deliver the RNA, that’s separate from the thing that’s made, the protein that’s made, that’s called the payload. It’s kind of important for you to understand going forward to make sense out of all this stuff. Okay, so you understand platform versus payload, the spike protein and the RNA coating the spike protein is the payload. The way that it’s packaged, assembled, manufactured, tested, et cetera, is the platform. The platform consists of these fats, the polyethylene glycol, other RNAs, the synthetic mRNA, other components.
Is there graphene oxide? The problem I have with that question, which has been coming at me for almost two years now, is there’s no way for me to know whether there’s graphene oxide or not. There’s a lot of graphene oxide in the general environment, and the only way that this can ever be demonstrated to either true or false is either if, number one, the pharmaceutical companies come clean with the components that are in these products, and they will not release that, okay? They will not release a full component list. Or, a regulatory agency or someone else empowered will test the lots coming off of the line rigorously in a controlled way with a clear chain of custody as they have always done in the past, and which they are forbidden from doing by contract from these manufacturers.
So the problem I have with the graphene oxide and the other contaminants is that in most cases there is no good way to answer that question because we are forbidden from answering that question because, through contract, the regulatory agencies aren’t able to do their job all over the world and assess what’s actually in those vials. Are they truly pure? Is the identity what’s defined? Is the potency what’s defined? The pharmaceutical companies have executed contracts that prevents that from being known.
There’s no question that we have contaminants of small glass fragments and small metal fragments in many lots, not necessarily all lots, and those are known types of contaminants that come from existing pharmaceutical manufacturing processes like fill/finish, and they’re absolutely toxic. And again, that’s evidence that the regulatory agencies have not been doing their job. That’s their job is to ensure purity, potency, and identity.
The payload also includes the manufacturing, purification and testing processes, which I’ve just talked about, have been co-opted. It includes the regulatory package, including the nonclinical testing. So this is the notorious animal testing that was done not with the spike encoding RNA, but with the firefly protein called luciferase, using the least sensitive method for detecting where the product goes, which is whole body imaging as opposed to dissecting the tissues and analyzing them. Somehow the FDA allowed the wool to be pulled over their eyes by the pharmaceutical companies and they allowed them to use the least sensitive method for determining where this stuff goes and where it’s making protein. That’s another huge failure.
But the platform includes all of that data, fill, finish, distribution and storage, all of that goes into the platform tech. And the payload is, as I mentioned, the RNA, which causes your cells to become the manufacturing facilities. And that RNA itself can have biologic activity, so I’ve talked about the pseudouridine immunosuppression, increased half life. Another major problem with these products is that during the manufacturer of the RNA itself or the pseudouridine RNA, what happens is that the polymerase, the thing that’s making it in this biologic reaction stops periodically and when it does that it releases a fragment of RNA that’s incomplete. Those RNA fragments…
RNA that’s incomplete. Those RNA fragments are biologically active. They can interfere, they can elicit immune responses, all kinds of things. And they don’t have a good way to purify those. So the material that’s being injected, it’s not just a false RNA, a pseudo uridine, including RNA, but it’s a whole mixture of stuff of which they hope the majority is the thing they want. But they haven’t created any purification guidelines for all these other contaminants. If it was a normal drug or a normal biologic, the FDA would be rigorously scrutinizing and ensuring that it is only the biologic that it’s claimed to be and doesn’t have any other contaminants or so, if they’re contaminants there’s strict guidelines about how much. That doesn’t exist here.
The payload also includes the protein. And the primary protein in this case is spike. In other cases is the influenza hemagglutinin for the new flu vaccines. But that protein we now know can have other things embedded in it. And I mentioned the snake venom story. I don’t think that the sequence analysis supports that thesis of Dr. Artis. I’m absolutely not convinced. But the possibility that these proteins can be engineered to include other antigens, or do include other antigens is absolutely feasible, is absolutely viable. So the payload and the sequence of the payload and what it causes your cells to manufacture are crucial.
Now, how and why is this being pushed? Obviously, we’ve all experienced the propaganda and censorship, and Paul’s talked about that. I’ve experienced it personally. This is uncontrolled information warfare, unrestricted information warfare at a level the world has never seen before. We have a situation in which all of the major media is controlled by large financial entities that happen to be the same ones that control the pharmaceutical industry. And functionally, control our government. What we’ve seen is that the propaganda information warfare blocking of anybody disclosing adverse events, like all of you that got up and said you’ve known of people directly that have either died or been damaged. I’ve been vaccine damaged. That’s not allowed to be discussed.
It’s not allowed to be discussed because of the potential impact on the deployment of this product, which they believe that the ends justify the means. That it is absolutely essential that they get the world to be able to accept this new technology because if they don’t… And there’s all the other agendas about the vaccine card, and the personal ID and central bank digital currency, et cetera. But, at the fundamental level, there’s a belief that this technology is so important that we have to push it through the entire population. And we have to get people to accept it. And so, that’s so important that they believe that they were justified in deploying the largest propaganda effort the world has ever seen.
Paul underestimated. It was over a billion dollars spent by the CDC, okay? And it’s still ongoing. What that results in is that people cannot have informed consent. So I have a colleague who blames me, says that because I talk about mass formation psychosis, I’m saying that everybody is responsible and the global predators are not responsible. In no way is that true. That’s a false narrative. And I’m in no way saying that individuals are responsible if they, like I, took the vaccine. We were not able to obtain informed consent.
In my case, I had a teleconference because of who I am and my background. I had a teleconference specifically with Peter Marks at the FDA early on where I said, “Peter, I’m concerned about these things that are in this non-clinical package. You guys have been hoodwinked.” And he told me, basically, “Robert, give me some time to get this out. I have the new data package from Pfizer. I have no concerns now. Please don’t make a big issue out of this.” And I stayed silent for a few months based on that, and I took the jab. And I got the toxicity. My point is I was fooled. We were all fooled. And we were all prevented from having informed consent. So forgive each other, please. Forgive me.
Now, this is new information that was just published. In April of 2021 there was a World Health Organization consultation. Now, that’s fancy bureaucratic talk for we all get together and figure out what we’re gonna do. It was chaired by Margaret Liu of Merck, who was the person that was at the forefront of the team trying to get DNA vaccines developed back in the ’90s and failed. But she was the chairperson, very much an industrial scientist. In this meeting that brought together all the regulatory agencies from all over the world, it was decided to circumvent normal preclinical and clinical testing based on this shared core platform concept. That’s why I wanted you to understand what the platform was as opposed to the payload.
So there was a conference at WHO in which all the Western regulatory agencies got together and China, and they all agreed that we’re gonna treat this as a platform technology, and we’re going to push it through with very limited testing. And then once we’ve done that, new products can be rapidly developed by grandfathering in that old inadequate data package. Now, I’m not saying this as a conspiracy theory. It’s published. And we are now seeing that being deployed. The only new data that will be required for these new vaccine and mRNA based therapeutic products is going to be that associated with the payload. So they’re gonna assume that the platform is safe now because it’s been deployed in billions of people. That’s another reason why they have to deny all the adverse events ’cause the whole logic collapses otherwise.
The FDA position, and we’ve now seen this deployed, thank you for five minutes… We’ve now seen this deployed with the new boosters. The FDA position is that changes in the mRNA sequence for similar payloads do not require substantial non-clinical or clinical data. What that means is what we’ve seen. They went to manufacturing, sales, and deployment of these new vaccines with virtually no real testing. To the extent that they did any testing in mice what they found was that it didn’t in any way interfere with infection of those mice by the pathogen. It didn’t work in the mice. It doesn’t matter. They’ve all agreed that this is the new rules.
So now, we have over 100 clinical trials for mRNA vaccines, 51 of which are currently enrolling, the rest are about to start enrolling in the United States, and they’re all grandfathered based on what they assert is the clear evidence that there is no safety risks associated with this technology because it’s been deployed in billions of people in the United States and worldwide.
In addition, there’s over 200 clinical trials for mRNA based drugs based on this same logic. This all grandfathers in a technology platform, ignores that what’s being delivered is not natural RNA. And what it creates is a situation. This is how things work in regulatory space. There’s only two companies right now that have those approved data packages. And what that means is that these two companies now have a monopoly on any new drugs, or vaccines developed and deployed with this technology. Because anybody else that’s gonna try to come in with their own version of it is gonna have to go through all of that other testing and demonstrate that their stuff is at least as safe and effective as the stuff that’s been deployed on all of us. So what the FDA has done is granted a monopoly in perpetuity to Pfizer, BioNTech and Moderna.
So I hope that instead of talking about this toxicity or that toxicity, the event rate for the cardio toxicity, or whether or not we’re all going to die in five years that have taken the vaccines, what I’ve tried to do is to help you to comprehend what’s really going on underneath all of this. And remember my statement at the start, that’s not to say that this outbreak and the situation was not exploited for economic and power reasons by a bunch of other bad actors. It’s not to say that there wasn’t planning aforehand. It’s not to say that Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and Bill Gates has not made book on this. It’s not to say that in any way I’m denying that the corruption in the FDA, and the CDC and academia, as Paul was talking about, is profound and deep and systemic. I’m only giving you this little lens of looking through the RNA technology environment so that you can comprehend at least that part as you try to make sense out of everything else.
I thank you for your time. I hope it was helpful.’https://rwmalonemd.substack.com/p/mrna-vaccines-the-cia-and-national?publication_id=583200&post_id=80797095&isFreemail=true
‘Higher use of Covid mRNA shots correlates with a small but notable increase in all-cause mortality, according to a new paper from a Dutch researcher.
The paper draws on Dutch city- and town-level data on vaccinations and deaths to show that areas with high Covid vaccination rates have recently had high rates of all-cause mortality – deaths of all types, Covid or not.
Like many other European countries with high vaccination rates, the Netherlands has had high all-cause mortality for most of the last year, even when Covid deaths are excluded.
(Today, European statisticians reported yet another week of above-normal mortality, with almost 8,000 more weekly deaths than would be expected in midsummer:)
A few articles have recently mentioned the trend, although health authorities and most major news outlets continue to ignore it resolutely.
The finding in the new paper is particularly striking because the Netherlands has very high Covid vaccination levels nationally, so the differences between cities are relatively small. Almost every city had vaccination rates between 70 and 90 percent – mostly mRNA shots from Pfizer and Moderna, along with some DNA/AAV vaccines.
The paper found a “vaccination-correlated mortality rate” of about 5 percent of total mortality, meaning that 5 percent of deaths were skewed in patterns that reflected vaccination rates.
As the paper explains, the pattern does not prove that vaccinations actually caused those deaths, merely that the correlation exists. Still, since last summer, highly vaccinated countries have generally posted non-Covid death increases of 5 to 10 percent, the 5 percent figure is far from implausible.
A 5 percent increase in deaths may seem small, but by historical standards it is a huge annual change. It would translate into almost 175,000 extra deaths annually in the United States and more in Europe.
The paper has not been peer-reviewed, and its author, Andre Redert, is a computer scientist, not an epidemiologist (which is arguably a point in his favor). The
Redert finishes his discussion by acknowledging his paper’s “many shortcomings,” including its lack of age-stratified data, but writes:
Our main result remains alarming and calls for more research on the effect of current covid vaccines on all-cause mortality.
Don’t hold your breath.’https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/urgent-new-paper-suggests-covid-mrna/comments
The WEF followers continue their work for China via vaccines. https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/urgent-the-most-dangerous-move-yet?r=pbjs4&s=r&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
‘For the last 27 years I have been a professor at Boston College, teaching a mix of literature and writing courses to thousands of students. Then along came the booster mandates.
When the initial vaccines came out, my wife and I received ours. We had strong reservations about the mRNA vaccines and had decided we weren’t going to get one. However, my getting a vaccine was a condition of employment. We weighed our decision carefully. It was the J&J, or early retirement.
We were prepared to live with whatever the gods had in store, and had actually started thinking about how to fill in the hours. As luck would have it, the vaccine on offer that day was the J&J.
We sat down and rolled up our sleeves.
Subsequent information about vaccine efficacy and side effects, of the J&J as well as the others, made us regret getting that injection. But it was done. And I was still employed.
Early last December, very few, if any, universities had a booster requirement. Then something happened. The CDC sent up one of its smoke signals, or Dr. Rachel melted down again on TV. Whatever the case, universities, “following the science,” issued a booster mandate.
I began teaching in spring semester, hoping that as the weeks went along and more information about the pointlessness of getting the booster shot came out, administrators, and the doctors whispering in their ears, would come to their senses. This is called self-deception.
Every other week I received an email telling me to update my vaccine record. I ignored them. At Boston College, parents, students and alumni had put together a petition signed by some 900 people.
That, in addition to stories of students suffering from myocarditis—I had one student who received a booster waiver because the initial vaccine had done something to his heart muscle—made me hope the booster mandate would be removed, or at the very least, moderated down to “encouragement.”
Not so. A characteristic of people who don’t know what they are doing is to double down.
And double down they did.
Eight months after we were vaccinated, my wife and I became Covid “breakthrough” cases. The virus was mild, a day or two of feeling tired. Of course, we right away started taking ivermectin. And, of course, we passed the virus on to two other fully vaccinated people.
I was aware that some researchers thought that if you had been vaccinated and then subsequently contracted Covid, getting a booster shot, at best, was pointless; at worst, it might be harmful.
The remarks of Albert Bourla, Pfizer CEO, and citizen of the world, when he said the vaccines offered only “limited protection” against the Omicron variant served to underline my “resistance.”
I was convinced “the science” was on my side.
The Dean insisted “the science” was on his side. I’ll let him speak for himself: “If you fail to provide HR with proof of having received your COVID booster shot before the end of the day on Friday, February 25th, you will be suspended without pay and renewal of your contract will be placed in jeopardy.”
The tone is one bullies use on recalcitrant children. Power corrupts.
Well, I was done. The school and department narrative was that I had abandoned my students. This assumes the university had no other options. They had at least two, one of which would have been to compel me to get a PCR test every time I showed up on campus.
They had other ideas.
I subsequently received a FedEx letter from the President of the University in which he said that “my refusal [to obtain a COVID-19 booster] jeopardizes the health and well-being of our academic community,” a statement so contrary to epidemiological facts as to be risible.
But this is what we are up against.
This is my small story, one of thousands. This isn’t about science. If it was about science, we never would have attempted to shut down our economy. This is about power, and politics. The mandates are just another face of the political correctness that is crippling our universities.’https://brownstone.org/articles/the-purge-call-me-ishmael/
‘A jaw-dropping, peer-reviewed paper shows China’s old-school vaccine produces a far stronger T-cell response to the coronavirus than the Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA jab.
China’s CoronaVac shot caused people to make far more T-cells targeting the coronavirus than those who received Pfizer’s mRNA shot, scientists in Hong Kong have found.
Though it is only one datapoint, the study hints the Chinese shot – which is based on older, well understood principles of vaccinology – may ultimately provide longer-lasting protection than the hastily developed mRNA jabs from Pfizer and Moderna.
The study was published in a peer-reviewed journal called Respirology in November, but has (unsurprisingly) received no attention. It offers a rare head-to-head look at the immune-system effects of the Chinese and Pfizer Covid vaccines, which work in very different ways.
“Humoral responses” are antibodies, the body’s first-line defense against infection; the mRNA vaccines are known to produce supra-natural levels of antibodies, giving rise to short-term protection that fades within months.
T-cells are a part of the immune system crucial for producing long-term immunity and reducing severe disease in people who are infected. The mRNA jabs have been shown to produce relatively limited T-cell protection, but this study appears to have been the first time anyone directly compared them to the Chinese vaccine.
The scientists compared the immune responses in more than 700 people who had received either CoronaVac or mRNA shots, matching them by age and demographic data.
As expected, they found very high levels of anti-spike protein antibodies in people who received the mRNA shot. The mRNA jabs force our cells to make large amounts of the spike protein that sticks out of the shell of the coronavirus. Those proteins then cause the immune system to produce antibodies against it.
The CoronaVac recipients had lower levels of anti-spike protein antibodies. But they also had antibodies to other parts of the coronavirus. Even more importantly, when the scientists ran further tests on a smaller group of about 100 people, they found the CoronaVac shot had sharply increased the level of their coronavirus-targeting T-cells, which last far longer than antibodies.
The new T-cells targeted both the spike protein and another important part of the virus. They included both CD4+ T-cells – which stimulate the overall immune response to infection – and CD8+ T-cells – which directly attack infected cells. Meanwhile, the mRNA jab produced an equally good response in only one of those four types of T-cell.
“The average magnitude of post-vaccination responses was higher in CoronaVac subjects for structural and S-specific T-cell responses,” the researchers explain.
The research was possible because Hong Kong offers its citizens both the CoronaVac shot and the BNT162b2 mRNA jab – the Pfizer/BioNTech shot. (In Hong Kong, BNT162b2 is distributed by a Chinese drugmaker called Fosun, but it is still made by BioNTech and is identical to the shot Pfizer sells elsewhere. A Beijing-based company called Sinovac Biotech makes CoronaVac, which is not approved in the United States.)
CoronaVac’s advantage in producing a T-cell response probably occurs because it presents the body with an invader that is far more like the actual coronavirus than the mRNA shots do.
The CoronaVac shot is a traditional “inactivated virus” vaccine. It contains whole Sars-Cov-2 particles grown in kidney cells and chemically treated so they cannot reproduce. They are then injected alongside an “adujvant” meant to boost the immune response.
In short-term trials, the mRNA vaccines reduced infections far more than the CoronaVac and a second Chinese vaccine called Sinopharm BIBP, which is also an inactivated virus vaccine.
The early results led to considerable chest-pounding about the superiority of Western vaccines and biotechnology in general.
But the real-world data from the last year has made clear that the mRNA shots lose their protective effect quickly. Because they focus the body’s immune response on a small part of the coronavirus, they are also very vulnerable to new variants such as Omicron, even after a third “booster” dose.
In fact, Western countries have faced a much harsher Omicron wave since December than countries such as Indonesia, which used more Chinese vaccines than any country except China (although in the last two weeks Omicron cases have risen sharply in Indonesia).
The Hong Kong study may also help explain China’s apparent reluctance to move forward with mRNA vaccines – either its own or those from Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech. Fourteen months after Fosun announced a deal to make the BNT162b2 mRNA shot available in mainland China, Chinese regulators have refused to approve it.
Don’t worry, though, China will no doubt be glad to set up CoronaVac clinics at pharmacies across America if we ask nicely!’https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/no-wonder-china-isnt-using-mrna-shots?utm_source=url
‘mRNA from the Pfizer and Moderna shots can be found in lymph nodes for at least 60 days after injection.
Free-floating spike proteins circulate at high levels in the blood after vaccination.
Vaccinated people infected with variants of Sars-Cov-2 produce antibodies biased toward the original and now extinct variant – rather than the one that has actually infected them.
Conspiracy theories from Dr. Kennedy-Mercola’s We Hate Vaxxxines Digest?
Findings from a preprint in Cell, among the world’s leading scientific journals. Almost 50 researchers worldwide collaborated on the work, which Cell released online two weeks ago.
The preprint has received little attention, possibly because it discusses the potential implications of its findings only obliquely. In discussing the fact that the mRNA hamper the immune response to new variants, the researchers offer extra doses as a potential solution, for example:
Additional booster doses may be able to compensate for relatively decreased binding to new viral variant antigens, potentially decreasing the public health impact of antibody response imprinting.
Nonetheless, the preprint’s findings destroy comforting fictions about the mRNA shots, including that the body quickly destroys the genetic material in the jabs – as Reuters and other “fact-checkers” have long insisted.
In fact, researchers found vaccine mRNA in the germinal centers of lymph nodes for 60 days after the shots (as long as they checked).
The germinal centers play a crucial role in the immune system, where B-cells – which help produce long-term immunity – mature and learn to make antibodies to infection more efficiently.
The researchers also reported finding vaccine mRNA outside the germinal centers, though rarely.
The mRNA shots cause the body to make huge amounts of spike protein. Vaccine advocates have generally argued that those proteins remain bound to the cells where they were produced.
But the researchers also said they had found spike protein in the blood following mRNA shots at levels as high as those produced by coronavirus infection itself:
At least some portion of spike antigen generated after administration of BNT162b2 becomes distributed into the blood. We detected spike antigen in 96% of vaccinees in plasma collected one to two days after the prime injection, with antigen levels reaching as high as 174 pg/mL. The range of spike antigen concentrations in the blood of vaccinees at this early time point largely overlaps with the range of spike antigen concentrations reported in plasma in a study of acute infection.
Aside from that, everything is fine and we have nothing to worry about.’https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/urgent-new-research-turns-up-yet
‘SYDNEY — A University of New South Wales epidemiologist and World Health Organization (WHO) advisor is either facing incredible karma or is the latest high-profile, post-injection cancer victim.
There is now more than enough evidence showing that the mRNA and viral vector DNA injections hasten cancer. Dr. Azfal Niaz is the latest doctor upholding his Hippocratic Oath and warning people of these dangers. The New York medical doctor tweeted on November 22 that he’s seeing cancer rates that are 20 times higher since mRNA and viral vector DNA injections came to the market.
Less than 48 hours later, his Twitter account was permanently suspended. That means he’s telling the truth.
Dr. Ryan Cole has also tied the experimental injections to cancer. He cited a Dutch study that found mRNA manipulation suppresses the immune response of Toll Like Receptor 4 (TLR4). Said receptors fight off cancers in the human body. Researchers at the Sloan Kettering Institute also concluded that “changes in an information-carrying molecule called messenger RNA can inactivate tumor-suppressing proteins and thereby promote cancer.”
Dr. Judy Mikovits called the artificial spike proteins in the injections “cancer envelopes.” Dr. Craig Wax, a New Jersey family physician, tweeted his concerns about the injections “turn[ing] on oncogenes and caus[ing] cancer in young people.” His Twitter account was promptly suspended as well.’https://thecovidblog.com/2022/01/25/mary-louise-mclaws-australia-epidemiologist-and-who-advisor-who-called-the-non-vaccinated-self-centered-diagnosed-with-brain-tumor/?utm_source=January+25+2022