Coronavirus vaccines may be the worst mistake we’ve ever made
June 30, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – Perhaps the most controversial issue surrounding the COVID-19 phenomenon at the present moment involves the introduction, promotion, and purported efficacy of the vaccines. We are assured by our governments and medical institutions that the vaccines are almost entirely safe; indeed, they have become increasingly obligatory.
But how safe are they? AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson use an adenovirus that has caused blood clotting and other medical issues. German scientists claim to have identified the problem with adenovirus vaccines: “The delivery mechanism means the vaccines send the DNA gene sequences of the spike protein [i.e., to manufacture an immune response] into the cell nucleus rather than the cytosol fluid found inside the cell where the virus normally produces proteins.” These companies will need to modify the gene sequence that codes for the spike protein to achieve better results, the researchers advise.
That the vaccines are experimental drugs, developed in record time without the standard years of medical verification and appropriate clinical safeguards, and that they are not, properly speaking, “vaccines” at all, but genomic substances injected into the body’s DNA, is rarely admitted. The mRNA “vaccines” made by Pfizer and Moderna, explains Global Research, “are a dangerously new exotic creature … that actively hijack[s] your genes and reprograms them,” using messenger ribonucleic acid to create a protein that prompts an immune response. Dr. Tal Zaks, chief medical officer at Moderna Inc., admits that “We are actually hijacking the software of life.”
All such troubling facts are lost in the shuffle of recommendations, incentives, assurances, rescripts, and decrees with which people are now inundated. As the COVID-19 Prevention Network informs us, normally, people get a vaccine and a waiting period ensues to see if the body produces antibodies against the virus. In the present circumstance, scientists “skip that step and give people the antibodies directly” — so-called monoclonal antibodies, which are different from traditional vaccines in that they are not self-generated. They are also dangerous.
The paper continues: One problem is that “these laboratory-made monoclonal antibodies usually last only for a few months, thus requiring people to get multiple infusions or injections.” A second problem is “vaccine-induced seropositivity.” In other words, some of the tests for coronavirus infection may return a positive result “even if you are not … infected with coronavirus.”
A third problem is that researchers “do not know if the COVID-19 vaccines … will lead to antibodies that can protect you from infection,” which calls the whole procedure into some doubt. Another worrisome consideration, which one can entertain with a reasonable degree of certainty, is that serious adverse effects caused by the vaccines will likely be attributed by the “experts” to the virus itself. This subterfuge would enable ever further or renewed restrictions.
It merits attending to a recent report released by the British government. The vaccine report card issued by the British Medicines & Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), covering the period between December 9, 2020 and May 12, 2021, is truly alarming. The enormous size of the spreadsheets makes it an accountant’s nightmare to navigate, a dilemma which is equally true of the Office for National Statistics (ONS). The best source, however, remains the British government’s own agency, the MHRA. Given the extensive and piecemeal dispersion of taxonomic specifics throughout the numberless digital layers, a precise audit is difficult to arrive at, but a plausible approximation may be calculated, if enough time and effort is invested.
We find that over the scale from minor to significant, the number of adverse reactions to the Pfizer vaccine has increased to a total of over 165,000. The number of adverse reactions to the AstraZeneca vaccine has increased to over 650,000. Moderna appears to fare better but, all told, the ratio of adverse reactions has grown to approximately 1 in every 152 people. These are not odds that I consider confidence-inspiring.
Among the more critical results, the report notes that many people have gone blind, as well as suffered impaired vision and other eye disorders, for a composite number approaching 3,000 for Pfizer and nearly 10,000 for AstraZeneca. Nervous system disorders — brain damage, facial paralysis, strokes, capillary leak syndrome — exceed 171,000. Cardiac issues are approaching a figure of 9,000, blood disorders are in the vicinity of 11,000, and gastrointestinal disorders stand at over 82,000. The total number of deaths as of May 12 is 1,180 in the U.K. alone.
These are actual government-authorized figures, not conspiracy fictions — and the numbers are rising. The report for May 27, covering the period up to May 19, gives 1,213 deaths. Nor is one encouraged by the news that Pfizer and AstraZeneca vaccines are now being investigated by the CDC after some teenagers and young adults experienced myocarditis, or heart inflammation, after getting the jab.
It stands to reason that adversity estimates for Europe and America are proportionately higher than we find in the British taxonomy. A May 26 report reveals that in the U.S., over 10,000 post-vaccine infections have recently been recorded, 10 percent of patients required hospital care, and 2 percent have died. At the same time, even the CDC is forced to acknowledge that the numbers it released are undercounted “because the data come from a national surveillance system that relies on passive and voluntary reporting.” The VAERS site (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) acknowledges that it receives reports “for only a small fraction of adverse events.” The real casualty rate could be orders of magnitude higher.
Similarly, the British reporting system relies on the Yellow Card Scheme, which functions much like VAERS in the U.S. It is “a mechanism by which anybody can voluntarily report any suspected adverse reactions (ADRs) or side effects to the vaccine.” As to be expected, the Agency tends to downplay these reports as often coincidental or due to undiagnosed illnesses, or comorbidities. Moreover, when one considers that Yellow Card reporting is “lower than the reporting rate of possible side effects from the clinical trials,” and that all suspected side effects may not be reported on Yellow Cards, we have every reason to grow suspicious. Passive sites do not yield macro-data.
In defiance of all common sense, the report concludes that “Vaccines are the best way to protect people from COVID-19 and have already saved thousands of lives.” How the experts can know this, since confirmational data are inherently and structurally debatable, escapes rational enquiry entirely. Where is the proof that these thousands of lives have been saved? How can we credit a conclusion that operates as a premise?
And for that matter, why thousands? One could just as well say that millions of lives have been saved, or, if it comes to that, billions of lives have been saved. There is simply no way of ultimately knowing if even any lives have been saved. We are being served a mere placebo statement.
Studies such as the Public Health England vaccine effectiveness report March 2021, a major driver of the vaccine rollout, and the CSH (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) medRxiv are jargon infested galimatias that must be read not to believe. Neither outfit says anything about COVID testing Ct (cycle threshold) rates which are easily manipulated — knowing these rates are absolutely crucial to assessing the validity of detection tests. As the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine has found, the typical Ct of between 33 to 40 and higher will pick up junk virus producing a non-infectious positive. On April 12, 2020, Anthony Fauci himself wrote that “Many tests that have been used thus far are not accurate and ARE MISLEADING.”
In addition, the CSH admits to a host of confounding issues in a long, hard-to-read unbroken paragraph — problematic factors mentioned and airily dismissed. This gives a sense of modesty and impartial authority to the study, which is in any case practically unreadable by the layman. Although a plethora of codes, neologisms, acronyms, statistics, and raw numbers are given for apparent successes, no data whatsoever are provided for the list of adverse factors — an omission that gives the game away.
Moreover, the CSH is error-prone. For example, its claim “that a new COVID-19 variant of concern (labelled VOC 202012/01) was found to be associated with increasing case numbers in Kent in South East England … that this variant has increased transmissibility and it has since become the dominant strain in large parts of the UK” is false, as Scotland’s The Herald makes clear. Such blatant mistakes render the entire document questionable. The CSH is just retrofitting the usual BBC boilerplate.
Taking issue with such dubious claims, an international team of virologists and microbiologists writing for the quality journal Vaccine has released a study exposing the vaccine fiasco foisted upon a fearful and credulous public. They describe over 20 possible long-term healing complications, including severe pneumonia from cross reactivity; that is, the vaccine could potentially cause a “covid spike.” The efficacy of the vaccines, they state, has been vastly overstated ... intentionally. The skeptics appear to have been right all along.
Further confirmation comes from Israel, which launched one of the strictest vaccine programs in the world. A report just released by two Israeli researchers, Drs. Haim Yativ and Hervé Seligman, relying on tables provided by the Israel Ministry of Health, reveals that most COVID deaths during a five-week-long vaccination period “are for vaccinated people.” The numbers show that “the vaccines, for the elderly … killed about 40 times more people than the disease itself would have killed, and about 260 times more people than the disease among the younger age class.”
Indeed, the overall context of abbreviated clinical trials in the production of the vaccines, the actual makeup of control groups, the uncertainty regarding Ct rates, the juggling of statistical methodologies to yield a pre-determined result, the tendency to omission of data, and the cloudy nature of viable post-injection verification render the entire operation questionable. We must recognize that the relevant and comprehensive data accounting for adverse effects are likely being massaged, misrepresented, or suppressed, and that it would be the height of folly to believe what we read or are told by those promoting widespread acceptance of the vaccines.
It is interesting to note that, before the jab, there are no warnings issued of possible side effects, including death, as required by law on every TV commercial for approved drugs. And since the “vaccines” have not yet been fully approved by the FDA and, more importantly, did not undergo the staple minimum ten-year trial and development period, none can say what nasty, pathogenic, and possibly life-threatening surprises the future may hold.
As Vaccine points out, “It is difficult to see how safe COVID-19 vaccines can be developed and fully tested for safety on development time scales of one to two years, as proposed presently … There is an incompatibility between the accelerated vaccine development times being pursued by government and industry and the long time required for validation of vaccine safety.” Long-term testing is essential under real-life conditions, including exposure to multiple toxic stimuli. That is the reality.
Most people will likely escape harmful consequences, at least for the present, but most people do not regard themselves as “most people,” and the evincible, though modified, statistics, as we have seen, are by no means reassuring. These accelerated quasi-vaccines may well have been the greatest mistake that our political, medical, and media orthodoxies have ever made. The British Agency urges everyone, unless advised otherwise, “to get their vaccination when asked to do so.” It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see the need for preventive caution.