CONFIRMED: NO ONE HAS DIED FROM ANY COVID VACCINE…?
The video shows a current cartoon being peddled to children on how great vaccines are – while taking jabs at “anti-vaxxers”, followed by Seema Yasmin, a doctor and medical journalist announcing that the COVID injection hasn’t caused any deaths. To read more on the severe reactions and deaths.
Please remember, there are no animals studies using these injections. Those currently receiving the COVID injection are participating in an ongoing vaccine trial.
Regarding Ms. Yasmin – she is paid by WHO to debunk “COVID myths.”
Recently I posted a bill being considered in the District of Columbia allowing minors to be vaccinated without parental knowledge or consent. Unfortunately, this bill passed. This is very concerning for all parents, but particularly for parents with children infected with Lyme/MSIDS.
The bill prohibits doctors from including any mention of inoculation in the child’s medical record
The child’s own physician may also have no idea the shot has been given
It prohibits the child’s school from any mention of it in any record the parents might see
It prohibits insurance companies from issuing an Explanation of Benefits telling the parent that the shot was paid for
Starting last week, it is now conceivable for any children 11 years or older in the district to have vaccinations neither their parents nor their doctor knows anything about.
I predict this will be a trend attempted in each state. Hopefully it is clear that not only does this bill encroach on Parental Rights, but ultimately harms children who are not equipped to make these decisions alone.
Vaccines Summit Ohio 2021 March 1-3, 2021 Ohio, USA
G. Vanden Bossche, DVM, PhD Independent Vaccine Research Consultant (formerly employed at GAVI and The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundaton)
When one follows the science, and nothing but the science, it becomes extremely difficult to not label ongoing mass vaccination campaigns as a crime, not only to public health but also to individual health.
The more we use these vaccines for immunizing people in the midst of a pandemic, the more infectious the virus will become. With increasing infectiousness comes an increased likelihood of viral resistance to the vaccines. It’s not exactly rocket science, it’s a basic principle taught in a student’s first vaccinology class: One shouldn’t use a prophylactic vaccine in populations exposed to high infectious pressure (which is now certainly the case as multiple highly infectious variants are currently circulating in many parts of the world).
I am beyond worried about the disastrous impact this would have on our human ‘race’. Not only would people lose vaccine-mediated protection but also their precious, variant-nonspecific (!), innate immunity will be gone (this is because vaccinal antibodies outcompete natural antibodies for binding to Covid-19, even when their affinity for the viral variant is relatively low). Dr. Bossche
In an open letter to the World Health Organization (WHO), Bossche wrote that “we are currently turning vaccinees into asymptomatic carriers shedding infectious variants.”
Further, according to this, the government incorrectly assumed asymptomatic spread, and continues to deny science which shows long-lasting immunity from infection – treating one-third of the population as “ticking time bombs.”
A new comprehensive study from Harvard Medical School and Boston University researchers should put this latest myth to rest.
There has been much discussion over whether the vaccine confers immunity against the new variants, but the more important fact is that previous infection confers such immunity, as is the case with nearly every virus. Indeed, cases have plummeted in South Africa and England precisely since the new variants have been discovered, which would be difficult without natural immunityfrom the prior waves working against the new variants.Source
**UPDATE**
In this rebuttal, Rosemary Frei, MSc, outlines what she says are “a few of the dozens of clues” suggesting that Bossche’s argument “is a continuation of the overall COVID deception,” and unproven hypotheses built upon “high-profile modeling paper authors who use theoretical frameworks to inflame fears about the supposed dangerousness of the new variants.”
Frei also points out Bossche has clear conflicts of interest as a vaccine developer who is focusing on vaccines that “educate the immune system in ways that are to some extent more efficient than we do right now with our conventional vaccines.” (Read Frei’s rebuttal in full in the link above.)
Firstly, it was wrong to claim that this virus was novel.
Secondly, It was even more wrong to claim that the population would not already have some immunity against this virus.
Thirdly, it was the crowning of stupidity to claim that someone could have Covid-19 without any symptoms at all or even to pass the disease along without showing any symptoms whatsoever.
Moderna’s Top Scientist on mRNA Technology in COVID Shots: “We are Actually Hacking the Software of Life”
Comments by Brian Shilhavy Editor, Health Impact News
Veteran investigative reporter Leo Hohmann has discovered a 2017 Ted Talk presentation by Dr. Tal Zaks, the chief medical officer at Moderna Inc., where he clearly explains in layperson’s language just what the mRNA technology does in vaccines. (Thanks to Patrick Wood of Technocracy News for publishing this.)
As Dr. Zaks clearly states, they are:
“hacking the software of life,” by injecting their own genetic code into humans.
What we are witnessing in this new class of “vaccines” is clearly the wedding together of digital technology born out of the computer age, with Darwinian biology and medicine.
In short, the new technocrats of medicine actually believe they can improve the design plan of human beings, replacing God.
This is not a conspiracy theory, as they are very arrogant and very open about just what they dream about achieving.
This is first and foremost a belief system, with very little to no science involved to back up their claims.
We are quickly moving from the realm of science fiction and entertainment, as we see in Hollywood presentations such as Star Trek, where humans can be disassembled and transported (beamed) through space and miraculously put back together instantly, or food can be “replicated” at the push of a button, to real life experiments based on these beliefs by Billionaire psychopaths who have nothing better to do with their wealth other than try to improve upon the human race.
Welcome to the brave new world of post-COVID, and the transhumanist agenda. The software engineers of yesterday, who cannot even create a virus-free computer operating system, are now in charge of the “software of life” and working together with the Big Pharma criminal cartel. They also fund and control what is broadcast in the corporate media.
What could possibly go wrong?
Moderna’s top scientist: ‘We are actually hacking the software of life’
Dr. Tal Zaks, the chief medical officer at Moderna Inc., explained in a 2017 TED talk how the company’s mRNA vaccine was designed to work.
Over the last 30 years, he said,
“we’ve been living this phenomenal digital scientific revolution, and I’m here today to tell you, that we are actually hacking the software of life, and that it’s changing the way we think about prevention and treatment of disease.”
He went on to explain [see video below] that the human body is made up of organs and organs are made up of cells.
In every cell there’s this thing called messenger RNA or mRNA for short, that transmits the critical information from the DNA in our genes to the protein, which is really the stuff we’re all made out of. This is the critical information that determines what the cell will do. So we think about it as an operating system.
So if you could change that, if you could introduce a line of code, or change a line of code, it turns out, that has profound implications for everything, from the flu to cancer.
I reported on Feb. 4 that Moderna describes its new vaccine as “a computer operating system” but I was not aware at that time that Zaks had spoken three years ago about this, totally debunking the establishment media’s lie that mRNA vaccines don’t alter your genetic code.
He could not be more clear when he said “We are actually hacking the software of life.”
Zaks stressed that in 2017 his company was working on a vaccine that would not act like any previous vaccine ever created.
“Imagine if instead of giving [the patient] the protein of a virus, we gave them the instructions on how to make the protein, how the body can make its own vaccine,” he said.
Zaks said it took decades to sequence the human genome, which was accomplished in 2003, “And now we can do it in a week.”
He proceeded to reveal, in 2017, his company’s plans to make individual cancer vaccines, tailored to the needs of individual cancer patients, “because every cancer is different.”
Interestingly, one of the most potentially catastrophic side effects of the mRNA vaccine is its interaction with cancer cells. According to a study at New York City-based Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, the mRNA has a tendency to inactivate tumor-suppressing proteins, meaning it can promote the growth of cancer cells.
Both the Moderna and Pfizer injections are experimental mRNA vaccines. The FDA has only granted these injections Emergency Use Authorization [EUA] and they will remain in trials through 2023, yet the government, media and corporations are all promoting them as though they are guaranteed safe.
This systemic deception will, in my opinion, end up being judged in the rear-view mirror of history as one of the most reckless acts of medical treachery ever committed against the human race.
If this so-called vaccine does cause more people to get cancer, think of the possibilities from a purely business point of view.
Based on the predictions of Dr. Zaks, who oversaw the creation of the vaccine now being given to millions of people worldwide, the same Big Pharma companies that could potentially give people cancer with one vaccine could step forward later with another vaccine offering the cure for cancer. If you are the CEO of a mega pharmaceutical who answers to profit-driven Wall Street shareholders, that’s a brilliant strategy!
But is it ethical from a medical point of view? That’s a question nobody is asking.
As I listen to Dr. Zaks lay out the achievements of his company in creating the mRNA vaccine, I cannot help but think of how incredibly arrogant it sounds. That scientists think they can rewrite the genetic code [his words not mine for all you out there who still don’t believe these mRNA vaccines change the genetic code just because some ‘fact checker’ says they don’t], believing they can improve on a person’s God-given genetic makeup is entering dangerous territory.
Who’s to say they won’t correct one problem and create something far worse?
Zaks wrapped up his 2017 speech with the following words.
“If you think about what it is we’re trying to do. We’ve taken information and our understanding of that information and how that information is transmitted in a cell, and we’ve taken our understanding of medicine and how to make drugs, and we’re fusing the two. We think of it as information therapy.”
Information therapy. Just like a computer software code.
These scientists truly believe that the human body is nothing more than a machine that can be hacked into and reordered according to some programmer’s instructions.
The same ground-breaking nature of this research that excites some, is what horrifies others.
A person’s genetic makeup is, as Dr. Zak said, “the software of life.”
If this is true, then who should be the ultimate authority over each human being’s genetic software code? If we truly live in a free society, wouldn’t it stand to reason that we would want to have an energetic debate over how to answer that question? Shouldn’t it be the number-one issue being debated in Congress and the media?
Instead, nobody is allowed to even ask these questions without being threatened, censored, rebuked, deplatformed. Members of the corporate media who dare broach the question get fired.
Contrary to what some scientists believe, we are not machines. We are human beings with bodies, souls and free wills. Anyone who tries to mandate the acceptance of an experimental gene-altering treatment is going against the international Nuremberg Codes, which require informed consent of any experimental treatment.
Dear readers: Please do not allow your employer, your government, your family, your friends or anyone else to intimidate you, or in any way try to persuade you, to accept this experimental treatment if you do not want it.
You are your own health authority, period. If your employer threatens you with termination for rejecting this injection, please contact an attorney.
Leo Hohmann is a veteran investigative reporter and author whose recent book, “Stealth Invasion” spent the majority of 2017 among Amazon.com’s top 10 books about immigration policy. He has spent decades researching and writing about education, immigration, crime, politics and religion. His articles have appeared at WND.com, FrontPage Magazine, Jihad Watch, the Drudge Report, Canon 212, Technocracy News, TheReligionOfPeace.com and many other websites and publications. Hohmann has been interviewed by dozens of local and national radio hosts including Laura Ingraham of Fox News, Daniel Horowitz of Conservative Review, Larry Elder, George Noory of Coast to Coast, John B. Wells of Caravan to Midnight and Jan Markell of Olive Tree Ministries. His mission has always been to fearlessly report truths about the great issues of our time and connect the dots, wherever they may lead. He also seeks to report issues in historical context so his readers can grasp the greater meaning of the day’s news.
Important information from Steven F. Hotze, M.D.,Founder and CEO of the Hotze Health & Wellness Center, Hotze Vitamins and Physicians Preference Pharmacy, Intl.
False Positives of Unilateral Lymphadenopathy (abnormal lymph nodes) Seen on X-rays After COVID Injection:
Leaked documents show that some early commercial batches of Pfizer-BioNTech’s covid-19 vaccine had lower than expected levels of intact mRNA, prompting wider questions about how to assess this novel vaccine platform, writes Serena Tinari
As it conducted its analysis of the Pfizer-BioNTech covid-19 vaccine in December, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) was the victim of a cyberattack.1More than 40 megabytes of classified information from the agency’s review were published on the dark web, and several journalists—including from The BMJ—and academics worldwide were sent copies of the leaks. They came from anonymous email accounts and most efforts to interact with the senders were unsuccessful. None of the senders revealed their identity, and the EMA says it is pursuing a criminal investigation.
The BMJ has reviewed the documents, which show that regulators had major concerns over unexpectedly low quantities of intact mRNA in batches of the vaccine developed for commercial production.
EMA scientists tasked with ensuring manufacturing quality—the chemistry, manufacturing, and control aspects of Pfizer’s submission to the EMA—worried about “truncated and modified mRNA species present in the finished product.” Among the many files leaked to The BMJ, an email dated 23 November by a high ranking EMA official outlined a raft of issues. In short, commercial manufacturing was not producing vaccines to the specifications expected, and regulators were unsure of the implications. EMA responded by filing two “major objections” with Pfizer, along with a host of other questions it wanted addressed.
The email identified “a significant difference in % RNA integrity/truncated species” between the clinical batches and proposed commercial batches—from around 78% to 55%. The root cause was unknown and the impact of this loss of RNA integrity on safety and efficacy of the vaccine was “yet to be defined,” the email said.
Ultimately, on 21 December, EMA authorised Pfizer-BioNTech’s vaccine. The agency’s public assessment report, a technical document published on its website, noted, “the quality of this medicinal product, submitted in the emergency context of the current (covid-19) pandemic, is considered to be sufficiently consistent and acceptable.”2
It’s unclear how the agency’s concerns were satisfied. According to one of the leaked emails dated 25 November, positive news had come from an undisclosed source in the US: “The latest lots indicate that % intact RNA are back at around 70-75%, which leaves us cautiously optimistic that additional data could address the issue,” the email said.
A near miss?
It’s also unclear whether the events in November constitute a near miss in the commercial manufacturing of mRNA vaccines.
EMA says the leaked information was partially doctored, explaining in a statement that “whilst individual emails are authentic, data from different users were selected and aggregated, screenshots from multiple folders and mailboxes have been created, and additional titles were added by the perpetrators.”3
But the documents offer the broader medical community a chance to reflect on the complexities of quality assurance for novel mRNA vaccines, which include everything from the quantification and integrity of mRNA and carrier lipids to measuring the distribution of particle sizes and encapsulation efficiency. Of particular concern is RNA instability, one of the most important variables relevant to all mRNA vaccines that has thus far received scant attention in the clinical community. It is an issue relevant not just to Pfizer-BioNTech’s vaccine but also to those produced by Moderna, CureVac, and others,4 as well as a “second generation” mRNA vaccine being pursued by Imperial College London.5
RNA instability is one of the biggest hurdles for researchers developing nucleic acid based vaccines. It is the primary reason for the technology’s stringent cold chain requirements and has been addressed by encapsulating the mRNA in lipid nanoparticles (box).
“The complete, intact mRNA molecule is essential to its potency as a vaccine,” professor of biopharmaceutics Daan J.A. Crommelin and colleagues wrote in a review article in The Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences late last year. “Even a minor degradation reaction, anywhere along a mRNA strand, can severely slow or stop proper translation performance of that strand and thus result in the incomplete expression of the target antigen.”6
Crommelin and colleagues note that specific regulatory guidance for mRNA based vaccines has yet to be developed, and The BMJ’s attempts to clarify current standards were unsuccessful.
Transparency and confidentiality
The BMJ asked Pfizer, Moderna, and CureVac, as well as several regulators, what percentage mRNA integrity they consider acceptable for vaccines against covid-19. None offered any specifics.
The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, the UK’s medicines regulator, acknowledged the lack of a specified percentage RNA integrity, but declined to provide further detail. “The specification limit acceptance criteria are commercially confidential,” the agency said in an email.
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) directed The BMJ to read its guidance documents78 and its review of Pfizer’s vaccine,9 but none of these specify the percentage RNA the agency is requiring. Asked to comment, the regulator pointed to Pfizer:
“information that you seek that is not addressed in the FDA Review Memorandum should be directed to Pfizer.”
In subsequent correspondence, FDA, EMA, and Canadian government department Health Canada all stated that specific information related to the acceptability criteria is confidential.
EMA did acknowledge, however, that vaccine efficacy depends on the presence of suitable amounts of intact mRNA. In the case of the commercial batches that first raised alarm bells, the agency told The BMJ that the levels of truncated mRNA “and the amounts of a potential protein produced by the truncated mRNA would be too low to constitute a safety risk.” EMA did not comment on how truncated mRNA might affect efficacy. The issue was satisfactorily addressed, the agency underlined, when further information was supplied by the manufacturer.
Health Canada told The BMJ that Pfizer had conducted investigations into the root cause of reduced integrity in the commercial vaccine batches, and “changes were made in their processes to ensure that the integrity was improved and brought in line with what was seen for clinical trial batches.” Health Canada said the three agencies subsequently determined that “there was no concern with the RNA integrity or any other product specifications.”
Correspondence in the leaked documents suggests that FDA, Health Canada, and EMA were aligned on clinically qualified specifications of percentage mRNA integrity. Health Canada has confirmed to The BMJ that regulators “have worked together to align those requirements,” but all agencies declined to share with The BMJ any specifics on grounds that such information was commercially sensitive.
Pfizer also declined to comment on what percentage mRNA integrity it is aiming for, nor would it address questions about the cause of the unexpectedly low percentage mRNA integrity in certain batches, leaving open the question of whether it could happen again. Pfizer stressed: “Each batch of vaccines is tested by the official medicinal control laboratory—the Paul Ehrlich Institute in Germany—before final product release. As a result, the quality of all vaccine doses that are placed on the market in Europe has been double tested to ensure compliance with the specifications agreed upon with the regulatory authorities.”
Moderna’s chief corporate affairs officer Ray Jordan declined to respond to any of The BMJ’s questions, stating: “At this point, Moderna will not be offering additional commentary on these topics.”
CureVac, whose mRNA vaccine was submitted for EMA’s “rolling review” in February,10 told The BMJ that “it is too soon to give details.”
The shortage of information may reflect the lack of certainty, even among regulators, about how to assess the evidence fully for this novel technology. Professor Crommelin told The BMJ that, “For small, low molecular weight products, the active pharmaceutical ingredient integrity is typically close to 100%.”
But for mRNA vaccines? “Experience with mRNA integrity is limited.”
Lipid nanoparticles—where do they go and what do they do?
Conceived three decades ago, RNA based therapeutics11 have long inspired imaginations for their theoretical potential to transform cells of the body into “an on-demand drug factory.”12 But despite heavy investment by the biotech industry, bench-to-bedside translation was constantly hindered by the fragility of mRNA.
Over the years, researchers attempted to resolve intrinsic instability by encapsulating mRNA in nanocarriers made of polymers, lipids, or inorganic materials. Lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) were chosen by Moderna, Pfizer-BioNTech, CureVac, and Imperial College London for their covid-19 vaccines. This has attracted the attention of specialists in the field of pharmaceutical biotechnology, some of whom have raised concerns about further unknowns.
In a rapid response posted on bmj.com, JW Ulm, a gene therapy specialist who has published on tissue targeting of therapeutic vectors,13 raised concerns about the biodistribution of LNPs:
“At present, relatively little has been reported on the tissue localisation of the LNPs used to encase the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein-encoding messenger RNA, and it is vital to have more specific information on precisely where the liposomal nanoparticles are going after injection.”14
It is an unknown that Ulm worries could have implications for vaccine safety.
Ulm told The BMJ:
“Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna did a remarkable job of rapidly scaling up manufacturing of such a novel system in swift fashion, which is genuinely a landmark technological achievement. However, pharmacokinetic studies, with independent laboratory confirmation, are essential to ascertain potential cytotoxicity and macroscopic toxicity, especially given the likelihood of booster injections over months or years,since the tissue trafficking patterns of the mRNA vaccine payload will determine which cells and tissues are killed by cytotoxic T-cells in each round.”
Given the variation in LNP formulations, it is unclear how relevant previous animal experiments are to answering this question.
Regulators and manufacturers contacted by The BMJ for this article did not wish to address any of the questions raised by Ulm’s rapid response.
Footnotes
Competing interests: I have read and understood the BMJ Group policy on declaration of interests and have no relevant interests to declare.
Provenance and peer review: commissioned; externally peer reviewed
This article is made freely available for use in accordance with BMJ’s website terms and conditions for the duration of the covid-19 pandemic or until otherwise determined by BMJ. You may use, download and print the article for any lawful, non-commercial purpose (including text and data mining) provided that all copyright notices and trade marks are retained.
US Food and Drug Administration. Emergency use authorization for vaccines to prevent covid-19/Guidance for Industry. 2021. https://www.fda.gov/media/142749/download
. Complex determinants within the Moloney murine leukemia virus capsid modulate susceptibility of the virus to Fv1 and Ref1-mediated restriction. Virology2007;363:245–55.
Madison Area Lyme Support Group 