Guest User


a guest
Jan 5th, 2021
Not a member of Pastebin yet? Sign Up, it unlocks many cool features!
  1. I have carefully studied the development of the covid vaccines and many things about them are very concerning to me:
  3. (Numbered links are provided upon request in the replies)
  5. First of all, up until this point there has never been a successful vaccine for coronaviruses in humans, due to a problem typical of coronavirus vaccine development called antibody dependent enhancement or ADE. [1] In preliminary animal trials for previous coronavirus vaccines (SARS and MERS, for instance), animals were vaccinated and seemed to exhibit a robust antibody response, but upon exposure to the wild virus, they developed a paradoxical immune enhancement leading to severe organ inflammation (especially in their lungs), and they died. [2][3] Paradoxical immune response in coronavirus vaccines has also taken place in human trials, which occurred during testing of the failed RSV vaccines of the 1950s. [4] Alarmingly, there are some statistical indications of ADE in covid vaccine trials, but there is no way to know for sure because ADE wasn’t specifically addressed. [5] Due to emergency protocol, the usual methodology of testing animals prior to humans was bypassed and the potential for ADE was not assessed in human trial participants. [6] [7] Historical precedent would suggest, however, that ADE is a distinct possibility, and we may not know the true negative effects until possibly years from now when vaccinated persons are exposed to SARS-COV-2 or genetically similar versions of coronavirus. [8]
  7. Second, the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines contain lipid nanoparticles that are “PEGylated”, meaning the nanoparticles are coated with PEG (polyethylene glycol).[9] PEGs can lead to a life threatening anaphylactic reaction. [10] Such reactions are already occurring during the initial vaccine rollout and PEGs are the most likely culprit. [11] Approximately 72% of the US population have PEG antibodies, with 8% having extremely elevated levels (more than 500 ng/mL), putting them at risk for severe allergic reaction and/or future autoimmune conditions. [12] These reactions were totally predictable, with many experts warning of the danger posed by PEGs [13][14][15], yet participants with a history of severe allergic reaction were excluded from the trials, serving to obscure the actual negative impact PEGs will have now that these vaccines are being given to members of the public who have not been screened for PEG antibodies. [16] Additionally, nanoparticles (such as PEGylated hydrogel) are known components for state of the art medical interventions, including biosurveillance technology currently being developed by DARPA and companies like Profusa Inc that are seeking FDA approval [17][18][19][20][21]. To me, it is strange and concerning that these vaccines also contain PEGs (as an adjuvant), given what I just mentioned. I do not relish the prospect of being injected with nanoparticles given their association with the biosurveillance technology of the military industrial complex.
  9. Third, it is impossible to ascertain long term safety because of the foreshortened timeframe of Operation Warp Speed. [22] Vaccines should be tested for multiple years to adequately assess their longterm effects. [23] Short term safety is questionable too, as much of the data is still unavailable, and the current reports on safety and efficacy essentially amount to self-reported press releases from these companies themselves. [24]
  11. Fourth, the efficacy number of 90% for Pfizer and 94% for Moderna, is a statistical trick, reporting relative risk reduction instead of the real reduction of absolute risk (for more info, see below*). Also, the trials only assessed these vaccines’ ability to prevent mild symptoms and NOT their ability to prevent viral transmission. [25] If they don’t prevent people from transmitting the virus (especially when safer, cheaper drugs like Ivermectin do) [26] [27] what’s the point?
  13. Fifth, these are NOT vaccines in the normal sense. They are mRNA vaccines, a completely different process for achieving disease protection; mRNA vaccines seek to introduce messenger RNA into the body in order to “trick” cells into producing immunogens, which then stimulate an immune response. [28] These vaccines are the first of their kind ever to be authorized and distributed to this many people. [29] Those getting vaccinated are essentially an extension of phase 3 of the trials. [30] Because of the lack of long term safety assessment and the new nature of this technology, people are participating in a mass human experiment with no way of knowing for sure all the terrible long term health effects these could cause. Many problems from vaccines are known to have an incubatory period and do not manifest until much later on, which is why these need to be tested for multiple years to actually assess risk. [31] One such problem currently being discussed is the mRNA technology’s possible impact on fertility, as the spike protein it encourages your body to make is very similar to a protein crucial for placental development. This could interfere with the reproductive process. [32] The vaccines’ impact on fertility is currently unknown as animal reproductive toxicity studies have not been completed. [33]
  15. Sixth, there was a signature for many different problems seen in the various trials and initial rollout for these vaccines, problems that are concurrent with commonly documented vaccine injuries. Injuries that did occur in the various trials included, but were not limited to, anaphylaxis, Bell’s palsy, and transverse myelitis. [34] [35] [36] [37]
  17. Seventh, and perhaps most importantly, the movement toward potential vaccine mandates or other coercive policies violates humanity’s most universally accepted principles of human rights and medical ethics. This is especially true for a medical intervention with so many known and unknown safety/efficacy concerns. The absolute bedrock of medical ethics is the right to informed consent, as individuals must be made fully aware of all the potential benefits and risks associated with a medical intervention, whilst still maintaining the right to decline that intervention should they so choose. [41] Mandates or coercive measures fundamentally violate historical safeguards humanity has put in place to protect us from the ever present threat of medical tyranny, including the Nuremberg Code and the United Nations’ International Charter on Civil and Political Rights. [42] [43] Mandates or coercive medical interventions would also be in violation of the Hippocratic Oath; for not only do oath keepers pledge first to do no harm, but also to treat the needs of the patient. [44] This implies that a doctor’s duty primarily pertains to the needs of the individual before the needs of the collective, a vital distinction made by Hippocrates and understood for nearly 2 millennia. [45] Privileging the needs of the collective is a “fallacy of misplaced concreteness”. [46] Collective need is an abstract, subjective concept not easily defined. Yet who usually gets to define this concept? Collective need is most often defined by those in power and/or those with the most means to exert influence over institutional narratives, turning medical professionals who treat the needs of the collective according to this definition into merely an instrument of that power at the expense of individual informed consent.
  19. * Regarding the reporting on the reduction of relative risk instead of absolute risk, in the phase 3 trial of the Pfizer vaccine, for example, 22,000 people were vaccinated and 22,000 were given placebo, for a total of 44,000 trial participants. Of those 44,000, just 170 were diagnosed as having covid-19 post-vaccination. Of those 170, it was reported that 8 received the vaccine and 162 received the placebo. From this ratio it was inferred that the vaccine would prevent 154 out of 162 from getting the disease for an efficacy of greater than 90%. But even as the British Medical Journal explained, “A relative risk reduction is being reported, not absolute risk reduction, which appears to be less than 1%”. [39] It is very concerning that a vaccine is being given to tens or potentially hundreds of millions of people based on a figure derived from only 170 trial participants (just 0.38% of the total participants in the trial). [40]
  21. [1]
  22. [2]
  23. [3]
  24. [4]
  25. [5]
  26. [6]
  27. [7]
  28. [8]
  29. [9]
  30. [10]
  31. [11]
  32. [12]
  33. [13]
  34. [14]
  35. [15]
  36. [16]
  37. [17]
  38. [18]
  39. [19]
  40. [20]
  41. [21]
  42. [22]
  43. [23]
  44. [24]
  45. [25]
  46. [26]
  47. [27]
  48. [28]
  49. [29]
  50. [30]
  51. [31]
  52. [32]
  53. [33]
  54. [34]
  55. [35]
  56. [36]
  57. [37]
  58. [38]
  59. [39]
  60. [40]
RAW Paste Data Copied