A few friends have asked my thoughts on the covid jab(s) so I thought it was time to write an article on the topic.
All my friends had not heard most of the details I shared, so I figured you might appreciate hearing some of what I told them.
Knowing how contentious this issue is, part of me would rather just write about something else, but I feel like the discussion/news is so one-sided that I should speak up.
As I always strive to do, I promise to do my best to be level-headed and non-hysterical.
I'm not here to pick a fight with anyone, just to walk you through some of what I've read, my lingering questions, and explain why I can't make sense of these covid vaccines.
THREE GROUND RULES FOR DISCUSSION
If you care to engage on this topic with me, excellent.
Here are the rules...
I am more than happy to correspond with you if...
-
You are respectful and treat me the way you would want to be treated.
-
You ask genuinely thoughtful questions about what makes sense to you.
-
You make your points using sound logic and don't hide behind links or the word "science." In other words, make a kind, level-headed argument (links welcome), but don't just post a link and say "read the science." That's intellectually lazy.
If you do respond, and you break any of those rules, your comments will be ignored/deleted.
With that out of the way, let me say this...
I don't know everything, but so far no one has been able to answer the objections below.
So here are the reasons I'm opting out of the covid vaccine.
#1: VACCINE MAKERS ARE IMMUNE FROM LIABILITY
The only industry in the world that bears no liability for injuries or deaths resulting from their products, are vaccine makers.
First established in 1986 with the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, and reinforced by the PREP Act, vaccine makers cannot be sued, even if they are shown to be negligent.
The covid-vaccine makers are allowed to create a one-size-fits-all product, with no testing on sub-populations (i.e. people with specific health conditions), and yet they are unwilling to accept any responsibility for any adverse events or deaths their products cause.
If a company is not willing to stand behind their product as safe, especially one they rushed to market and skipped animal trials on, I am not willing to take a chance on their product.
No liability. No trust.
Here's why...
#2: THE CHECKERED PAST OF THE VACCINE COMPANIES
The four major companies who are making these covid vaccines have either:
-
Never brought a vaccine to market before covid (Moderna), or
-
Are serial felons (Pfizer, Astra Zeneca, and Johnson and Johnson).
Moderna had been trying to "Modernize our RNA" (thus the company name)--for years, but had never successfully brought ANY product to market--how nice for them to get a major cash infusion from the government to keep trying.
In fact, all major vaccine makers (save Moderna) have paid out tens of billions of dollars in damages for other products they brought to market when they knew those products would cause injuries and death--see Vioxx, Bextra, Celebrex, Thalidomide, and opioids as a few examples.
If drug companies willfully choose to put harmful products in the market, when they can be sued, why would we trust any product where they have NO liability?
In case it hasn't sunk in, let me reiterate...3 of the 4 covid vaccine makers have been sued for products they brought to market even though they knew injuries and deaths would result.
-
Johnson & Johnson has lost major lawsuits in 1995, 1996, 2001, 2010, 2011, 2016, 2019 (For what it's worth, J&J's vaccine also contains tissues from aborted fetal cells, perhaps a topic for another discussion)
-
Pfizer has the distinction of the biggest criminal payout in history. They have lost so many lawsuits it's hard to count. You can check out their rap sheet here. Maybe that's why they are demanding that countries where they don't have liability protection put up collateral to cover vaccine-injury lawsuits.
-
Astra Zeneca has similarly lost so many lawsuits it's hard to count. Here's one. Here's another...you get the point. And in case you missed it, the company had their covid vaccine suspended in at least 18 countries over concerns of blood clots, and they completely botched their meeting with the FDA with numbers from their study that didn't match.
-
Oh, and apparently J&J (whose vaccine is approved for "Emergency Use" in the US) and Astrazenca (whose vaccine is not approved for "Emergency Use" in the US), had a little mix up in their ingredients...in 15 million doses. Oops.
Let me reiterate this point:
Given the free pass from liability, and the checkered past of these companies, why would we assume that all their vaccines are safe and made completely above board?
Where else in life would we trust someone with that kind of reputation?
To me that makes as much sense as expecting a remorseless, abusive, unfaithful lover to become a different person because a judge said deep down they are a good person.
No. I don't trust them.
No liability. No trust.
Here's another reason why I don't trust them.
#3: THE UGLY HISTORY OF ATTEMPTS TO MAKE CORONAVIRUS VACCINES
There have been many attempts to make viral vaccines in the past that ended in utter failure, which is why we did not have a coronavirus vaccine in 2020.
In the 1960's, scientists attempted to make an RSV (Respiratory Syncytial Virus) vaccine for infants.
In that study, they skipped animal trials because they weren't necessary back then.
In the end, the vaccinated infants got much sicker than the unvaccinated infants when exposed to the virus in nature, with 80% of the vaccinated infants requiring hospitalization, and two of them died.
After 2000, scientists made many attempts to create coronavirus vaccines.
For the past 20 years, all ended in failure because the animals in the clinical trials got very sick and many died, just like the children in the 1960's.
You can read a summary of this history/science here.
Or if you want to read the individual studies you can check out these links:
-
In 2004 attempted vaccine produced hepatitis and liver damage in ferrets
-
In 2005 mice and civets became sick and more susceptible to coronaviruses after being vaccinated
-
In 2012 the ferrets became sick and died. And in this study mice and ferrets developed lung disease.
-
In 2016 this study also produce lung disease in mice.
The typical pattern in the studies mentioned above is that the children and the animals produced beautiful antibody responses after being vaccinated.
The manufacturers thought they hit the jackpot.
The problem came when the children and animals were exposed to the wild version of the virus.
When that happened, an unexplained phenomenon called Antibody Dependent Enhancement (ADE) also known as Vaccine Enhanced Disease (VED) occurred where the immune system produced a "cytokine storm" (i.e. overwhelmingly attacked the body), and the children/animals died.
Here's the lingering issue...
The vaccine makers have no data to suggest their rushed vaccines have overcome that problem.
In other words, never before has any attempt to make a coronavirus vaccine been successful, nor has the gene-therapy technology that is mRNA "vaccines" been safely brought to market, but hey, since they had billions of dollars in government funding, I'm sure they figured that out.
Except they don't know if they have...
#4: THE "DATA GAPS" SUBMITTED TO THE FDA BY THE VACCINE MAKERS
When vaccine makers submitted their papers to the FDA for the Emergency Use Authorization (Note: An EUA is not the same as a full FDA approval), among the many "Data Gaps" they reported was that they have nothing in their trials to suggest they overcame that pesky problem of Vaccine Enhanced Disease.
They simply don't know--i.e. they have no idea if the vaccines they've made will also produce the same cytokine storm (and deaths) as previous attempts at such products.
As Joseph Mercola points out...
"Previous attempts to develop an mRNA-based drug using lipid nanoparticles failed and had to be abandoned because when the dose was too low, the drug had no effect, and when dosed too high, the drug became too toxic. An obvious question is: What has changed that now makes this technology safe enough for mass use?"
If that's not alarming enough, here are other gaps in the data--i.e. there is no data to suggest safety or efficacy regarding:
-
Anyone younger than age 18 or older than age 55
-
Pregnant or lactating mothers
-
Auto-immune conditions
-
Immunocompromised individuals
-
No data on transmission of covid
-
No data on preventing mortality from covid
-
No data on duration of protection from covid
Hard to believe right?
In case you think I'm making this up, or want to see the actual documents sent to the FDA by Pfizer and Moderna for their Emergency Use Authorization, you can check out this, or this respectively. The data gaps can be found starting with page 46 and 48 respectively.
For now let's turn our eyes to the raw data the vaccine makers used to submit for emergency use authorization.
#5: NO ACCESS TO THE RAW DATA FROM THE TRIALS
Would you like to see the raw data that produced the "90% and 95% effective" claims touted in the news?
Me too...
But they won't let us see that data.
As pointed out in the BMJ, something about the Pfizer and Moderna efficacy claims smells really funny.
There were “3,410 total cases of suspected, but unconfirmed covid-19 in the overall study population, 1,594 occurred in the vaccine group vs. 1,816 in the placebo group.”
Wait...what?
Did they fail to do science in their scientific study by not verifying a major variable?
Could they not test those "suspected but unconfirmed" cases to find out if they had covid?
Apparently not.
Why not test all 3,410 participants for the sake of accuracy?
Can we only guess they didn't test because it would mess up their "90-95% effective" claims?
Where's the FDA?
Would it not be prudent for the FDA, to expect (demand) that the vaccine makers test people who have "covid-like symptoms," and release their raw data so outside, third-parties could examine how the manufacturers justified the numbers?
I mean it's only every citizen of the world we're trying to get to take these experimental products...
Why did the FDA not require that? Isn't that the entire purpose of the FDA anyway?
Good question.
Foxes guarding the hen house?
Seems like it.
No liability. No trust.
#6: NO LONG-TERM SAFETY TESTING
Obviously, with products that have only been on the market a few months, we have no long-term safety data.
In other words, we have no idea what this product will do in the body months or years from now--for ANY population.
Given all the risks above (risks that ALL pharmaceutical products have), would it not be prudent to wait to see if the worst-case scenarios have indeed been avoided?
Would it not make sense to want to fill those pesky "data gaps" before we try
Share this article on:
Facebook
Google+
Twitter