Largest Covid Vaccine Study Yet Finds Links to Health Conditions

Misinformation.

And just ignorance of the report.

 

Not mine.

Not mine, and that didnt come from "the report".

 

Yes it was!

It came from a report cited on numerous threads. If you say it didn't come from a report, where did YOU get it from? Most people will have a good guess!

 

Evasion - articulate the issues and claims you are trying to put out here or simply concede that you dont know.

Ok fine, then articulate and provide which data sources are for what, and provide all the data sources for your claim that you seem to think I am too ignorant to understand. If you cant do that then simply concede.

 

Incredible. So not only does he fire back that it's ME evading the issue, when it is clearly him, we now get the bullshit shifting of the burden of proof!

PROVE IT, show your source!

 

Its already been proven! Dont you read the threads?

Already proven folks dont be bothered with the above drivel.

 

Yeah, page previous you said this!

No citations/links. PROVE IT, show your source!

 

I already did why do you insist on me reposting this **** in every thread? So you can claim that I'm spamming is that the deal going on here?

You have Google, Google the inventors testimony.

Not that it would surprise me that internet posters on a forum think they know better and the person who invented this ****.

 

Yep, I noticed that. I try not to worry about it though, I address my content indirectly at any potential fence-sitters and hope they don't get sucked in by all the anti-vax lies.

 

That's the trouble when you create so many spam threads. you have made NO citations in this 4 page thread. Zero.
It's hard to keep up with your cross thread duplication / spamming.
Now, show your damn source! It's very odd that you seem afraid to actually post the usual cherry picked batshit! Are you worried there are more things in the report you don't understand?

 

Not only here!

 

The mRNA vaccines are not a gene therapy. A gene therapy is a medical approach that attempts to treat or prevent disease by correcting an underlying genetic problem. The simplest explanation is the introduction of normal genes into cells which replaces missing or defective ones in order to correct genetic disorders. The vaccines use mRNA to deliver specific instructions for cells to produce spike protein so the immune system can produce antibodies against the virus. The genetic material contained in the mRNA does not enter the nuclei of the cells so therefore can’t alter existing DNA.

Since you keep erroneously stating the vaccines are a DNA based gene therapy, how about you explain why this is true instead of just repeating it over and over.

There has been no evidence found to prove that that ‘massive batches’ of the vaccines contain cancer causing DNA. These claims are baseless. Dr. Robert Malone testified to congress that the vaccines contain a DNA sequences from Simian Virus 40, or SV40.

There is no Simian virus in the vaccines. The vaccines contain minuscule amounts of “non-functional” fragments of SV40’s DNA sequence which is used as the ‘starting material’ to produce the vaccine. During the manufacturing process, the DNA sequences are further broken down and removed with maybe a very fine trace of the non-functional fragments remaining.

Since the DNA fragments are non-functional they can’t integrate into the DNA of vaccinated people. It actually takes much more than a fragment of DNA to alter a person’s genetic code. Our DNA exists in the nuclei of our cells and for any changes that would alter the genetic code to occur, DNA would have to enter the nucleus of the cell. Our bodies have many mechanisms to get rid of unwanted DNA. I think people might want to condsider the acutual level of foreign DNA we allow into our bodies every day by eating plants and animals and stop making false claims about miniscule traces of DNA that might be in the vaccine.

Perhaps you can explain, how the vaccines companies have secretly inserted enzymes into the vaccines that allow the insertion of the rumoured SV40 DNA fragment into our DNA because that is the only way it could enter the DNA is via an enzyme.

Use of the SV40 inactivated DNA sequence is a common practice and has been used not only in covid vaccines but in flu and hepatitis shots as well. It has been used for decades in the flu and hepatitis shots.

Viruses, whole viruses, not fragments have been known to cause cancer. Viruses like Epstein-Barr virus, human papilloma virus, hepatitis B virus, HIV, and human herpes virus-8 are all known to cause cancer.

 

There are several doctors that explain the process clip posted HERE

 

Ridiculous evasion! That link is to the OP with zero explanations except a link. You quoted a post and ignored a whole barrage of rebuttal.

 

What ‘process’ are you referring to?

The link is useless because it’s a bunch of non-experts spouting misinformation. I have provided actual scientific explanations that have come from years of genetic research. Can you explain why these experts are wrong? You keep posting erroneous information but fail to engage in an actual conversation why you believe the information that you post is correct. Posting the same links over and over is not a discussion. If you don’t understand the science, say so. I have encountered people in person who try to use the same misinformation you do, and after a few questions, it’s obvious they are just parroting people who produce information that agrees with their beliefs but at the same time have no understanding of the science. Without knowledge of the science, it’s easy to keep promoting misinformation.

So how about, using your own words, provide some explanations with research links that support your comments.

 

as usual you butted in with no understanding of what is going on.

Ok, you claim its all misinformation.
That said quote them (whatever you think it is misinformation) followed by a linked quote you consider credible information, so we can put it all on the table for a looksie and examine what is and is not credible between them.

So far studies have proven Malone correct in so far as how the process (science) works.

Is this what you are referring to?

'Fact Checkers' on the DNA Contamination Found in the COVID mRNA Vaccines "The 'fact checkers' have been continually wrong throughout the last year this has gone on...First, they claimed it wasn't there. Now the FDA and the regulators have admitted it's in fact there.

 

I have no idea what you are talking about

You just linked to a tweet which is an opinion. Where is the actual proof?

Where are the studies that have proven Malone correct? Please post them.

And while you are at it, link to verified information that large batches of the vaccine were contaminated with DNA. Who found these batches Who tested them? And then link to verified information that any of the DNA is more than just fragments and is able to integrate into the nucleus of a cell to cause any damage. And finally link to research that has concluded that this DNA which has been in various vaccines for two decades has any done any damage at all. Surely, after billions of flu shots over two decades some dangerous side effect would have shown up.

 

Thats not just an "opinion" as you seem to be downplaying it, its expert testimony at a Senate Committee hearing that you should have recognized from our discussion in the other thread.


It appears Malone is 100% correct:

Biomedicines. 2023 Aug; 11(: 2287.
Published online 2023 Aug 17. doi: 10.3390/biomedicines11082287
PMCID: PMC10452662
PMID: 37626783

‘Spikeopathy’: COVID-19 Spike Protein Is Pathogenic, from Both Virus and Vaccine mRNA

This two-part narrative review presents evidence for the widespread harms of novel product COVID-19 mRNA and adenovector DNA vaccines and is novel in attempting to provide a thorough overview of harms arising from the new technology in vaccines that relied on human cells producing a foreign antigen that has evidence of pathogenicity.

This first paper explores peer-reviewed data counter to the ‘safe and effective’ narrative attached to these new technologies.

Spike protein pathogenicity, termed ‘spikeopathy’, whether from the SARS-CoV-2 virus or produced by vaccine gene codes, akin to a ‘synthetic virus’, is increasingly understood in terms of molecular biology and pathophysiology.
[Like Malone said]
Pharmacokinetic transfection through body tissues distant from the injection site by lipid-nanoparticles or viral-vector carriers means that ‘spikeopathy’ can affect many organs.
[Like Malone said]
The inflammatory properties of the nanoparticles used to ferry mRNA; N1-methylpseudouridine employed to prolong synthetic mRNA function; the widespread biodistribution of the mRNA and DNA codes and translated spike proteins, and autoimmunity via human production of foreign proteins, contribute to harmful effects.
[Like Malone said]
This paper reviews autoimmune, cardiovascular, neurological, potential oncological effects, and autopsy evidence for spikeopathy.


Key problem areas appear to be

(1) the toxicity of the spike protein—both from the virus and also when produced by gene codes in the novel COVID-19 mRNA and adenovectorDNA vaccines [1,2], hence the novel term ‘spikeopathy’;

(2) inflammatory properties of certain lipid-nanoparticles used to ferry mRNA [3];

(3) N1-methylpseudouridine in the synthetic mRNA that causes long-lasting action [4];

(4) widespread biodistribution of the mRNA [5] and DNA [6,7] codes via the lipid-nanoparticle and the viral-vector carrier matrices, respectively and (5) the problem of human cells producing a foreign protein in our ribosomes that can engender autoimmunity [8,9].

An umbrella literature review of publications between December 2019 and August 2021 revealed that the greatest risk of mortality due to COVID-19 was associated with cardiovascular disease, cerebrovascular disease, and chronic renal disease [10].

The mRNA and adenovectorDNA vaccines have been produced by large pharmaceutical companies and favoured by regulators in most Western nations.

[Phizer fired their regulator when he objected to their methods!]

It has been widely claimed that these vaccines have saved millions of lives. Sincere hopes have been held for this narrative. But this belief is largely founded on early Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) modelling estimates and Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca and Janssen claims of efficacy, which have been undermined by new data.

Controversy has surrounded the use of the gene-based vaccines and this article explores the reason for this.

To meet the widespread desire for ‘safe and effective’ vaccines, gene-based technology offers rapid speed of production. Hope has perhaps influenced much of the published literature as well as media narrative.

A central issue has been growing evidence of pathogenic effects of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein—whether as part of the virus or produced by genetic codes in the mRNA and adenovectorDNA vaccines.

The aim of this narrative review is to present a comprehensive account of the pathogenicity of the antigen, the biodistribution of the gene codes for the antigen throughout the body, their modified long-lasting nature particularly with the mRNA vaccines, and literature and data that show the adverse events that would be expected from such biodistribution and cellular production of a foreign antigen.

The review presents a case of premature translation of experimental gene therapy technology to mass public vaccination and ethical and regulatory issues that need scrutiny and reform before the next pandemic.

Central to individual informed consent decisions and public health policy is the weighing of the risks of an illness versus the risks and potential benefits of an intervention.

Given the risks of novel gene-based COVID-19 vaccines, were they worth it in light of the severity of SARS-CoV-2 infection? We address the risks of COVID-19 first.

The claim of millions of lives saved by COVID-19 gene-based vaccines was partly based on assumptions that the COVID-19 vaccines protected against infection and transmission, which was not the case because systemic immunity to respiratory viruses is not as effective as mucosal immunity from infection, and because of the continually evolving variants perhaps partly driven by adaptive evasion of vaccine-induced antibodies. Pfizer admitted that its phase 3 clinical trial [12] did not test for viral transmission [13].

[https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/body/23064-dna-genes--chromosomes Malone was right!]

However, presumptions of efficacy have been sustained by COVID-19 modellers, and reiterated by health authorities, medical publications, and the media.

[They Lied]

This is exhibited by Watson et al., (2022) in “Global impact of the first year of COVID-19 vaccination: a mathematical modelling study”, published in The Lancet Infectious Diseases [14]. The authors estimate around 14.4 million lives saved related to vaccination benefits that include protection against infection and transmission, both now recognised to be unfounded.

We will summarise the evidence that the spike protein itself is independently bioactive and pathogenic. The spike protein has been directly related to both the pathophysiology that underlies COVID-19 viral illness and the serious adverse events from the COVID-19 vaccines that, via gene therapy mechanisms, induce human cells to produce the spike protein in substantial numbers.

Key Points

• Highly safe and effective vaccines are central to combat infectious disease epidemics/pandemics.
  
  
• SARS-CoV-2 spike protein is pathogenic, whether from the virus or created from genetic code in mRNA and adenovectorDNA vaccines.
• Biodistribution rodent study data show lipid nanoparticles carry mRNA to all organs and cross blood-brain and blood-placenta barriers. Some of these tissues are likely to be impervious to viral infection; therefore, the biohazard is particularly from vaccination.
• Lipid-nanoparticles have inflammatory properties.
• The modification of mRNA with N1-methylpseudouridine for increased stability leads to the production of spike proteins for months.
• [Exactly what Malone claims!!]
  
  
• It is uncertain how many cells and from which organs mRNA spike proteins are produced, and therefore, the exact effective dose delivered per vaccine vial is unknown.
• The long-term fate of mRNA within cells is currently unknown.
  
  
• [We know now due to the ongoing excess deaths with no end in sight]
  
  
• The mRNA and adenovectorDNA vaccines act as ‘synthetic viruses’.
• In the young and healthy, and even in many older individuals with vulnerable comorbidities, the encoding-based COVID-19 vaccines will likely transfect a far more diverse set of tissues than infection by the virus itself.
• Evidence suggests reverse transcription of mRNA into a DNA copy is possible. This further suggests the possibility of intergenerational transmission if germline cells incorporate the DNA copy into the host genome.
• Production of foreign proteins such as spike protein on cell surfaces can induce autoimmune responses and tissue damage. This has profoundly negative implications for any future mRNA-based drug or vaccine.
• The spike protein exerts its pathophysiological effects (‘spikeopathy’) via several mechanisms that lead to inflammation, thrombogenesis, and endotheliitis-related tissue damage and prion-related dysregulation.
• Interaction of the vaccine-encoded spike protein with ACE-2, P53 and BRCA1 suggests a wide range of possible biological interference with oncological potential.
• Adverse event data from official pharmacovigilance databases, an FDA-Pfizer report obtained via FOI, show high rates and multiple organ systems affected: primarily neurological, cardiovascular, and reproductive.
• Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines’ clinical trial data independently interpreted has been peer-review and published to show an unfavourable risk/benefit, especially in the non-elderly. The risks for children clearly outweigh the benefits.
• Repeated COVID-19 vaccine booster doses appear to induce tolerance and may contribute to recurrent COVID-19 infection and ‘long COVID’.
• The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has revealed deficiencies in public health and medicines regulatory agencies.
• A root cause analysis is needed for what now appears a rushed response to an alarming infectious disease pandemic.
• Treatment modalities for ‘spikeopathy’-related pathology in many organ systems, require urgent research and provision to millions of sufferers of long-term COVID-19 vaccine injuries.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10452662/

 

google modernas patent, yes this is about fragments not more than fragments, and because its wrapped in lipoprotein which easily gets through cell membranes.

 

flu shots are not wrapped in lipoprotein, completely different transport mechanism, and the safe levels in FDA guidelines are not for mRNA process which is far more harmful than that for a flu vax.

 

That's hogwash again.

It appears you are relying on an article published by anti-vax liars! The same bullshit debunked claims about "DNA", the same assertions about "SPIKE PROTEINS" that exist in the virus but are triggered by the vaccine!

mRNA vaccine spike protein differs from viral version - Scope (stanford.edu)
"Recall that the COVID-19 vaccine's cargo is a bunch of mRNA strands that, once safely inside a cell, direct the production of a whole lot of a single substance: the spike protein. Once produced inside a vaccine-recipient cell, it has no escape accomplices (the other components of the viral structure) to latch onto, because the cell isn't making them. So, it has no dependable passage out of the cell. Instead, Davis told me, the vast majority of vaccine-induced spike proteins float or are carried, either intact or sawed into snippets by enzymes inside the cell, to the cell's outer membrane. There they get stuck, right where the immune system can most easily spot them and mount a coordinated response.

"An intact vaccine-generated spike protein molecule, by virtue of its transmembrane domain, almost invariably sticks to the cell that makes it," agreed vaccinologist and biochemistry professor Peter KimOpens in a new window, PhD. "

 

peer reviewed and highly quoted = hogwash, thanks for that!

Thats Yale/Oxford material right there folks!

@Betamax101

prove it.

 

Deliberately misattributing my statement!

That's hogwash again.

Is it now, and peer reviewed you say?

publications - Reviewing papers for MDPI: general feeling as a reviewer - Academia Stack Exchange
"So simple question for those that already reviewed for MDPI: how did you feel about the quality of the other reviewers (in general)? I have reviewed a handful of papers now as I feel it is necessary (in the end others review my papers too), but I am starting to have serious doubts about the "level" at MDPI. Maybe it depends on the journal/paper etc, but for most of the papers I reviewed it ended in me feeling rather idiotic to even bother. (on a side note: I avoid MDPI to publish in, it is really my last resort to publish something in, if I have no other option, but this does not really happen).

To summarize: One paper was a copy paste of another paper, they just changed the molecule they used. Now I can get this, but there is a difference between bluntly copy pasting (even certain mistakes from this previously published paper in MDPI) were kept(!!). I was the only reviewer to actually review this paper. The other 3 pretty much just gave it a go to be published. Which made no sense, the language was awful, there were critical errors in the paper. On top of that, after review round 1, all of a sudden there were extra authors on the paper (and the editor never said anything about this even though I mentioned this in my review report).

Another paper: 2 reviewers, I had some minor remarks, but still some issues and the paper also had several issues language wise. The second reviewer just accepted the paper as it was and congratulated the authors on the splendid work. The paper was mediocre. Nothing special and it contained some errors.

A third paper: I wrote a long list of errors, small things, some bigger ones. In general the paper was again mediocre but ok. It could be published if they removed these issues. The 2 other reviewers barely mentioned anything. They just had a few points (like 3-5) that were really minor things. It seemed they never really bothered to read the paper."

"More radically, as people know how busy everyone is, I think that if somebody sets a review deadline at less than three weeks, they implicitly communicate that they don't want a thorough high quality review, and consequently I won't review for them. This rules out reviewing for MDPI as far as I know them, but note that this is not exclusive to MDPI, and their reputation is not the issue here. However I'm not surprised in the least that they get crappy reviews given the time frame in which they're working."

"I both reviewed for and published with MDPI multiple times. My experience is in line with what is often written here: MDPI will simply look for other reviewers if they dislike your peer review report. A few months ago, I reviewed a seriously flawed paper in my field (nutrition). The authors completely misinterpreted their data. Reviewer #1 asked for minor revisions while I could not recommend the paper for publication (based on the flawed methodology). They asked for a third reviewer who finally approved the paper. It is now published - review reports did no not appear because the authors did not select open peer review."

From the very damn post you quoted!

 

Based on what you said that is the only rational conclusion someone could come to.

LMAO, ok so explain how you think that proves your point!

 

You are misunderstanding the science. The purpose of the lipoprotein is to get the mRNA into the cell because without the lipoprotein the mRNA would be destroyed. The whole point is to deliver the mRNA across the cell membrane so the spike proteins can be manufactured. The genetic material within the mRNA contains nothing that would allow the mRNA to enter the cell’s nucleus which is the only place where DNA could be altered by adding new DNA. The fragments in the mRNA have no capability to alter dna. See video for simple explanation:

The claim is that DNA fragments of SV40 are causing cancers. The same fragments have been used to develop flu vaccines and hepatitis vaccines. The delivery mechanism is irrelevant. The mRNA vaccines use the lipoproteins to deliver mRNA or else it would degrade, the other vaccines don’t use mRNA, therefore didn’t require that kind of delivery system. If a DNA fragment is supposedly dangerous to the body, it would be dangerous no matter what the delivery method. The headline really should be “Flu jabs are developed with SV40 fragments and after billions of doses in 20 years no harmful cancers have been associated with the jab”.