We live in a corrupted system. The way to tackle corruption is to first acknowledge it exists. Only then is it possible to come up with ways of dealing with it, but don't make the mistake of believing the system can or will uncorrupt itself.

Worse Than The Disease?

27 October 2024

Published on the 10th May 2021 by the International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research (IJVTPR) is a paper titled “Worse Than the Disease? Reviewing Some Possible Unintended Consequences of the mRNA Vaccines Against COVID-19” (PDF).

It is an interesting read. Obviously it’s been out there for quite some time now, so for those paying attention it is not news. We’re not discussing it here as some form of “breaking news” story. We’re going to look at some of the key details, observations and assertions made at the time, and how well they have aged.

It should be noted that this IJVTPR paper clearly sides with the notion there was indeed a “disease”, i.e. COVID-19 and includes many mentions of viruses, transmission and so on, many if not all are based on the questionable “Science” of virology and so to begin we’ll tackle a point that is often raised by virus fans.

Or, asked in a less obnoxious way, “how can you believe some parts of this paper and dismiss other parts?”.

Cherry-Picking or Discernment?

This is a reasonable question albeit often asked disingenuously, and the answer is as follows…

It is not a question of belief. Many of the main concerns outlined in this paper fall into the “we just don’t know” category. There were (and still are) many claims regarding COVID-19 and the “vaccines” that are patently false, and there are even more things, particularly regarding the “vaccines” that were (and many still are) partially, or even entirely unknown, and we’ll get to some of those later. The point here is that the authors of this paper are prepared to admit that injecting billions of people with new, previously unused on humans technology under so-called “emergency” conditions is essentially tossing the “abundance of caution” we were all force-fed into the bin.

Most papers are heavily reliant on citations and this one is no exception. The specific focus of this paper is to question the scientific validity of the (as noted by the authors) “unprecedented” nature of the response to the “pandemic”, specifically the mRNA injections from Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna. They are not looking at whether there really was a pandemic, is SARS-CoV-2 or any of it’s predecessors real, whether there are any legitimate questions that can be asked of the foundational thesis and processes of virology, or anything else other than the main topic, that being “possible unintended consequences of the mRNA vaccines against COVID-19”.

In other words, what we can do is for the purposes of this examination, is suppose that the claims of a pandemic caused by a “novel coronavirus” all backed by the so-called science of virology are true, and then evaluate the “response” to see, even if it were all true, whether it was the right thing to do or if there were other things going on that may have led to inappropriate and harmful things being enacted.

Finally it is entirely appropriate, indeed wise to not just accept everything presented even in a single publication (including this one) without question. If claims are made, some without sufficient evidence, the sensible thing to do is to check for ourselves the evidence provided and suspend our trust/belief in the claims that are not evidenced. The notion that if one accepts some things that are said by any particular source we should accept all things from it is just ridiculous, yet some people do use that argument. “You’re cherry-picking” is an example of how that accusation manifests.

Whilst cherry-picking is a thing, selectively accepting well evidenced points and choosing to not accept points lacking evidence is not cherry-picking but is simply using discernment. Equally rejecting everything stated by a source because some claims are not evidenced or even false is not wise either. Throwing the baby out with the bath water has never been a good idea. Separating the facts/truth from the source and leaving the rest behind is how we can do this.

Cherry-picking is where someone only accepts, presents or references apparent evidence that confirms a pre-determined belief, deliberately excluding and/or ignoring evidence that counters that belief. Much of modern Science™ is exactly this, and is also known as confirmation bias. We have discussed this in other articles, where statistical sleight-of-hand has replaced empirical evidence, and probabilities are presented as fact.

Choosing to accept evidence and reject baseless dogma is not cherry-picking. Virus fans and Science™ Disciples generally love “aha!” moments like that, where they believe that the heretic they are schooling has unwittingly accepted some point and therefore must accept the entire package they have decided is inseparable.

Oxford-AstraZeneca

An example of this is the Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 “vaccine”. Anyone arguing that the AZ COVID injection is harmful must therefore accept the entire package of Virology because according to the vendor its mechanism of action utilises a chimpanzee Adenovirus vector. This is described in an article on the University of Oxford website we shall briefly look at in a moment, but to finalise this point, just because the vendor calls the thing an adenovirus vector, what is actually being described is some genetic material they claim to have yanked out of a chimp that they claim causes the “common cold”, in chimps. It may well have been originally pulled out of a chimpanzee that appeared to have some symptoms that resemble the “common cold” at the time, but that does not mean it was the cause, or that it is a “virus”.

This article titled “About the Oxford COVID-19 vaccine” listed as being published on 19th July 2020 describes the ChAdOx1 vector and how it…

…is a harmless, weakened adenovirus that usually causes the common cold in chimpanzees. ChAdOx1 was chosen as the most suitable vaccine technology for a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine as it has been shown to generate a strong immune response from one dose in other vaccines.

https://www.research.ox.ac.uk/article/2020-07-19-the-oxford-covid-19-vaccine

The phrase “generate a strong immune response” is a commonly used trope in pro-vaccine circles, but it is rather meaningless in reality. The implied suggestion that the strong immune response, i.e. the vaccine recipient’s immune system reacted strongly to what was injected, means that the recipient’s immune system is now “primed” to fight off the target pathogen whereas previously the body was essentially an unprotected open goal for the dastardly pathogen is clearly at odds with the reports of people getting their immune-response-priming injections and then (it is claimed) dying as a result of the pathogen anyway.

There are obviously lots of mental gymnastics, rhetoric and fallacies that have been used to attempt a defence of this such as “no vaccine provides 100% protection”, but that all misses the point, which is the reason for the vaccine’s apparent failure is that even if it were completely safe, which it isn’t, the foundational premise is incorrect, i.e. the reason people were unwell in the first place (in this instance) is not because of a “novel coronavirus”.

It is like believing babies arrive by being delivered by storks, and deciding the best method of contraception therefore is to kill all the storks. It might be decided that we could call this process Storkination. The Storkination campaign gets underway and we end up with a lot of dead storks, and if it was decided to measure the outcome of the Storkination campaign by the percentage of storks dead and most of them were, it might even be considered that Storkination is a success. Women will still be getting pregnant though. Arguing that pregnancies are still happening because there are still a few storks out there, or no stork is truly 100% dead, or that perhaps storks mutated into cranes and herons that are delivering the babies, or if we’d not killed almost all the storks there would be more babies than there are, is all quite obviously ridiculous.

Questioning this though might make you anti-Storkination, and in the circles that believe ultra-zealously in the desperate need to Storkinate the world you’d be some kind of heretic. People might write about you calling you an anti-Storkinator. There could be extraordinary efforts to rid the world of any talk of anti-Storkination. People could lose their jobs if they expressed any hint of anti-Storkinater thinking. Storkination could be touted as a modern miracle, despite the failure of it to prevent actual pregnancies. It could be that over time Storkination becomes something of a neo-religious dogma, no-one really checks any claims about it, they are just expected to believe in it, not ask questions and have faith. You get the idea.

It would, if that hypothetical example were the case, be churlish to dismiss the idea that perhaps something else could be going on, and that the Storkination wasn’t responsible for any perceived drop in pregnancies that happened to occur, simply because it is not possible to prove cause and effect, i.e. there is no way to empirically demonstrate that the death of much of the stork population has any impact on women getting pregnant, especially if it were the case that women still got pregnant, or that it was possible to explain with evidence, other reasons why the number of pregnancies dropped, if they had.

It turns out that being able to prove one thing caused another is very important.

It seems that just claiming one thing caused another isn’t really good enough, certainly not if you’re going to call your claim “science”. On that note, back to the Oxford article…

This is an image from the article. The caption on the website for this image reads:

“A diagram showing how the Oxford COVID-19 vaccine works. A chimpanzee adenovirus is used in the ChAdOx1 viral vector, engineered to match the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein.”

The caption isn’t really accurate as the “chimpanzee adenovirus” is not really “engineered to match” the spike protein though is it. The so-called adenovirus is the vector, the method of delivery. Some “gene sequencing” and presumably editing (as per the scissors symbol) allegedly gets the “spike protein” from the SARS-CoV-2 genome (which does not need to really exist in nature, but can be assembled in a lab or even just in a computer) and that is supposedly reverse-engineered to get the encoding instructions to create it, which then equates to the package.

Presumably when creating injectable products that are altering cellular processes and other aspects of the human body at the genetic level the Oxford University cares slightly more about precision and accuracy. Or perhaps not.

The idea is the delivery method, in this case the “adenovirus”, gets into a cell and delivers the package, in this case the instructions to the cell to produce the “spike protein”. As we have previously observed, the idea of getting the human body to be the source of pathogens, or at the very least non-naturally occurring in the human body genetic materials does not seem like a good one. The justification for it by the people paid lots of money to come up with new ways to sell pharmaceutical interventions to a bamboozled public is that “the intracellular antigen expression enabled by viral vector vaccines offers more robust immune activation”. In English that means the natural, functioning human immune system is far less likely to deal with it instantly. Instead of injecting people directly with the “spike protein”, they inject people with machinery to get your own cells to produce the “spike protein”. The robustness being referred to is the irony that they had to come up with a way of circumventing the body’s natural defences, AKA the immune system, to get the “immune activation”.

Yes that’s right, to ensure your body is primed with a strong immune response, they needed to stop your body’s natural immune response from responding, so that an immune response could be created against the thing that your body’s immune response would have responded to.

We have mentioned this quote before, and there are apparently arguments over who originally made the following remark, but whoever it was is spot on:

“There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them.”

This is of course not unique to the Oxford-AstraZeneca product, but in this case Oxford University Research want to assure you this is all completely safe, scientific and needed. They have a section in the article titled “The Oxford COVID-19 vaccine trials” which explains…

Adult participants will be randomised to receive one or two doses of either the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or a licensed vaccine (MenACWY) that will be used as a ‘control’ for comparison.

Ah yes, the “control”.

So, to assess safety and efficacy, rather than compare the ChAdOx1 vaccine with something actually inert and harmless, they gave people a vaccine against 4 types of Neisseria meningitidis, a bacteria implicated as a cause of meningitis and sepsis. As it happens the University of Oxford has a page about the MenACWY conjugate vaccines, and in the “Safety and side effects” section they list the following…

Very common (affecting more than 1 in 10 people at each dose):

  • pain, redness and swelling at the injection site
  • headache
  • feeling tired, irritable or sleepy
  • feeling generally unwell
  • loss of appetite
  • fever

Common (affecting up to 1 in 10 people at each dose):

  • stomach upsets (such as feeling sick, diarrhoea or vomiting)
  • a hard lump or a large amount of redness and swelling at the injection site
  • rash
  • muscle or joint pain

They list “Uncommon” (affecting up to 1 in 100) and “Rare” (affecting up to 1 in 1000) side effects too, but just looking at the “Very common” side effects, those affecting more than 1 in 10 people we can see listed things like headaches, feeling generally unwell and fever, and in the “Common” section listed are stomach upsets and muscle/joint pain.

This was the “control”. In a trial to establish the safety and efficacy of a vaccine against “COVID-19”, the main symptoms of which are claimed to be things like fever, fatigue, headaches, diarrhoea and muscle/body aches and pains, they used as a control another vaccine that commonly causes side-effects that are near-identical to the disease the trialled product is supposed to prevent.

Again, the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine is by no means unique. This is a common tactic used in vaccine trials, as providing they can massage the numbers to show that slightly less people were ill in the “treatment” group compared to the “control” group, then it is declared a success. The fact that this passes for science, and approval is given based on this nonsense tells you everything you need to know about the departments that are supposedly there to protect the public.

The Oxford University article has clearly been updated since it’s original publishing date as it references the emergency use approval granted in December but there is no update explaining how it is now widely acknowledged that it was not safe, or effective and has been pulled from the market, because obviously that’s not important.

As some people who have been paying close attention realised long ago, the Oxford-AstraZeneca ChAdOx1 COVID-19 injection was always there to act as the fall guy when it became too obvious to hide the numbers of people harmed or killed by any of the COVID-19 “vaccines”. The important piece of tech was mRNA, that is what the entire COVID-19 show was designed for, to justify the deployment of highly questionable genetic meddling on the world.

Muddying the waters by having the “adenovirus vector” version mixed with mRNA means it would be much more difficult to prove causality in a court, and mRNA is the new platform that every new vaccine will be built on. Having something that can take the fall for the few harms and deaths the Establishment has been forced to admit to is useful for the entire vaccine industry who have pipelines crammed full of new mRNA-based products. Whilst that does indeed sound conspiratorial, it is a statement of fact nonetheless. Every effort has been made to scrub any negative press about mRNA. Fact Checkers and mainstream media do their best to maintain the illusion, whereas being critical of the Oxford-AstraZeneca jab is now almost permitted. There is a very good reason for that.

The “Unintended Consequences” of mRNA

Now we’ve established there is an important difference between the Oxford-AstraZeneca jab and the mRNA varieties, and the likely reasons for the former to exist at all, we can circle back to the IJVTPR paper mentioned at the outset.

We know for a certainty that it was crucial for the pharmaceutical companies, Government departments and vaccine marketing machines that mRNA get approved and “validated” somehow, as this was discussed during the meeting held on 29th October 2019 by the Milken Institute and we looked at this in detail in the article “The Plan to Push mRNA”. At this meeting Mr “I am Science” Fauci bemoaned the need to spend time required to prove a vaccine is safe and effective, and suggested that some kind of “disruptive” way of addressing the problem of people not believing new vaccine technology is needed. Rick Bright then said that “an urgent call for an entity of excitement” might be the needed disruption, and that “it is not too crazy to think that an outbreak of a novel avian virus could occur in China”. As we know, a month later an “entity of excitement” in the form of a “novel” virus in China hit the headlines and mRNA got the green light.

The IJVTPR article lists some of the things that were “unprecedented”, aside from the insanity that followed in the wake of the emergence of the perfect “entity of excitement”, specifically regarding the mRNA vaccines…

  1. First to use PEG (polyethylene glycol) in an injection
  2. First to use mRNA vaccine technology against an infectious agent
  3. First time Moderna has brought any product to market
  4. First to have public health officials telling those receiving the vaccination to expect an adverse reaction
  5. First to be implemented publicly with nothing more than preliminary efficacy data
  6. First vaccine to make no clear claims about reducing infections, transmissibility, or deaths
  7. First coronavirus vaccine ever attempted in humans
  8. First injection of genetically modified polynucleotides in the general population

Aligned with Anthony Fauci’s complaints, the study reports that in a 2018 publication sponsored by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, vaccines are divided into three categories: Simple, Complex and (you guessed it) Unprecedented. The BMGF analysis showed that the development of an Unprecedented vaccine takes 12.5 years, that those vaccines have a 5% chance of making it through Phase II trials (the ones that allegedly assess efficacy) and of that 5%, 40% of those make it through Phase III trials (allegedly assessing population benefit). That means overall there is just a 2% probability of getting an unprecedented vaccine through all the trials.

Given the numbers and methodology in most of these trials is rigged anyway, this just goes to show how bad some of these products must be, and clearly demonstrates why the Milken Institute meeting attendees on 29th October 2019 were so unhappy about the situation. There is literally trillions of dollars, careers and lifestyles at stake and the stupid public just don’t know what’s good for them according to the Milken Institute meeting attendees.

It turns out, one thing that isn’t good for them is injections of mRNA wrapped in lipid nanoparticles. By May 2021 this IJVTPR paper was published raising the alarm on antibody dependent enhancement, autoimmune diseases, lipid nanoparticles, prion diseases and a whole host of other concerns and observed problems relating to the use of mRNA injectables. To this day it has not been actually debunked, despite what some Fact Checkers might tell you. The topics the paper covers are:

  • Considerations in mRNA Selection and Modification
  • Lipid Nanoparticle Construction
  • Adjuvants, Polyethylene Glycol, and Anaphylaxis
  • Spike Proteins, and Antibody-Dependent Enhancement
  • Pathogenic Priming, Multisystem Inflammatory Disease, and Autoimmunity
  • The Spleen, Platelets and Thrombocytopenia
  • Biodistribution of mRNA Vaccines
  • Activation of Latent Herpes Zoster
  • Spike Protein Toxicity
  • Prion Diseases and Neurodegeneration
  • Potential for Permanent Incorporation of Spike Protein Gene into human DNA

There is no shortage of evidence that many of those issues (and others) are on the rise and no better time than now to make the right decision for yourself and loved ones as to what to pharmaceutical interventions are best avoided.

Whatever your stance on COVID-19, the vaccines for COVID-19 or indeed vaccines in general is, the IJVTPR paper makes a few excellent recommendations, such as getting out in the sunlight, eating mainly organic whole foods rather than chemical-laden processed foods, and eating foods that are good sources of vitamins and minerals.