Never Again Never Again They Gave Us Two Shots to the Back of the Head

Guest Post by Mike Whitney

"It is now apparent that these products in the blood stream are toxic to humans. An firsthand halt to the vaccination program is required while an independent safety analysis is undertaken to investigate the full extent of the harms, which the UK Yellow Card information suggest includes thromboembolism, multi-organisation inflammatory illness, immune suppression, autoimmunity and anaphylaxis, as well every bit Antibiotic Dependent Enhancement (ADE)." Tess Lawrie, Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy

"For we wrestle non against flesh and blood, but against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in loftier places." Ephesians 6:12

Question– Have the mRNA vaccines been tested on animals?

Answer– Yes, they accept.

Question– Were the fauna trials successful?

Answer– Yep and no.

Yes, the experiments on mice showed that a depression dose of the vaccine induces a robust antibody response to the infection.

But, no, the antibodies were not able to attack the spike poly peptide from a different strain of the virus.

Question– I'm not sure what that means? Do you mean that the vaccine DOES provide some express protection from the original (Wuhan) virus, but does not necessarily provide protection from the variants?

Answer– That's right, just it's a bit more complicated than that because– as the virus changes — the antibodies that helped to fight the original virus tin can actually enhance the "infectivity" of the variant. In other words, vaccine-generated antibodies can switch-sides and increase the severity of the disease. Simply put, they tin can make you lot sicker or impale you. Scientists have known this for a long time. Bank check out this prune from a 2005 research newspaper:

"A jab against one strain might worsen infection with others….

In the.. report, Gary Nabel of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.. injected mice with spike protein from a SARS virus taken from a homo patient infected in early 2003. They and then collected the antibodies the animals produced.

In lab experiments, they showed that these antibodies were unable to attack spike poly peptide from a different strain of SARS, isolated from a patient infected in tardily 2003….The squad next tested whether the antibodies would attack spike proteins from two SARS strains isolated from civets, from which the virus is thought to accept originally jumped into humans. In this case, they found hints that the antibodies actually boosted the ability of the virus to infect cells.…

The results show that the virus changes over time, so that a strain that crops upward in ane outbreak might be quite different from that in a later on outbreak. "This virus is not standing notwithstanding and we need to take this into account," Nabel says.

This raises the prospect that a vaccine against ane strain of SARS virus could prove ineffective confronting others. Worse, a jab confronting one strain might even aggravate an infection with SARS virus from civets or some other species. "It's evidently a concern," Nabel says..
This would not exist the first case where exposure to one strain of a virus can worsen infection with some other." ("Caution raised over SARS vaccine", Nature)

Question– I'grand withal confused. Tin can y'all summarize what they're maxim?

Respond– Sure. They're maxim that scientists accept known for nearly two decades that vaccines narrowly aimed at just one protein are bound to fail. They're saying that the fasten poly peptide is highly-adaptable and capable of irresolute its shape to survive. They're proverb that vaccines aimed at the spike protein volition inevitably produce variants that evade vaccine-generated antibodies. They're saying that by narrowing the vaccine's focus to the spike protein alone, the drug companies take ensured that previously helpful antibodies will do an changeabout, allow the virus to enter healthy cells, replicate at will, and cause sickness or death. They are proverb that the current ingather of vaccines is in fact perpetuating the pandemic. And–since the science has been clear for the last 16 years– we can add together one more observation to the list, that is, that the electric current arroyo to mass vaccination is neither haphazard, slapdash or random. It is intentional. The vaccination campaign managers are deliberately ignoring the science in club to sustain a permanent country of crunch. Science is existence manipulated to reach a political objective.

Question– I remember you're exaggerating, just I'd like to get back to the animal trials instead of arguing politics. As you probably know, the reports in the media do non square with your analysis, in fact, all of the articles in the MSM say the animate being trials were a rousing success. Here's a short blurb that I found today that confirms what I've been saying:

"…vaccination of nonhuman primates with the mRNA vaccine induced robust SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing activity and notably, rapid protection in the upper and lower airways…." (Covid-19, NIH.gov)

Question– Are y'all suggesting the authors are lying?

Reply– No, they are not lying. They're merely not telling yous the whole truth, and yous need to know the whole truth and so y'all can make an informed decision. The vaccines Practice provide some (temporary) protection. Nosotros don't dispute that. They also trigger a strong immune response. Nosotros don't dispute that either. But what departure does it make? Let me explicate: Let'southward say, yous have a really bad head common cold so you have a new medication that you think volition relieve the pain. And–sure enough– an hr after taking the pills– Presto — your congestion and headache are completely gone. That's fantastic, right? Wrong, considering what you neglect to realize is that the medication is laced with irksome-interim strychnine that kills you three days later. Do you still think it was a good thought to take the medication?

Of course, not. And the aforementioned rule applies to these vaccines which do, in fact, boost your antibodies and provide some fleeting "amnesty". Just they can too impale yous. Don't you think that should be factored in to your decision? Keep in heed, people take died 3, 4, 5 weeks later on inoculation without any prior alarm. Many of them might accept even been bursting with antibodies, simply they're still dead. Can you lot come across the trouble?

Question– Okay, but there'due south notwithstanding this affair about the animal trials. The media says that the drug companies performed the creature trials and they were successful. Exercise you disagree with that?

Answer– They were non successful and the "fact checkers" that were hired to discredit vaccine critics like me, take deliberately mischaracterized what happened in the trials. For case, here's a typical "fact checker" article titled "COVID-xix vaccines did not skip animal trials because of animal deaths" by Reuters. Here's an extract:

"Posts claiming that COVID-19 vaccine producers skipped beast trials due to the animals in those trials dying are false. Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson, which accept been granted emergency authorization use by the Nutrient and Drug Administration (FDA) in the U.s.a., all conducted animate being trials and had no pregnant safety concerns to report."

Sounds reassuring, right? But and then they say:

"Due to fourth dimension constraints and the urgency to notice a vaccine for COVID-19, Moderna and Pfizer did receive blessing to run animal testing and early trials on humans at the same time, as opposed to fully completing animal trials before moving on to human trials. This, even so, does non hateful beast trials were skipped or that the condom of the vaccines were compromised."

Let me see if I got this straight: The drug companies were in such a bustle that they conducted their minimalist creature trials at the same time every bit their homo trials (which is unprecedented) and then rushed the results to the FDA so they could exist rubber stamped and waved through nether the Emergency Use Authority?

Is that how it went down?

Yes, it is.

But if they were rushed through in a couple months, then the "fact checkers" are tacitly admitting that there is no long-term safety data. And there IS no long-term safety data, nor is at that place whatever effort to disprove the inquiry from the earlier trials where the ferrets, mice and other animals died following injection of mRNA vaccines. They don't deny it, they just ignore information technology as if sweeping it under the carpet will make information technology all become away. Here's a clip from the research paper that Reuters refers to in its article:

"We demonstrate that the candidate vaccines… respectively—induce strong antigen-specific immune responses in mice and macaques….Both (vaccines) protected 2–4-yr-old macaques from challenge with infectious SARS-CoV-2, and there was reduced detection of viral RNA in immunized macaques as compared to those that received saline." (Note–We've already acknowledged that the vaccines do produce a stiff immune response. Here's more:)

"Neutralizing GMTs declined past 24-hour interval 56 (35 days after dose 2), consistent with the contraction phase; however, they remained well in a higher place the GMT of the human sera panel. The duration of the study was non long enough to assess the rate of refuse during the plateau phase of the antibody response." ("BNT162b vaccines protect rhesus macaques from SARS-CoV-2", Nature)

Can you see what's going on? The trial was merely 56 days-long, in fact, none of the brute trials exceeded 56 days. Think about that for a minute. The reason the animals died in prior trials is because they were exposed to a mutated version of the (wild) virus that somewhen killed them. That's how ADE (antibody-dependent enhancement) works. It doesn't happen overnight and it doesn't happen in 56 days. Information technology takes much longer than that for a mutated version of the virus to emerge and reinfect the host. The drug companies know that. They're not stupid. So the fact that the animals mounted a strong immune response is completely irrelevant. We KNOW they mounted a stiff immune response. Nosotros likewise know they died some months afterwards when a dissimilar strain of the virus emerged. Bottom line: The production of antibodies does non mean a drug is prophylactic.

The obvious purpose of the trials was to become the vaccines over the finish-line before anyone figured out what was going on. It's the same reason why the drug companies "unblinded" their man trials afterwards the vaccines got the green light from the FDA. Shortly after the trials were concluded, the people in the placebo arm were allowed to become vaccinated.

Why would they do that? Why would they vaccinate the people who willingly allowed themselves to be republic of guinea pigs for the sake of public health, simply to vaccinate them shortly after, thus, eliminating whatever chance of finding out what the long-term safety issues might be? Information technology makes no sense, does it?

Take a look at this curt clip from the British Medical Journal whose scientists are equally bewildered:

"The (drug) companies say they have an ethical obligation to unblind volunteers so they can receive the vaccine. But some experts are concerned nearly a "disastrous" loss of critical information if volunteers on a trial'due south placebo arm are unblinded…

Although the FDA has granted the vaccines emergency use authority, to become full license approval two years of follow-up data are needed. The data are at present likely to be scanty and less reliable given that the trials are effectively existence unblinded.

Consumer representative Sheldon Toubman, a lawyer and FDA advisory console member, said that Pfizer and BioNTech had non proved that their vaccine prevents severe covid-19. "The FDA says all we tin can practice is suggest protection from severe covid affliction; nosotros need to know that information technology does that," he said.

He countered claims, based on experience with other vaccines, six weeks of follow-upwards was long enough to detect condom signals. Six weeks may not be long plenty for this entirely new blazon of "untested" [mRNA] vaccine, Toubman said.

Goodman wants all companies to exist held to the same standard and says they should non be allowed to make up their ain rules well-nigh unblinding. He told The BMJ that, while he was "very optimistic" about the vaccines, "blowing up the trials" by allowing unblinding "will set a de facto standard for all vaccine trials to come." And that, he said, "is dangerous."

("Covid-19: Should vaccine trials be unblinded?" The British Medical Journal)

Practise you like his pick of words: "blowing up the trials"? Do you think it is a fair description of what the drug companies did?

Aye, it is.

And what possible motive would the drug companies have to blow upward the trials? I can see just ii possibilities:

1. They think their vaccine is then terrific, it will save the lives of many of the people in the placebo group.
2. They expect a high percentage of the people in the vaccine group to get either severely sick or die, so they want to hide the show of vaccine-linked injury.

Which is information technology?

You know the answer. Everyone watching this farce knows the reply.

Question– Okay, so permit's cut to the chase: Are the vaccines are safe or not?

No, they are not safe. The fashion we decide whether a drug is rubber or non is by putting information technology through a rigorous process of testing and clinical trials. After the testing, the information is passed on to physicians, statisticians, chemists, pharmacologists, and other scientists who review the data and make their recommendations or criticisms. That didn't happen with the Covid vaccines, in fact, all the normal standards and protocols were suspended in the name of "urgency". Merely many believe that the "urgency" was manufactured to push through vaccines that would never take been approved on their ain merits. All y'all accept to do is expect through the vaccine injury data (VAERS) and you'll see this is the nearly lethal medical intervention of all time and, yet, the public health experts, the media and the government keep crowing that they're "safe and effective". It's nonsense and the drug companies know it'south nonsense which is why they reject all liability for the people that are going to be killed by these "poison-death shots."

Do you know what goes on inside your body after you are injected with one of these "factor based" vaccines?

Once the vaccine enters the bloodstream it penetrates the cells that line the blood vessels forcing them to produce spike proteins that beetle into the bloodstream like millions of microscopic thorns. These thorns activate claret platelets which trigger claret clotting followed before long after by an immune response that destroys the infected cells thus weakening the vascular system while draining the supply of killer lymphocytes. In this manner, the vaccine launches a dual attack on the body'due south critical infrastructure causing widespread tissue damage throughout the circulatory system while leaving the allowed system less able to fend off future infection.

At present if you think you can accept a long-and-happy without a functioning circulatory system, then none of this matters. But if you're bright enough to realize that wreaking havoc on your vascular system is the fast-runway to the graveyard, then yous'll probably understand that injecting these "poison-death shots" is a particularly bad thought.

Past the manner, it's a real stretch to telephone call these hybrid injections, "vaccines". They accept about every bit much in common with a traditional vaccine as a python does with a coffee table. Nil. The "vaccine" moniker was chosen in social club to shore-up public confidence, that's all. Information technology'due south function of a marketing strategy. There is no real similarity. The majority of people trust vaccines and see them as a shining example of medical achievement. The drug companies wanted to tap into that trust and utilise information technology for their own purposes. That's why they called it a "vaccine" instead of "gene therapy" which more accurately describes 'what it does.' Simply–similar we said– it's just a marketing strategy.

Have you lot ever wondered how the drug companies were able to roll out their ain-individual vaccines just weeks autonomously from each other? That'southward a pretty skillful play a joke on, don't y'all call up; particularly since vaccine development typically takes from 10 to 15 years. How practise you recollect they managed that? Here's an extract from an commodity which provides a little background on the topic:

"The virus behind the outbreak that began in Wuhan, China, was identified on January. vii. Less than a calendar week after — on Jan. 13 — researchers at Moderna and the NIH had a proposed sequence for an mRNA vaccine against it, and, as the company wrote in government documents, "nosotros mobilized toward clinical industry." Past February. 24, the team was shipping vials from a plant in Norwood, Mass., to the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, in Bethesda, Medico., for a planned clinical trial to examination its safe." ("Researchers rush to test coronavirus vaccine in people without knowing how well it works in animals", Stat)

Got that? "The virus broke out in Wuhan…on Jan. seven, and less than a week after Moderna had a proposed sequence for an mRNA vaccine against it???

Actually? Is that the same Moderna that had been playing-around with mRNA for over a decade but was never able to successfully bring a vaccine to market?

Aye, the very aforementioned company. Here's more:

"And by Feb. 24, the squad was shipping vials from a plant in Norwood, Mass??"

Wow! Some other Covid miracle! Yous almost get whiplash watching these companies crank out their "wonder drugs" at record-breaking speed.

Continue in mind, there's a very high probability that the virus was human being-made, (In other words, it's a bioweapon.) and the people who accept been implicated in the funding and creation of that bioweapon are also closely aligned with the big drug companies that have produced the antidote in record time that has already netted tens of billions of dollars in profits for a drug for which there was no reliable animal testing, no long-term safety data, and no formal regulatory blessing.

So I'll ask you again: Doesn't that all sound a chip suspicious?

Is it really that hard to see the outline of a political agenda here? Later all, aren't the drug companies working with the regulatory agencies that are working with the public health officials that are working with the media that are working with the corrupted politicians that are working with the Intel agencies that are working with the meddling globalist billionaires that are working with the behemothic private equity firms that oversee the unabridged operation pulling the appropriate strings whenever needed?

It sure looks like it.

And, don't the tectonic social changes nosotros've seen in the final year take more to do with a broader scorched-world campaign launched by the "parasite grade" confronting the remainder of humanity than they practise with a fairly-balmy virus that kills mainly one-time and frail people with multiple underlying health conditions?

Correct, again. In fact, many take noticed the cracks in the pandemic bamboozlement from the very offset, but as many have pointed out that the virus-meme is simply the mask behind which parasites continue to acquit their global restructuring project. In short, information technology's all about politics; bare-knuckle, take-no-prisoners NWO politics.

Reply– You've asked a number of questions about the animal trials, but none about the biodistribution and the pharmacokinetics studies that were washed at the same fourth dimension. Why is that? (Note--Pharmacokinetics; "the branch of pharmacology concerned with the move of drugs within the trunk.")

Question– I didn't know there were any. Did the media written report on them?

Answer– No, they didn't. They completely ignored them, fifty-fifty though they were produced by Pfizer and provide essential information about where the substance in the vaccine goes in the torso, in what amounts, and for how long. By knowing how the drug is distributed, it is possible to make educated assumptions almost its effect on the organs and other tissue. In other words, these studies are invaluable. The Doctors for Covid Ethics accept done all-encompassing research on the studies and written a written report titled "The Pfizer mRNA vaccine: pharmacokinetics and toxicity". Here'southward a few excerpts that assist to illustrate the dangers of the vaccines:

"As with whatsoever drug, a key consideration for the toxicity of the COVID mRNA vaccines is where exactly in the torso they end up, and for how long they will stay there. Such questions, which are the subject of pharmacokinetics, are commonly thoroughly investigated during drug development. Initial studies on pharmacokinetics and likewise on toxicity are carried out in animals… this certificate has rather far-reaching implications: information technology shows that Pfizer—equally well as the authorities that were apprised of these data— must accept recognized the grave risks of agin events later on vaccination fifty-fifty earlier the onset of clinical trials. Nevertheless, Pfizer'due south own clinical trials failed to monitor whatsoever of the clinical risks that were conspicuously evident from these data, and the regulatory authorities failed to enforce proper standards of oversight. This dual failure has acquired the most grievous harm to the public….

What exercise Pfizer's animate being data presage for biological furnishings in humans?

• Rapid appearance of spike protein in the circulation.
• Toxicity to organs with expected high rates of uptake, in particular placenta and
  lactating breast glands
• Penetration of some organs might be college with the real vaccine than with this
  luciferase model…The rapid entry of the model vaccine into the circulation ways that we must expect the fasten protein to be expressed within the circulation, specially by endothelial cells. ( Endothelial- The thin layer of cells lining the blood vessels) Nosotros have seen earlier that this will lead to activation of claret clotting through direct activation of platelets and likewise, probably more importantly, through immune attack on the endothelial cells….

Summary

Pfizer'south animal data conspicuously presaged the following risks and dangers:

• blood clotting shortly after vaccination, potentially leading to heart attacks, stroke, and venous thrombosis
• grave harm to female fertility
• grave harm to breastfed infants
• cumulative toxicity after multiple injections

With the exception of female fertility, which tin can simply not be evaluated inside the short period of time for which the vaccines accept been in utilize, all of the above risks have been substantiated since the vaccines have been rolled out—all are manifest in the reports to the various adverse outcome registries. Those registries also contain a very considerable number of reports on abortions and stillbirths soon afterwards vaccination, which should have prompted urgent investigation.
….
Of especially grave concern is the very slow elimination of the toxic cationic lipids. In persons repeatedly injected with mRNA vaccines containing these lipids… this would effect in cumulative toxicity. There is a existent possibility that cationic lipids will accumulate in the ovaries. The implied grave chance to female fertility demands the nigh urgent attention of the public and of the health government.

Since the and then-called clinical trials were carried out with such negligence, the real trials are occurring only now—on a massive calibration, and with devastating results. … Calling off this failed experiment is long overdue. Continuing or even mandating the utilise of this poisonous vaccine, and the manifestly imminent issuance of total approval for it are crimes against humanity." ("The Pfizer mRNA vaccine: pharmacokinetics and toxicity", The Doctors for Covid Ethics)

Don't you call up people are entitled to know what the authorities wants to inject into their bodies? Don't you think they have a right to know how it will upshot their immune systems, their vital organs and their overall health? Don't you recall they accept the right to decide for themselves which drugs they will take and which they will pass up to accept?

Forcing someone to have a drug he does not want, is not simply wrong. It's unAmerican. Which is why people should decline vaccine mandates every bit a matter of principle. They are an set on on personal freedom, the foundation of our constitutional system. It's a principle worth dying for.

As for the mass vaccination entrada, it is the nearly maniacally-genocidal project e'er concocted by man. At that place's but no way to summate the amount of suffering and death we are about to confront for trusting people whose policies were obviously shaped by their undiluted hatred of humanity. Every bit German microbiologist Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi said:

"In the end, we're going to see mass disease and deaths among people who normally would have had wonderful lives alee of them."

Information technology is a nifty tragedy.

-----------------------------------------------------
The corrupt establishment will do annihilation to suppress sites like the Called-for Platform from revealing the truth. The corporate media does this by demonetizing sites similar mine past blackballing the site from advertising acquirement. If y'all get value from this site, please go on it running with a donation. [Called-for Platform LLC - PO Box 1520 Kulpsville, PA 19443] or Paypal

-----------------------------------------------------
Use promo lawmaking ILMF2, and save upwardly to 66% on all MyPillow purchases. (The Called-for Platform benefits when y'all use this promo code.)

florcume1939.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.theburningplatform.com/2021/11/03/it-all-makes-sense-once-you-realize-they-want-to-kill-us/

Share this post