Seven questions to ask about the covid ‘vaccines’

by SERENA WYLDE


1. Why are they referring to a gene-manipulating technology as a vaccine?


The term vaccination comes from the 18th century practice of cowpoxing; vacca being the Latin word for cow, and subsequently became the term given to the practice of introducing a minute quantity of a pathogen into the body in order to stimulate an immune response, as a supposed prophylactic measure in the event of exposure to said pathogen at a later stage.


But mRNA interventions do not act to directly induce an immune response. According to their manufacturers, they introduce a set of instructions in the form of a gene sequence, which enters the body’s own cells and uses them as factories to produce the S1 spike protein. All this for the secondary benefit, they hope, of building an immune response to a toxin the body is now manufacturing. So the body is set up to attack itself, becoming both the attacker and the defender, which is the very definition of an auto-immune condition.


We are generating auto-immune disease en masse just in order to create a quasi-immunity against a part of a virus. It is hazardous in the extreme, with the short-term effects of disability and death caused by neurological and cardiac damage already manifest, and the medium and long-term effects unknown.

As a result of depletion of the body’s natural defences, we may well see the activation of many agents which ordinarily lie dormant in the body, such as TB, as well as an eruption of cancer tumours whose cells are otherwise held in check by healthy immune systems; provoking a condition known as VAIDS - vaccine- acquired immune deficiency syndrome.


2. How many people would have allowed themselves to be injected had they known the intervention altered part of their DNA?


Humans are not meant to make spike proteins. They are not part of the human genome.


3. Why refer to the mRNA interventions as ’gene-therapy’?


Therapy is a word reserved for the treatment of a condition, disorder or disease. The arrogance of administering therapy to healthy individuals is, at best, an unwarranted interference, at worst an assault.


4. Why do professions endingin ‘ologist’ suddenly need studies to declare the obvious, that naturally acquired immunity is far superior to anything artificially stimulated?


The immune system is a multi-faceted, powerful, complex system that has evolved over millennia, and is far from completely understood. What is known is that when the body suffers a disease, it mobilises a battery of defence mechanisms which work in harmony, producing antibodies as a frontline defence to kill pathogens circulating in body fluid or on tissue surfaces, and a T-cell response to deal with pathogens if they manage to enter cells where they can replicate, because antibodies cannot access those cells. Once recovered from a particular infection, the body’s T-cells conserve a broad spectrum and lengthy memory, recognising any similar subsequent invader and acting swiftly to overcome it.


Vaccines that provoke high antibody levels, on the other hand, produce a concomitant reduction in the T-cell response. With T-cell response suppressed, if the pathogen eludes the antibodies, gets into the cells and starts replicating, unlike in an untainted immune system, the tools to combat the microbe are not available, allowing it to establish a persistent, or longer term infection. Furthermore, the antibodies induced by vaccination are specific, not broad spectrum, which renders them more easily bypassed by a related pathogen.


5. What is meant by ‘vaccines waning’?

Vaccines of themselves do not confer immunity. They aim to provoke a reaction by the individual’s own immune system. How durable and effective that is is an entire area of enquiry. But if the initial perceived immune response vanishes within a short window of time, it signifies the intervention has failed in its purpose. Continued over-soliciting of the body’s immune responses by more failed interventions only leads to a weakening of the body’s innate protections, rendering it more vulnerable to attacks by toxic agents.


6. Why was it said that the mRNA payload remained in the deltoid muscle, at the site of the injection, or nearby? On what basis was this assumption made?


Professor Michael Palmer gave a video presentation of the pharmacokinetics and toxicity of mRNA injections as part of the Doctors for Covid Ethics’ symposium on 30th July 2021, featuring a bio-distribution study of the spike proteins and how they gravitated in particularly high concentrations to the liver, spleen and ovaries.


The mRNA ‘packages’ containing the gene sequence are suspended in lipid nanoparticles (LNPs), which are essentially tiny bubbles of fat that are used to deliver genetic material into the cells. But our immune system has all sorts of gate-keeping ways of protecting our cells from invasion, so polyethylene glycol (PEG) is added to promote wide-spread dissemination throughout the body; to deliver a toxin-creating gene sequence into the cells of all our body’s systems.


So why the claim that most of the payload stays in the arm muscle?

The above information is provided by Dr. Byram W. Bridle in his article A Moratorium on mRNA ‘Vaccines’ is Needed. Re-Visiting the Bio- distribution of Lipid Nanoparticles, published on Substack on 22nd April 2022 under Covid Chronicles. He also informs us that PEG is the component most associated with causing anaphylactic shock (severe hyper-acute allergic reaction).


7. Why do academics and physicians recommend it be given to the elderly and immune- compromised?


Does it make sense to give individuals with weakened or poor immune systems an intervention which will further damage their ability to ward off everyday infections?

Project Veritas recently released a leaked recording of an AstraZeneca Zoom call of December 2020 in which its CEO, Pascal Soriot, stated that the millions of people with compromised immune systems could not receive a covid vaccine. Jon Rappoport points out that he himself had explained the simple reason for this back in early 2020, which is that a vaccine is supposed to provoke a reaction from the immune system, but if the system is weak and cannot respond, the vaccine functions as a “super-high toxic invader which overwhelms the body.”


This did not prevent the European Medicines Agency stating: ‘There are limited data on immune-compromised people. But although they may not respond as well to the vaccine, there are no particular safety concerns. Immune-compromised people can still be vaccinated as they may be at higher risk from covid-19.


And, of course, from our own Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunisation (SAGE) came the recommendation that ‘severe or moderately immune-compromised persons should be offered an additional dose of vaccine’.


References:

‘Micro Blood Clots Explain Covid-19 Vaccine Impacts’ published by Joel S. Hirshhorn on Global Research on 31st January 2022, and includes Dr. Charles Hoffe’s findings.

Pfizer’s Cumulative Analysis of Post-authorisation Adverse Events Reports to 28.02.21.


‘Spike Protein in mRNA COVID Vaccines: One of the Most Bioactive and Damaging Substances Known to Mankind’ published by Mary Villareal on Global Research on 25th March 2022.


‘Doctors & Scientists with Brian Hooker PhD’ Episode 24 of a series of interviews published on Children’s Health Defense on 23rd April 2022.


‘The COVID Lies’ by Dr. Mike Yeadon published on Global Research on 27th April 2022.


Prof. Suckarit Bhakdi MD’s reporting of autopsy findings performed on covid-19 vaccination fatalities across a broad spectrum of ages.


0 views0 comments