Satanic rituals, urban legends and abducted kids are all familiar topics to most of us and with the release of the Sound of Freedom, a Mel Gibson backed movie exposing child trafficking, the topics are on everyone’s lips. Adrenochrome, not so much, that is until Sound of Freedom, ably abetted by actor Jim Caviezel, breathed life into it again.

Depending on who you choose to believe, adrenochrome is either an important, yet not fully understood element of the disease, schizophrenia – that’s the medical version – or it’s the life prolonging, fountain of youth obtained from the terrified body of a young child sacrificed for this very purpose– the urban myth.

Here first, is what some of the villagers choose to believe about Adrenochrome and then we’ll check in on the real world.

Harvesting the “Elixir of Youth”

Adrenochrome is produced by our bodies when we are in a state of heightened fear or terror. According to the urban legend, this byproduct of adrenalin, when consumed, melts away wrinkles, takes years off your face and if the stories are to be believed, is nothing short of the fountain of youth. Hollywood, they claim, are the main consumers of adrenochrome.

Enter the children, abducted and taken to remote areas where they are, according to Caviezel, tortured and literally scared to death. At this point the adrenochrome the children have produced is harvested from their lifeless bodies and sold on the black market for huge profit. For people without scruples or the brain capacity to critically analyze the urban legend, you can see why the business model would be appealing.

For every idiot vendor there is, of course, an even stupider client. People with more money than sense, who will literally try anything to arrest or reverse the ageing process. Combine the two and voilà, you have a supply chin and customers, all thanks to crazy online, self-fulfilling horseshit, none of which happens to be true.

We have developed a love affair with conspiracy theories over the last few decades. Most are harmless. For instance the secret (obviously not so much anymore) Nazi base in the center of the earth, accessible through a hidden entrance in the Arctic, isn’t going to overrun the world tomorrow with an army of highly trained penguins. No harm there. Insanity in buckets, but no harm.

Some theories are however incredibly dangerous. They pose a real threat to the well-being of our communities, the safety of our person and our children. The adrenochrome urban legend is right up there in terms of risk. Extremely so, and Gibson, with his latest foray into supporting “cinematic story telling” may be unwittingly contributing to the market value of street urchins.

His support, however well intended, has allowed Caviezel a platform to conflate the movie with adrenochrome, imbuing it with powers it does not posses. In short, Sound of Freedom’s Jim Caviezel is trying to breathe life into an urban legend.

Let’s examine exactly what Adrenochrome is, what it does and where it comes from. This is essential in understanding how the urban legend evolved and as with all urban legends, there is a sliver of reality mixed in with the fairy tale.

The Discovery of Adrenochrome

In short, this compound was first isolated in a laboratory in the fifties and researchers initially believed its absence in Schizophrenia patients was important.

It is created naturally as a byproduct in our bodies by the oxidation of adrenaline. We release adrenaline when we experience fear or our body feels threatened in some way. That explains the need described above for terrifying innocent street waifs. Showing them Disney movies isn’t going to get the adrenaline pumping.

Scientists are currently studying a derivative of adrenochrome that offers promise in the field of surgery by increasing the bloods ability to clot, thus reducing bleeding.

The only clinical tests of adrenochrome were in the fifties, and they were both brief and inconclusive. We did however establish that the long term affects of ingesting the compound led to psychotic episodes and serious mental issues. Adrenochrome doesn’t appear to agree with our brains.

There is ZERO evidence in the scientific literature of anything to support the anti-aging and psychedelic affects ascribed to the compound, in fact, quite the opposite. Adrenochrome just doesn’t live up to all the hype, so where then does all the craziness come from?

Say Hello to Fear and Loathing

Hunter S. Thompson and Aldous Huxley most likely share the blame. Both referred to the compound in their writing. Both made fictitious claims about the compound, Huxley out of ignorance and Thompson, well he was just being Thompson. Gonzo, full steam ahead. He was creating his style of fiction.

In the movie Fear and Loathing In Las Vegas, based on Thompson’s book by the same title, Johnny Depp’s character is shown using an ampule of ‘adrenochrome’ in one of the drug fueled binges that permeate the movie. If you haven’t watched , you should. It’s a cult classic.

Gonzo journalism, the writing style Thompson invented, is based around the fictionalization and exaggeration of real-life events. In the DVD commentary of the 1998 movie adaptation, director Terry Gilliam said Thompson told him he made the whole adrenochrome thing up.

It could have been any compound, Thompson simply chose adrenochrome, possibly motivated by the fact little was known of it.

In Aldous Huxley’s 1954 essay “The Doors of Perception”, written about his experiences with mescaline, Huxley discusses the possibility that adrenochrome is a compound with similar effects to the psychedelic cactus.

He had not used it and had no idea how to obtain it, other than saying it was spontaneously produced by the human body. He described it as “a product of the decomposition of adrenaline”, which is, surprisingly, correct.

A little truth mixed in with a lot of fiction.

That seems to be the fate of adrenochrome. It is destined, along with 5G, Elvis, Nazi penguins and hollow moons to become the stuff of urban legend.

Which, as I suggested earlier, is all good and well, except that in this instance it poses a very real danger to children. Whilst you and I are able to comprehend the difference between fairy tales and fact, many cannot.

As long as we live in a world where people drink bleach, ban abortions, wear tinfoil hats and vote for Trump (again), we need to suppress dangerous lies.

Society needs to filter out the untruths we feed each other to avoid the loss of even one child’s life. Social media companies need to address these threads, remove them and warn their users. Spreading lies, even if you believe them to be true, can cost lives. By tweeting your fictitious fairy tales, you are simply providing the seeds for the harvesting of more children for profit. Stop it.

Lastly, a parting thought for supporters of the urban legend. The oxidation reaction that converts adrenaline into adrenochrome occurs both in vivo and in vitro. In other words, you can produce adrenochrome in a body or a test tube. I suspect the test tube may be cheaper, quicker and a lot less illegal than abducting children.

The post Adrenochrome, Satanic Masses, Abducted Children and Urban Legends appeared first on Medika Life.

Claim: The Covid Vaccines contain graphene and will enable people to track you.

There’s so much to unpack in just this one sentence. Just looking at it sounds alarm bells and shouts “conspiracy madness”. People have claimed and denied that the vaccines contain graphene and that they pose a risk to our health since their release. The vaccines, not the graphene. Articles have been published disputing the statement above as complete rubbish. False, they all yell, and yet, look at the following.

In 2022, the European Parliament were asked to respond to the claim of graphene in vaccines. The basic gist of the request went as follows.

A recent investigation by Dr Ricardo Delgado Martin and the technical report by Dr Pablo Campra ‘Detection of graphene in COVID vaccines by micro-Raman spectroscopy’ claim that the COVID-19 vaccines contain graphene. As reported by CORDIS in 2018, a team of researchers has proven that graphene is able to convert electronic signals into signals in the terahertz range, with trillions of cycles per second. The silicon-based electronic components we use today generate clock speeds in the GHz range, where 1 GHz is equal to 1 000 million cycles per second. The scientists showed that graphene can convert signals with these frequencies into signals with frequencies that are thousands of times higher than those created by silicon. Graphene is therefore able to absorb radiation, meaning that, if contained in a vaccine, it would be highly toxic and harmful to human health.

For those who’d like to see the widely disputed research that claimed to have found graphene in the Pfizer vaccine, you can follow this link to read the paper on Research Gate.

So how would anyone set about proving or disproving this claim? Of course, we turn to published peer-reviewed data and research, as well as referencing claims made by the manufacturer, ingredient lists and any other sources we can find. Right off the bat, you can see how using information provided by a party involved in the claim to invalidate it is equivalent to quoting the Bible to prove God’s existence.

Here is an example of how typical fact checking works, provided by Health Feedback disputing the above claim making use of the usual sources. And that, dear reader, is exactly the point at which the wheels come off for the fact checker.

Accepting published research and current medical opinion as gospel. The latter is shaped by the former and disagreeing with it can, in normal times have dire consequences for scientists and medical professionals. In the heat of the pandemic, disputing anything relating to the official Covid narrative was terminal.

In 2023, published scientific research relating to certain topics, notably anything vaccine, Covid or pandemic related, is often selling you a narrative, and it isn’t simply the pharma companies trying to convince you of the safety of their products, it includes scientists who wish to prove the exact opposite. Both camps frequently produce research that is designed to promote a particular viewpoint, rather than further the pursuit of science.

Research, that on closer inspection, is shown for what it is. Data manipulated to achieve a desired outcome with control groups that can, at best, be described as compromised. Again, there are sinners on both sides of the aisle. The problem then, is where does this leave the fact checker, who usually has neither the resources or the knowledge to assess the validity of the papers and research they use to validate or invalidate a claim.

This is a complex and nuanced situation and it is easy to make the wrong call, which is essentially what every fact checker does. Based on what are assumed to be facts, we dispute a claim as false. Been there, got the T-Shirt.

Most fact checkers choose to observe or conform to the status quo. Events transpiring in real time that conflict with published lore are usually ignored. The issue is further complicated by the fact that it is often the institutions with a vested interest in maintaining a narrative that perform the checking. This clear conflict of interest should be sufficient reason for most to dismiss their opinions of of hand.

The net effect, in most instances, is to bury, or at least attempt to bury, claims that may in fact have a basis in truth.

Pandemic fact checking, particularly where it relates to the virus, public health and the vaccines, can in many instances rather be referred to as establishment propaganda. Want an example? Did you know there is an association that regulates members who provide fact checking? Bet you didn’t. Called the International Fact Checking Network (IFCN), they offer an extensive database of their members responses to pandemic claims.

Their Coronavirus page, from where you can access their database for the pandemic, boasts the following: 17000 fact checks in 110 countries in 40 languages. I decided to put the system to the test and entered the following text into their search box.

Vaccines do not prevent transmission

This was the response my search returned. The italics and emphasis below are added by the author to highlight just how wonderfully, when it chooses, science can dazzle with bullshit.

[Begin extract] Fact-checked by: Vistinomer

2021/04/19 | North Macedonia

FALSE: A Facebook post claims that vaccines do not protect, do not prevent coronavirus transmission and are experimental.

Explanation: Contrary to claims in the post, according to the World Health Organization, vaccination is a simple, safe, and effective way to protect people from harmful diseases before they come in contact with them. It is also incorrect to claim that vaccines do not prevent transmission. The well-established German epidemiological institute “Robert Koch” announced ten days ago that people vaccinated against the coronavirus are no longer transmitters of the virus. It is also incorrect to claim that vaccines are experimental. For vaccines that are approved by both the WHO and the national regulations of each country separately, their experimental phase is over and they are completely safe to use. [End extract]

You can see how quoting the World Health Organization to validate a claim about public health brings us back nicely to the Bible analogy. We knew, and have known, since the early release of the vaccines that they didn’t in fact prevent transmission. It was one of the primary reasons Medika petitioned aggressively against mandates. As far as “experimental status”, the vaccines definitely qualify.

Safety checking and trials were woefully inadequate, lacking proper controls and pushed through to accommodate panicking governments across the globe who sacrificed safety in exchange for expediency. mRNA is still in evaluation technology in the real world of medicine, and yes, you were unofficially “experimented” on. That is what happens when you participate in the largest global clinical trial ever undertaken.

So can we no longer trust the fact checker or were they acting in good faith on fraudulent information offered by the WHO, the Robert Koch Institute, governments and the vaccine companies? Was this real science or rushed science with flawed conclusions? All of the above or none or some? We don’t know, but time has allowed us to see through the lie. Not much use if you took the vaccine based on similar advice, only to discover later, you’d been misled.

Pity the Patient

It’s possibly the worst time in our societies history to be classified as a patient, and at some point in your life, that will apply to you, if it doesn’t yet. Over the course of the pandemic we were all considered patients, and in may aspects, we had the option of choice as far as treatments were concerned either removed, mandated or prescribed.

For those of us who tried to exercise critical thought and make informed choices with regards Covid treatments and vaccinations, we found ourselves mired in a pool of misinformation, fact-checking and the draconian public narrative. Nothing has changed. We still face this problem as we gradually emerge from three years of often self-inflicted viral misery, with society now fragmented by vaccine status and two very differing opinions on science.

So, dear patient, just where do you turn for help and advice. The truth is, I cannot tell you and anyone suggesting they have discovered the font of truth in 2023 should be avoided at all costs. Your best hope is to revert to good old fashioned critical thinking and apply it to as much information as you can find on a particular topic.

Oh, and if they’re trying to sell you something – RUN.

The post Fact Checking Vaccine Claims With Flawed Science: True appeared first on Medika Life.

Particularly now, when it looks increasing likely that the Wuhan Institute of Virology and their GOF research (US funded) on coronaviruses led to this pandemic. Even the ex-CDC Director has come out in favor of the lab leak theory. So, is this a good idea?

Can I Get a NO? A Loud, Resounding, Absolute NO.

Not in any rational, sane world that is intent on survival of the species, can we permit the continuance of this kind of research in its current form. Especially in the kinds of laboratories we currently use, where apparently, upgrading the walls to Swiss cheese would offer better protection than is currently available. Especially in the hands of scientists, politicians, media and a pharmaceutical industry all of whom have just schooled us on how to manipulate the human race.

How many millions more may pay with their lives for the greed, avarice or incompetence of the few? We haven’t yet held these individuals to account for the 2019 pandemic and here we are again, back on the roundabout, hell bent on laying the groundwork for a second one.

And that is really where the problem lies. It isn’t the science that’s flawed. GOF is a really useful tool, but like the most deadly assault rifle, it can be used for protection or for mass extinction. It depends on the hand that wields it and science has been coopted by individuals and companies that look only to profit and the pursuits of their political masters. In the process, we die, by the millions.

To depress you even further, we cannot walk this back. Not ever. The gene-manipulating genie is out of the bottle and there’s no putting it back. This type of research will still continue, even if it is outlawed at the highest levels. The potential rewards, which are huge, far outweigh the risks. The only solution is to manage it, somehow.

How Do We Fix This?

Elon, so glad you stopped by, as you, or a group of individuals (we understand not everyone can buy the bluebird of happiness on a whim) may very well hold the key to our continued existence, and no, I am not suggesting relocating Pfizer, Moderna and the rest of their motley crew doing pathogen research to Mars, although I’d probably chip in myself for the rocket fuel for that trip.

We know that the current logistical management for GOF needs to be better. Unfortunately, we cannot contain the viruses we work on safely within a facility without them escaping; even our highest levels of security, BSL4 labs, are breached. Every year, incidents occur across the globe, and we may even have the next potential pandemic underway as I write, that is how frequently it happens.

Logic dictates we either stop the practice (not happening) or take steps to ensure we don’t kill the entire global population, unintentionally, or otherwise. To do this, it is critical we remove the danger from populated areas.

We need to establish a global research facility, one of a kind, independently monitored and audited, that is as far removed from proximity to humanity as possible. The middle of the desert springs to mind, a dedicated center for viral research where, in the event of a breach, only the unfortunate scientists pay the price for their carelessness.

To overcome the strain of lengthy periods of isolation, a facility constructed for these purposes could be expanded to include schooling and retail therapy, allowing scientists to pursue their passions and research in a semblance of normality. Most of the pioneers and researchers engaged in Gain of Function are driven by the science, they are passionate and focused, and again, it is their work that is co-opted, rarely the individual.

Quarantines would apply to all personnel leaving the facility, requiring a five-day plus furlough in a Trump Hotel built five miles away. Driverless Teslas, repurposed for deliveries, would alleviate the need for contact with the outside world, and Elon, you could use this as a dry run for Mars.

Humor aside though, the idea has merit and may very well offer a way out of our current predicament. The only other viable alternative is to temporarily halt all research until we are able to fully automate facilities handling dangerous viruses. By that, I mean no human interaction at all. Experiments could be performed remotely, utilizing robotics. We are technically capable of this, but it would be incredibly expensive (I wonder who has a few billion in pandemic profits lying around), restricting who would be able to utilize this kind of technology.

Great Kindness or Greed? We All Hope the Former

Humans are capable of great kindness and innovation, but the danger with this type of research always defaults to the involvement of the human element. We are prone to making mistakes, ask all the unfortunate and very dead researchers working with these pathogens when they escape. Realistically, if safety is our paramount concern, and it should be, our only viable option is to remove GOF research from its proximity to our populations. Back to option 1.

This discussion is unfolding right now, preempted by the letter I referred to above. Perhaps the logic here was to get their case heard before all the wheels come off. When evidence surfaces, and it will, to corroborate the lab leak theory for the SARS virus, all bets will be off. The backlash will be spectacular and science, unfortunately will pay the price. Science we desperately need to cure the ills that have been ailing us for generations.

Villagers and their torches aren’t particular about what they set fire to, and in this instance, they have good cause and science will burn.

Any solution that removes the risk of exposure to pathogens from accidental spillage, cannot obviously account for nefarious intentions, sadly something the industry is rife with. Another thorn in the side of ethical science that needs to be overcome and security at this remote facility would need to be ironclad.

GOF Can Result in Life-Saving Drugs or Danger

We’d like to spark a proper conversation on this subject, involving people who have the resources (Elon, you still here?) to implement solutions that are in the interest of both science and public safety. The two parties must find a way to safely coexist.

It is also worth mentioning that gain of function is far more than what the public perceives it to be. The technology is critical to developing new drugs, new cancer treatments and many other practical uses that do not focus on weaponizing pathogens. Making a virus more deadly may utilize Gain of Function technology, but it represents only a fraction of the industry’s use of the technology.

If you have thoughts on the matter or would like to publish something relating to this, please feel free to reach out to Medika Life via DMs on Twitter. You’ll find us hugely receptive.

The post Elon Musk, Can You Save Us From Covid 2.0? appeared first on Medika Life.

A video has appeared on Twitter in the last few hours, recorded by Project Veritas. The video purports to show a Pfizer Director, who would appear intoxicated, discussing enhancing the Covid virus with a view to developing future vaccines and directed evolution. The video in question is shown below. Before you view this, a warning.

I questioned the video, particularly the employment status of the individual claiming to be Jordon Walker, MD. The evidence offered by Project Veritas for Jordon Walker’s Pfizer credentials comes directly from James O’Keefe, founder of Project Veritas, and was accompanied by the following text. According to O’Keefe;

“We’ve obtained internal Pfizer docs verifying Jordan Walker as Pfizer Director, Research & Development Strategic Operations. Graduated Yale 2013, Doctor Med at U of Texas Southwestern medical school. His supervisor reports to Mikael Dolsten who reports to Albert Bourla, CEO.”

The text and images left me far from convinced and I pursued the matter further. There is no image of Jordon Walker to be found online (in itself strange, given his past and medical position) and aside from published research during his years at the University of Texas Southwestern and his internship at Tufts Medical Center, no other footprint can be found for the doctor. Here is a link to his Doximity page (includes the research links) and his current medical license from New York State is shown below.

There is a notable lack of social media for the good doctor, in particular his LinkedIn account which was created and never used, highly unusual for a person in his position. By contrast, a “colleague”, Senior Director Allison Blum who Walker would supposedly report directly to (if he is in fact employed at all by Pfizer), has a typical LinkedIn page that looks like this. I have reached out to Ms. Blum to see if she can in fact validate Walker’s employment in her division and will update the piece, if and when she replies.

Two things are immediately apparent. Jordon Walker is either the most reclusive employee ever employed by Pfizer or he actually doesn’t work there. The other option, of course, is that his data is being meticulously scrubbed as you read this. If he does in fact work for Pfizer, then the content of the video is incredibly concerning and the level of individual employed by Pfizer to address treatments that impact our genome is even more shocking.

Until further evidence presents itself, I would recommend not amplifying this until his position is in fact validated.

Here then the video, as it appeared on Twitter

I will update this article as new information becomes available and I would caution people from placing to much faith in this until such time as conclusive evidence is provided for this gentleman’s actual place of employment and if he is, in fact, Jordon Walker, MD.

You can read Pfizer’s response here

Update: 01/26/23

In the course of trying to find a connection between Walker and Pfizer, searches on Yahoo turned this up. The page it leads to on LinkedIn has been deleted. The identical result shows on both Yahoo and DuckDuckGo but has been removed from Google, indicating some form of scrub.

A twitter user just linked us to the fantastic Brian O’Shea who specializes in tracking individuals and he has written a fantastically detailed article that would indicate beyond doubt that Jordon Walker is in fact (although probably no longer) in the employ of Pfizer. Great piece of investigative journalism which you can find here. The image below is from his article.

In response to this, congratulations are due to Project Veritas for an exceptionally revealing piece of journalism and I would now freely encourage you to share both Brian’s article above as proof of the video and the Veritas piece itself. Thanks to Annette Gartland for bringing the article to my attention.

Update: 01/27/23

I’ve just seen the follow up video of Jordon Walker being pursued by James O’Keefe, a day after the events that transpired on the video above. Walker was lured out on the pretense of a date, and states on the video below that he was trying to impress the person he met. This effectively invalidates any of the claims made on the video, offering Pfizer an out, which I have no doubt they will pursue.

We need to get the truth out, but in doing so, we need to preserve our values of decency. There are ways to achieve this without stooping to these levels, reminiscent of the paparazzi pursing a celebrity. Medika believes in honest reporting with verifiable sources and information that is not obtained under false pretenses. We stoop to their level and all is lost.

The post Video of Jordon Walker, Supposed Pfizer Researcher, Goes Viral appeared first on Medika Life.

This article contains claims that many will consider incendiary and anti-science. It therefore requires context and if you indulge me for a minute or two, I’d like, at length, to provide background before we address the large mammal. Words have power and we use them to record our history, describe the world around us, create narratives and chart the future. We use words to communicate our deepest thoughts, describe our fears and share our joys. And then, in some instances we use words to lie, both to others and ourselves.

I understand fully the responsibility that comes with the gift of being able to convey complex ideas to others, more importantly however, I also grasp the moral obligation attached to the gift. It should only ever be used for truth, or in the pursuit thereof. Science isn’t that different. It relies on words to describe complex concepts, often utilizing its own specific language, one that for most laypeople, places much of what is discussed beyond reach.

I am, for the record, a disciple of science. I believe. I always have. The logical purity of numbers and the wonders of the natural world are intertwined in an almost mystical fashion and our salvation, as a species will undoubtedly depend on science. Much like the Spiderman character however, the ability to wield an understanding and control over the natural world grants the scientist almost unlimited power. Power that, you guessed it, requires responsibility. Responsibility, morals and a strong sense of ethics.

That it what this article is about. It is not about science per se, but rather about the consequences we now face from the abuse and corruption of the discipline, morphing it into a tool whose primary focus is profit and control, rather than the betterment of our species. That, unfortunately, makes the brand of science currently being practiced, a danger to you and I. A fact the pandemic has highlighted with stunning clarity.

mRNA is the Pandora’s box of science, one of many advancing technology has uncovered. Make no mistake, mRNA holds huge promise for medicine, potentially even rivalling the discovery of penicillin. You can read an article I wrote on that exact topic in 2021, exploring the promise the technology holds.

So no, I am clearly not anti-science, at least not when the science being practiced is honest, ethical and cautious science, science that is aware of the potential impact of its actions on society and our wellbeing. That is not the science we have endured for the last three years, and we need to speak up. We have been systematically and intentionally lied to, misled and chemically abused for the last two years of the pandemic, potentially even right from the outset. Misled with words, scientific phrases couched in ambiguity and force-fed fear by the mass media, at the behest of politicians and scientists.

Now, when the dust settles, we need to face uncomfortable truths and a world that has changed, in ways we have yet to fully grasp. So, to the article, and if you should find yourself at odds with it, please, at least consider the questions it raises.

The Viral Elephant

If, and the “if” is looking more and more likely, the entire human race was just exposed to the first genetically engineered virus, we need to be urgently addressing the elephant in the room. The effects of the SARS-COV2 virus on our physiology are widespread and complex and it is critical more time is spent reverse engineering exactly how the virus was altered to increase its transmissibility.

I came across an incredibly interesting article while writing this piece from one of Medika’s contributors, William Haseltine, that describes in detail one of the unique tools this novel virus utilizes to evade and suppress our immune system. The article may prove heavy going for some, but it is an excellent read and provides insight on just how well adapted the virus is at exploiting our defenses.

Far more than being a one trick pony, SARS-COV2 is the Swiss army knife of viruses and we, unfortunately, are the can of baked beans.

You may notice how I refer to the above tool as unique. Its a term used all the time when discussing this virus. It is unique and the more we discover about it, the more likely it becomes that it was intentionally weaponized (for whatever purpose) to exploit our physiology. Simply put, the virus that has killed millions across the globe was likely released from the Wuhan Institute of Virology. It is a product of science, American science, it is worth adding, practiced at a safe distance, on foreign soil and funded by American taxpayers.

For the first time in the history of humanity, over the course of the next two generations, this genetically manipulated virus will have infected the entire global population. For those who escaped the virus itself, there is no escaping the engineered bits (or spike protein) that have been artificially stimulated in your system by the mRNA vaccines. So the extent of the damage caused by the SARS-COV2 virus and its ability to access our entire physiology is not surprising, given it was designed for exactly that purpose.

We now face a new kind of threat, unknown medical risk by intentional design, a threat for which we are physiologically unprepared. This new world is filled with unknowns. Future mutations, revisited on us by livestock as we infect a host of animals that live in close proximity to us, or a reversion to the original SARS strain, far more deadly than SARS-COV2. How the virus and the vaccines impact our immune system’s response to future viral attacks is also up in the air. These are the issue’s we should be addressing now, with a sense of immediacy.

It is not melodramatic to suggest our species survival may depend on it, and if you think this is being melodramatic, then you still haven’t grasped the gravity of what has just unfolded.

The first step in this process requires accountability from the players involved, most notably EcoHealth Alliance, Peter Daszak, Anthony Fauci, Kristian G. Andersen, Dr. Ralph S. Baric, Dr. Shi Zhengli, et al. must be made to cooperate with a view to establishing the exact nature of their Gain of Function research on coronaviruses. Exactly what did they cook up in the lab in Wuhan and what else resides there on ice, patiently waiting for the next breach in safety protocols.?

It is also worth pausing a moment to consider the irony of the last three years, of looking to those who created the SARS-COV2 virus for our salvation.

The pandemic is rapidly transitioning from a global viral infection to chronic, long-term complications, with a range of symptoms so broad, doctors are at a loss as to how to define and treat them. Covid vaccines may play a significant, but as yet, unquantified role in many of these chronic and often fatal conditions, further muddying the waters. To truly understand which actor, the vaccine or the virus, both manufactured, may be to blame for the afflictions faced by millions, we need reliable, unbiased research and securing that is proving increasingly difficult.

Sifting Quicksand

Every corner of science and the politics that governs it has skin in the Covid game. The pharma industry, perhaps best positioned to carry out large-scale clinical research, can no longer be trusted. Any data released by pharma relating to anything pandemic related – especially in the absence of critical, independent third party review, cannot and must not be taken at face value.

The original Covid mRNA vaccine trials are evidence of this. The trials (170 people, in case you were not aware) were subjected to the most appalling “management” of candidates and data to validate the vaccine’s safety. Rapid development of a vaccine or treatment was of the essence to alleviate a collapsing medical infrastructure that was buckling under the pressure of the pandemic. Moderna took 28 days to solve the problem. 28 days. I’d say it again, but you can draw your own conclusions.

After nearly two decades, we hadn’t managed to develop a vaccine for the original SARS virus and yet, 28 days later, we had a working SARS-COV2 vaccine ready for clinical trials. The absurdity of this and the euphoric acceptance of this break with scientific reality go a long way to illustrating the desperation felt by many in the early days of the pandemic. Logic would rather suggest the virus was familiar to both Moderna and Pfizer prior to 2019.

Government agencies within the U.S. have been deeply complicit, providing funding via the NIH and the NIAID for developing and effectively weaponizing coronaviruses, ostensibly for the purposes of “further research.” Their ability to provide unbiased opinion on what poses a danger to the public they serve has been compromised. It is essential, moving forward, that both the FDA and CDC are overhauled, effectively preventing their pursuit of policies that place the public directly in harms way. Take their latest unanimous advice on vaccinating children as young as six months with mRNA vaccines.

Possibly the greatest indictment of the CDC is their mismanagement of VAERS. The CDC took 15 months before it finally evaluated data from the VAERS system in June of 2022. VAERS is a dedicated tool for collecting reports on vaccine side effects. So why wait 15 months? No sense in checking data for safety signals to simply verify what you already know, is there? Once you’ve checked that data, you can also no longer ignore it.

Every academic medical institution capable of performing the required research we so desperately need is at the same time beholden to outside funding. Research grants and future employment are dependent on not rocking the boat. To produce data that conflicts with, compromises or exposes funding sources (for the most part, pharma) is the equivalent of professional suicide and banishment to the land of the unfunded.

That leaves us with the politicians, whose agendas are rarely fueled by the best interests of the public. Although elected by us, they are all cling to the purse strings that enable them to reach their lofty heights. We will probably never know who orchestrated the official pandemic narrative, but it was the politicians who enforced it. In 2023, despite irrefutable evidence that disputes this narrative, most still repeat it ad nauseam.

To understand just how interwoven this has all become, take Peter Daszak, appointed by the WHO to head up a team to investigate the possibility of a lab leak in Wuhan, effectively policing his own research. In record time he appeared on camera, stating that his investigation had turned up no evidence of a breach in the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Lie upon lie, layer upon layer of deceit and deception. Little wonder then that trust is science is at an all time low.

Given the above, where do we then turn for reliable, agenda free research that is motivated only by the pursuit of the truth? We need to overcome this seemingly insurmountable obstacle before we can even consider unpacking the plethora of virus related questions that require answers. Some would suggest, the World Health Organization is best placed to oversee an investigation, but they too, possibly more than any other health body, are riddled with conflicts of interest on every level.

One thing is glaringly apparent though. There is large and growing body of evidence supporting the fact Covid vaccines are harming some, in many instances, fatally, which begs the following question.

WHY DO WE CONTINUE TO USE THEM? Why have we extended vaccination to healthy children and why does the CDC support this and promote it? How, in good conscience and with the safety of the public in mind, can governments and regulatory bodies allow the current narrative to continue? The study I have linked to above, references post vaccine induced myocarditis. Myocarditis post the Pfizer-Moderna combo was 28 times more common than post-Covid in 16-24 year old males in this massive Nordic study.

Impunity and the Point of No Return

No one is coming to save us and any hands that reach out from the medical and scientific community must, in light of the last three years, be considered tainted by default, until proven otherwise. This is the sad reality of where we currently find ourselves. Everyone in a position to put an end to the current pandemic narrative is compromised. They have passed the point of no return and although many may be racked by feelings or remorse, there is no world in which anyone admits fault, in particular to the virus’s origin and the efficacy of the vaccines.

That wonderful phrase “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone” is absolutely applicable. Everyone sold the narrative and no one institutes an investigation in which they are also likely to be held accountable. Add to this, a growing number of individuals, intimately involved in the pandemic, who act with absolute impunity and concern only for shareholder and personal profit – or glory – and we seem to find ourselves in a spot of bother.

Realistically, no one in a position of power or acting from within the industry is going to the sound the alarm. Our only hope of getting to the truth lies in picking at the edges of the tapestry until it frays and pulls apart. It is left to fringe reporters to harass individuals like Pfizer’s CEO, Albert Bourla, who was accosted recently in Davos by two reporters from Rebel News. He was peppered with questions about their vaccine, its efficacy and more. Understandably, he diplomatically kept silent .

An eminent British cardiologist, Dr. Aseem Malhotra has also taken a stance against the vaccines and their manufacturers after the death of his father from a vaccine related illness. He is among a rising number of influential voices now starting to speak out publicly to call for an end to the mRNA vaccination campaign.

It is by no means a simple task or one for the feint of heart. Censorship is still frequently applied to any information that questions the ongoing Covid narrative, and on many social media platforms, content and users are still frequently de-platformed and often professionally sanctioned. Many have turned to Twitter, which, in recent months, since it’s acquisition by Elon Musk, has stopped censoring information that conflicts with the official narrative on the pandemic.

I’ve shared many articles during the last three years, relying mostly on common sense to question the incredibly dubious public health decisions as they’ve unfolded on a very public platform. At this point in the pandemic, we are now confronted with a very new and real threat, in the face of which, who did what, where, when and why, become almost irrelevant.

Mankind 2.0

What legacy will SARS-COV2 leave in its wake and how does that impact us and future generations? What long term impacts will the continued boosting of a novel drug with an abysmal safety record have on our physiology? What has it done to us over the last three years?

The truth is, we really don’t know the answers, which, in some instances, will require time and separating the vaccine’s effects from those of the virus have now become a research nightmare, thanks to the billions already vaccinated. In 2021, a group of academics valiantly tried to sound warning bells, this incredibly detailed article highlighting the potential dangers of mRNA vaccines.

We are headed into troubled waters, from a public health perspective. We may yet be plagued for generations to come by the ill effects of both the virus and the vaccines, no matter their delivery methods. More so, there is swirl and mistrust in voices of influence.

Long Covid, vaccine Serious Adverse Events (SAE’s – to many to list here) and strokes and heart related damage, in many instances fatal, already blight the medical landscape. Worryingly, the younger members of society appear to be as prone, if not more so, to developing adverse reactions, perhaps because their immune responses to the vaccine are more pronounced.

Humanity may have undone humanity, only time will tell. Time is needed to sort-out fact from fiction – probability from certainty. The responsibility now rests with us (you and I) to ensure we attempt to repair the damage and prevent any further rushed science being put to trial in the public space.

What can you do, you ask? Research all sides of the conversation. Ask questions and demand answers from those you have placed into positions of accountability. The truth will out – over time. Make your own, informed decisions – balancing your personal care and risk/risk – the risk of the current virus variant alongside your health status.

I’d ask one more thing of you. Trust your instincts and try to approach public facing pandemic information with a critical mind. There is almost always an agenda, from both sides of the fence and a little digging will normally uncover it. It’s time to leave the safety of the flock. In case you hadn’t noticed they’ve appointed the wolf as shepherd.

As a parting thought, please don’t vilify science. It is as much a victim of the avarice and greed of humanity, as we are. Perhaps, while we attempt to save ourselves, we can, in the same moment, rescue science. We are going to need it.

Missed Part 5 of the Covid Files on The Origins of Covid? Catch up here.

[EDITORS NOTE: The author is pro public health, pro science and pro vaccination. In this situation, he raises important questions and concerns for readers around the Covid SARS2 virus and Covid treatment approaches. His goal is to get people thinking in the best interest of future health innovation.]

The post Covid’s Elephant in the Room. We Must Address it appeared first on Medika Life.

To clarify upfront, there is no world in which the Covid shots can be compared to a vaccine. They are simply a more complex version of the flu jab you get every year if influenza poses a risk to you. Will you still catch the seasonal variety doing the rounds despite being jabbed? Absolutely, flu shots reduce the risk of flu illness between 40% and 60%, and the ensuing symptoms should be far less severe. The influenza jabs are also referred to as vaccines in literature, but they are not a vaccine either, and take advantage of the term vaccine in much the same way the Covid treatments do.

The influenza shot is also not without risk of serious adverse events (SAEs). Doctors see these SAEs frequently, but the benefits to frail and elderly community members susceptible to secondary infections from the flu virus far outweigh these risks, which are rendered negligible in an elderly or immune-compromised patient population.

Interestingly, the highest levels of protection from flu shots are enjoyed by healthy individuals, not the frail, elderly or immune compromised. Why? Well, their immune response to the jab is more robust, producing more antibodies. Ironic when you consider it is the latter patient population most in need of protection. It would be interesting to see if this response is echoed in the Covid inoculations.

Why were the Covid treatments mislabeled as “vaccines”?

This million-dollar question and one I will examine in depth in this article. Rather than looking to a single factor to explain why these treatments hijacked the term vaccine, the motivations and justifications are far more complex and additional factors combined to create what history may very well view as our greatest medical failure.

Firstly, the term mislabeled is indicative of an error, committed unintentionally. There was both intent and purpose in labelling these Covid therapies as vaccines. It was an intentional, and as I will show you in the article, calculated appropriation of the term to benefit from the trust medicine had established over generations in the word, vaccine. There were also important legal ramifications and the influenza shots had paved the way for further exploitation.

The Promise

Struck with what appeared to be the worst pandemic we had faced in a century, we existed for months in a state of fear, a fear that was carefully nurtured and managed by mainstream media, as we were later to discover, at the behest of groups like SAGE. Our Presidents and Prime Ministers, aware of their tenuous positions, offered salvation. They required a salve to soothe the populace and it took the form of a promised “vaccine” to protect you against a disease that led to a really nasty end.

Pharma was instructed to produce this miracle cure in record time. As early as February and March of 2020, three months after the initial outbreak in Wuhan, we had already been primed for the vaccine. Our expectations were set and anything other than a vaccine would have represented failure. Why? Well, because we all knew and accepted the fact that vaccines, traditionally offered complete protection against the targeted virus. It was what vaccines did, prior to the pandemic. The promised vaccine became a lifeline to many, including overtaxed and exhausted medical staff.

The Legality

Consider the fact that the original SARS virus had been with us for nearly two decades. Despite this, we had failed to produce a vaccine against it, a virus that had the potential to infect on a global scale. We understood the genetic make up of SARS intimately, even using it in illicit Gain of Function (GOF) research funded by the NIH, and performed in the very laboratory in Wuhan in China that came to represent Ground Zero for the pandemic. Yet, despite this, we still had no vaccine. At least, not officially.

In less than a month after sequencing the SARS-COV2 virus (early January of 2020), Moderna had a working mRNA vaccine. In late January of 2020, 28 days after receiving the sequencing (yes, that early), they approached the Whitehouse and CDC to begin Phase 1 trials for their so called vaccine candidate. If you’re thinking to yourself, this all seems highly suspect, then you’re not alone. Forget Warp Speed, this was interdimensional travel.

Not only was a huge headache which had plagued the mRNA industry for a decade involving a stable delivery mechanism for the the Messenger RNA solved, but Moderna had also unpicked the SARS-COV2 virus’s genetic structure and figured out how best to “stop” it by exploiting the spike protein and how it bonded with our ACE2 receptors. All in all, 28 days later, science had created a novel medicine. Either fantastically impressive or highly dubious, we may never know for certain.

To ensure maximum uptake of the new Covid treatment, whatever the motivation may have been for mass vaccination (the public narrative falsely suggested that the shot was ostensibly to reduce infection and transmission), it was essential to adopt a delivery strategy that would allow for the enforcement of the public’s use of the treatment. Vaccines are the only treatments we legally enforce on our populations. Take childhood vaccines. No vaccines, no schooling. Take travel. Visas are often dependent on certain vaccines. Some employers require you to receive certain vaccines.

Most of this legislation had been indirect, so in effect, you were not left feeling you were being coerced to vaccinate. Prior to 2021, the legal manipulations to ensure we abided by vaccine regimens were far more subtle. Post 2021, that rapidly went right out the window as governments engaged in and encouraged mandating the Covid treatments by any and every means. That despite the fact that even the FDA and the Federal government had published legal advice prior to the pandemic stating that Emergency Use Authorization medicines could not be mandated.

Back on 2021, Dr. Amanda Cohn, the executive secretary of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, was asked if Covid-19 vaccination could be required, Her answer was emphatic.

“ under an EUA, “vaccines are not allowed to be mandatory. So, early in this vaccination phase, individuals will have to be consented and they won’t be able to be mandatory.” Cohn later affirmed that this prohibition on requiring the vaccines applies to organizations, including hospitals.”

Releasing an inadequately tested and trialed medical treatment to the public is a desperate and unethical (many will argue illegal) act fraught with potential legal ramifications, the health ones aside. Particularly if said treatments are essentially genetic therapies employing a novel mechanism of action capable of producing unknown long-term effects. Pharma (in particular Moderna and Pfizer/BionTech) sought legal immunity from any government that purchased their treatments to avoid this legal minefield sought legal immunity from any government that purchased their treatments. If you took their treatment (one the very same governments insisted you use) and suffered any adverse events, you were essentially on your own.

These indemnities issued to Moderna and Pfizer spoke volumes to the potential risk they were exposing patients to. Interestingly, even after these treatments were issued full licenses by the FDA, that immunity persisted. Again, there is established precedent in the vaccine industry to issue this type of blanket immunity to pharma companies. Only in the vaccine industry. Sell your experimental treatment as anything other than a vaccine and you’re on shaky ground if the wheels come off.

For this reason, and none other, all the new mRNA based influenza jabs you will receive in the future will be labelled as vaccines. While this hasn’t yet transpired, please bookmark this and revisit the article in a years time.

Coercing the flock

It soon became apparent, by mid-2021, that the willing participation of the public to meet the required levels of immunity (remember, we were still being sold the no transmission and almost complete immunity playbook) wasn’t going as smoothly as planned. People had begun questioning the efficacy of the treatments and the side effects of mRNA treatments and traditional vaccines. Conspiracy theories abounded, some founded in science and others originating in the minds of grifters, intent on their moment of fame. Others were simply concerned about the safety and ethical motives for vaccinating the healthy segments of our populations.

Mandates were imposed, almost unanimously, by governments across the globe. Some, like the Australians, took it to the extremes, while in the U.S. you risked your work, access to basic retail services, your apartment and the very roof over your head if you chose not to “vaccinate”. Air and other public travel was restricted to the vaccinated. With hindsight, the ridiculousness of the travel restrictions, given the inefficacy of the Covid shots at preventing transmission, becomes almost laughable. Almost.

Consider how many at-risk vaccinated people contracted the virus and developed Covid, in some instances fatally, simply for the fact they believed they were protected.

Again, none of the tragedies above would have had a legal leg to stand on without the involvement of the term vaccine, coupled with a public narrative of protecting your fellow man. Shame those who wouldn’t comply and you turn society against them. It is the ultimate shameless form of coercion and manipulation and it was globally adopted. Creating a “vaccine” was key to the success of the narrative sold to the public. It was, in point of fact, the only option.

So mRNA based Covid treatments are not vaccines?

Absolutely not. If you still have trouble wrapping your head around this, allow me to summarize.

• The mRNA shots do not prevent transmission. You are still able to spread the virus once you’ve been infected.
• The mRNA shots do not prevent infection. You will still develop Covid, unlike those vaccinated against polio.
• The mRNA shots do not prevent death, they only reduce the chances of developing serious symptoms and we are uncertain of the exact percentage of their efficacy.
• The mRNA treatments require repeated doses every few months to ensure “protection” against new variants. Sounds suspiciously reminiscent of another jab, the influenza shot – also not a vaccine.

Don’t expect pharma, medicine, science and politicians to acknowledge publicly they have made mistakes. There is no walking this back and that in part, is why the narrative still continues, seemingly in its own “information vacuum”, one that appears impervious to emerging data on safety. While this article isn’t about discussing virus origins, intent and other plausible alternatives to the publicly offered narrative, these exist and cannot be discounted.

Perhaps the most important thing we can take away from this is that as of January 2023, there are zero human beings on the planet vaccinated against Covid. It is time to recognize this and to stop referring to ourselves as two camps, the #vaxxed and #unvaxxed.

Missed Part 3 of the Covid Files on mRNA? Catch up here or read Part 5, On the Origin of Covid. With apologies to Darwin here

The post When is a Vaccine not a Vaccine? appeared first on Medika Life.

There are more than one hundred ways an RNA molecule can be chemically modified after it is synthesized. The functions of many of these modifications, collectively referred to as the epitranscriptome, are largely unknown.

Here’s the problem with medicine and our genome. We are toddlers, tinkering with a system we barely understand. In much the same way as anyone capable of reading can consume a book on calculus, comprehending what actually stands in the book is another endeavor entirely. We’ve opened the book on the human genome and with our basic comprehension and reading skills we now feel we are qualified to fiddle around with the building blocks of life.

Nothing could be more irresponsible.

Our limited knowledge, coupled with a voracious appetite for exploration and profit, has opened Pandora’s box, and there is no putting the genie back. The pandemic, origins aside, was the key to propelling mRNA technology into the world. Tech that companies like Moderna and others had invested billions of dollars in developing. In point of fact, Moderna’s entire business structure, worth billions, was built on the hopes of mRNA succeeding.

Until the pandemic struck, things looked bleak for both Moderna and mRNA. the treatment had encountered numerous hurdles, no the least of which was the CDC, who restricted the use of untested mRNA technology in trials to end of life patients. If you’re at deaths door, risk becomes irrelevant. Delivery mechanisms (a substance to carry the mRNA into the cell) were another aspect no one in the industry had been able to resolve. Yet, suddenly in 2020, miraculously, a working mRNA Covid treatment was developed in record time.

Not just one, but two, a product from Moderna and another from Pfizer/Biontech. Now call me skeptical, but I have a really hard time believing in miracles, no matter how much money you throw at something. It turns out the miracles came at a heavy price, and unfortunately there does not seem to be a ceiling to this price, as more and more patients report an ever increasing number of side effects from the mRNA vaccines.

As icing on the cake, late last year Moderna conveniently announced an mRNA treatment for heart conditions, the irony of which cannot have been lost on hundreds of thousands of people who’ve suffered heart damage from the first round of mRNA “approved” treatments. You cannot make this up and watching the narrative unfold over the last three years has been nothing short of jaw dropping.

mRNA, in this authors opinion, holds massive promise, possibly 20 years down the line, as a tool to effectively combat diseases like cancer on a genetic level. Why 20 years? Well it is going to take us that long to truly grasp the far reaching implications of tampering with our bodies internal clock. Twenty years of cautious science, uncovering dependencies between systems and how all the dots connect. Right now, we can barely crawl, and yet we are attempting to run. It is costing people their lives.

Altering the human genetic code

Strictly speaking, mRNA vaccines, if they adhere to their licensing protocols, cannot interact with human DNA. DNA based Covid vaccines can, so if you’re worried about having your DNA changed, vaccines from Janssen and others are of far more concern. mRNA cannot alter DNA as far as we know and based on our current understanding of cellular traffic. If you have time and the inclination, an article I wrote in 2021 explains the flow of traffic inside a human cell and like any traffic system, there are rules. RNA affecting DNA is a no-no.

That being said, there are very few hard and fast rules in nature that aren’t, on occasion, broken. Spillage occurs, much like a drunk driver who accidentally ends-up driving against oncoming traffic. So can mRNA do this? It is possible. However unlikely, the contamination of DNA cannot be ruled out. If your goal was to alter our DNA, you would rather opt for a DNA-based vaccine.

mRNA can however effect changes within our bodies on a cellular level, and in many ways, this poses far more risk than DNA manipulation. How? Well, take for instance the Covid vaccines, designed to interact with our ACE2 receptors, receptors that the SARS-COV2 virus targets. It turns out that certain organs within our bodies are more susceptible to having these receptors activated. The testes are a perfect example and reduced semen motility after inoculation with Pfizer BNT162b2 has now been clinically proven as a side effect.

What we don’t know about mRNA therapy

Rather than espousing the risks carried by an unproven medical technology at a cellular and genetic level, I’ve opted for listing a few of the unknowns. Possible effects and interactions with mRNA, other medicines and more. It’s possibly worth mentioning at this point that I believe the technology has huge potential, both for medical advances against disease and for exploitation.

Lets start with mRNA and HIV therapies. This group was not represented in the mRNA Covid clinical trials and we have no idea of the potential interactions between the two therapies or how mRNA will impact HIV in the host. There is prior knowledge of the flu vaccine, for example, waking up HIV and exposing it to the immune system; but it has been unclear whether that was only happening in flu-specific T cells, a known place where HIV hides. Now new evidence suggests mRNA has the ability to wake latent HIV.

mRNA and it’s effects on nursing mothers and infants was completely ignored in the original trials, despite this group being an established part of a vaccine cohort in trials. We know now that mothers can pass the spike protein through their breast milk to the nursing infant.

A growing body of evidence now suggests that there is in fact a large degree of risk to nursing infants from the mRNA vaccine, risk that in some instances results in cardiac related damage or death and new research just published in Jama now recommends mothers do not breastfeed for two days after receiving the mRNA vaccines. This is what they discovered.

Of 11 lactating individuals enrolled, trace amounts of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 COVID-19 mRNA vaccines were detected in 7 breast milk samples from 5 different participants at various times up to 45 hours postvaccination.

Sadly, too late for most mothers, many coerced into the vaccine. We have no idea what the long term medical implications are for the infant, and yet, President Biden and the CDC website still suggests vaccinating 6 month old children, effectively doubling their exposure.

The impact of mRNA on a fetus is also largely unknown, yet we still recommend pregnant mothers be vaccinated, showing no regard for the safety of the fetus. Some emerging data suggests a dramatic increase in stillbirths and miscarriages, where causality is ascribed to lockdowns and lack of access to proper medical care, while an overwhelming spate of recently published research suggest no short term dangers exist to the fetus.

Again, none of this research was done prior to the mRNA being administered in 2020, it is all post 2021. Did we simply get lucky, telling pregnant women there was no risk, when in point of fact, we had no idea? Time will tell.

The untested impact of mRNA on Cancers. Cancer patients were underrepresented in the original Covid trials. While some may argue that as most of Moderna’s work done on mRNA leading up to the so called Covid “vaccine” was based around developing cancer treatments, mRNA poses no risk to this group, the opposite may in fact be true. Cancer cells are responsive to mRNA therapy. What we don’t know is if mRNA therapy intended for a different target, say Covid, will awaken dormant cancel cells.

• New research shows patients with hematologic (cancers of the blood) malignancies appear less likely than those with solid tumors to have detectable immune responses and this extends to patients undergoing chemo.
• This paper in Nature on Cytokine release syndrome in a patient with colorectal cancer after vaccination with BNT162b2

Children as young as six months are the latest guinea pigs in the global clinical trial underway for mRNA technology. Ethically and morally inexcusable and sanctioned by the FDA, CDC and President Biden, you are told it is safe to inject your children with the Covid “vaccines” when in point of fact, we have absolutely no idea about the long term impacts and the trials used to justify the treatments in children are nothing short of laughable and will serve as an embarrassment to science and medicine for generations to come.

Adverse events, and the unknown. With a list of Serious Adverse Events (SAE’s) as long as your arm, all the Covid vaccines, including and especially those utilizing mRNA, came with risks, most of which were down played. Damage to your heart, Myocarditis and Pericarditis (for which Moderna conveniently had another mRNA therapy in the pipeline, released recently), blood clotting, Bells Palsy, the list goes on and on. While we are rapidly discovering the many unknown short term side effects for some of mRNA therapy, we still have no idea of the long term SAE’s. Two questions arise.

Are these effects, both immediate and long term, the result of the mRNA based delivery or the actual spike protein generated by the treatment. Only time and honest research will answer this question satisfactorily and it is one that must be put to bed as new flu shots, cancer treatments and more are rolled out on the back of mRNA technology. All regard for long term, established safety protocols have been thrown out the window.

Unintended consequences and the complex interactions of cellular based medicines on an organism as complex as the human body cannot be calculated, accounted for or anticipated, at least not yet. We have gaps in our knowledge on a biological level and only a minimal understanding of the toys we are tinkering with. if we have no qualms enforcing this on pregnant women, that in itself should give us pause for thought.

The risks for cancer patients in remission is another topic of debate, after recent reports that mRNA has triggered latent cancer cells to resume growth.

What we are discovering about mRNA Covid Therapies, post treatment

A recent study from Cleveland Clinic highlighted a fear that has been raised by a few medical outliers who chose to speak out against the “vaccination regimen” at risk of professional ridicule. Focusing on the bivalent vaccine, it reported a worrying trend. With every successive booster, the patients risk of contracting Covid actually increased.

The risk of COVID-19 varied by the number of COVID-19 vaccine doses previously received. The higher the number of vaccines previously received, the higher the risk of contracting COVID-19 (graph below)

You can view the full results of the Cleveland Clinic study by following this link. Now while there may be certain problems with this study pertaining to their cohort, their findings are substantiated by findings from two other studies.

Breasts Cancers seem to be on the upswing. Evidence continues to emerge about axillary lymphadenopathy following COVID-19 vaccination and it is now a recommendation that women undergo a breast screening, post vaccination. It is known that the Pfizer vaccine can cause swelling of lymph nodes, often suggestive of breast cancer. However, any enlargement of lymph nodes can potentially indicate cancer, so this symptom should not be ignored.

This creates an ideal environment for misdiagnosis. Ensure your doctors and health providers know you’ve been recently vaccinated, but make sure you a properly screened and that the swellings are not merely dismissed out of hand because of your recent vaccination.

People with gastrointestinal conditions (GI) should be carefully monitored after vaccination for Covid 19, according to a paper published on PubMed entitled Gastrointestinal Complications of COVID-19 Vaccines. Their patient experienced post-vaccination acute diverticulitis and colon micro-perforation following a Moderna booster dose.

Sperm motility in men should be monitored in patients who have received multiple boosters and want to start a family. There appears to be a direct correlation in the reduction of sperm motility and the number of mRNA vaccines administered to a patient. Whilst recovery takes between 10 and 14 days after a second does, research does not exist for third, fourth or fifth doses. You can read the paper, entitled Covid-19 vaccination BNT162b2 temporarily impairs semen concentration and total motile count among semen donors here.

Of course, this above mentioned list of issues is in no way comprehensive, that would require nothing short of a book, but rather is provided to highlight certain ongoing issues.

Getting to the heart of mRNA’s problems

Sudden Death and the hashtag #DiedSuddenly follow you wherever you go on Twitter and other social media platforms. Cardiac related issues experienced by healthy teenagers and young adults are on the increase and many prove fatal. These incidents are matched by the number of videos of people of all ages dropping from an apparent stroke, most performing the same macabre contortions before collapsing to a mostly unknown fate.

To exacerbate mRNA’s headaches, it is being forcibly administered to patients without their consent in hospitals where the patient undergoes surgery. Some hospitals still refuse life saving medical interventions like organ transplants if the patient is not “vaccinated”. A global spike in excess deaths, up by hundreds of percentage points in some countries over the last two years also demands an explanation and vaccines are seen as the most likely culprit.

It would seem that even if mRNA survives it’s rocky introduction to humanity with no further serious long term adverse events, its reputation will have been seriously damaged, perhaps even irreparably. A little ironic justice metered out for the damage it has inflicted on the reputation of actual vaccines.

A spate of Happy Coincidences

If you believe in them. Personally, I don’t, but actually separating fact from fiction around mRNA’s sudden meteoric rise to fame is rapidly becoming an improbable task, as the tangled web surrounding it continues to become more complex. Rather than trying to unpick it, I’ve opted for listing a few interesting, and often overlooked, facts surrounding mRNA in the last three years and earlier.

1. The National Institute for Health (NIH) and Moderna developed the Moderna vaccine in partnership, with patent rights, US Patent Application No. 62/972,886 entitled 2019-nCoV Vaccine filed in June of 2020, residing with the NIH.
2. NIH, alongside the National Institute for Allergies and Infectious disease (NAIAD) and Moderna have researched coronaviruses, like MERS and SARS, for several years, and signed a contract in December of 2019 that stated “mRNA coronavirus vaccine candidates [are] developed and jointly owned” by the two parties.
3. Since 2015, the National Institute for Health (NIH) and the National Institute for Allergies and Infectious disease (NIAID), knowingly provided funding to a specific group of American scientists and their institutions and businesses to perform Gain of Function (GOF) research, despite a moratorium.
4. The publicly stated intent of these scientists, working under the auspices of Peter Daszak, Ph.D and EcoHealth Alliance, Inc was to develop a more infectious version of the coronavirus and to achieve their ends they chose a Chinese scientist working out of a laboratory in Wuhan, China.
5. EcoHealth Alliance is a non-profit group that has received millions of dollars of U.S. taxpayer funding to genetically manipulate coronaviruses with scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
6. During this period, Dr Anthony Fauci was director of NAIAD and Dr. Francis Collins director of the NIH. Jointly they controlled about 10 billion dollars of funding annually, placing them in a position to control and distort the public Covid narrative.
7. The same Peter Daszak of EcoHealth Alliance interfered on numerous occasions with investigations into the origin of the SARS-COV2 virus, creating a narrative contrary to a manufactured laboratory origin for the virus. For those with time and intent, the full list of EcoHealth Alliance emails released under Freedom of Information, can be found here.
8. Dr Fauci, in September of 2022 and only days away from retirement, as a parting gift to EcoHealth Alliance from the NAIAD, awarded a $653,392 grant to the company to analyze “the potential for future bat coronavirus emergence in Myanmar, Laos, and Vietnam.” This despite the company’s failure to produce records pertaining to Wuhan and their involvement in the GOF research undertaken there on their behalf.

In closing, I have no compunctions about leaving you with my impressions of the duplicity of pharma, governments and regulatory bodies foisting unproven medical technology down our throats and sadly, there is no defense that can be raised by any of the parties involved that would excuse their actions.

Hindsight is offered in part to offer comfort to the those who are now being held accountable. It’s easy, they claim, to criticize now, after the facts. That, of course, is complete and utter nonsense. Anyone with a grain of common sense able to follow something to its logical conclusion knew months into the pandemic that we were being manipulated, cajoled, coerced and prepared for amass vaccination campaign. Everyone with an inkling of medical training knew that mRNA was a potential horror story waiting to unfold, and yet, here we are, two years later, recommending we now “get the kids”.

It is the betrayal by science, the community in general and the professionals who undertook oaths to protect their patients that is perhaps the most saddening part of the pandemic shambles. It is this betrayal that will impact medicine for generations to come. “Trust me, I’m a doctor,” the punchline to a pandemic joke coming soon to a stand-up venue near you.

Part 4 of the Covid Files. When is a vaccine not a vaccine?

The post The Covid Global Clinical Trials for mRNA. Thank You for Participating appeared first on Medika Life.

During six weeks, we will examine all the aspects surrounding the last three years and the draconian and, at times, absurd manipulation of the media to convey a narrative that, it turns out, had little to do with your health and well-being. We’ll examine the demise of critical science, which some would argue is already long gone, but the pandemic brought it home. Covid shots and tech (mRNA) will be placed under a critical microscope and the origins of the virus that brought the world to a standstill will be discussed.

Make no mistake; if you’ve been jabbed against Covid, then you’ve been coerced into participating in the largest global medical trial ever undertaken. Good science weighs risk/benefit alongside risk/risk – the risk of the disease alongside the risk of the treatment.

Medika Life stands for objective science and exchange – proper critical science undertaken with the goal of improving lives. By that, I refer to sound critical science undertaken to improve lives, science that is open to criticism and uncensored peer review. Cautious science, designed to protect and save lives – to do no harm. A path that science currently, under the duress of politics and profit, has forsaken. Sometimes, science cannot be – should not be – rushed.

Take vaccines as an example, life-saving routine treatments critical to the safety of our children and treatments we would administer with little thought to safety. During the last two years, the “labeled” Covid vaccines have damaged the credibility of what vaccines are in many people’s minds – therapies that prevent disease and its transmission. Credibility that had taken generations to build. Ironic if you consider that the Covid products were nothing more than the equivalent of the flu jab and never a vaccine.

Each article in the coming weeks will examine a range of issues based on real hard data and facts, including the validity of the treatments (vaccines), mRNA technology, lockdowns and masks, virus origins, the actual reality of Long Covid – is it the result of long-term damage from the virus, reaction to the virus combined with the vaccine or another clinical pathway. What of people who have survived the so-called “Sudden Death” syndrome and more?

Read Medika Life and enjoy access to the most comprehensive analysis of our post-Covid lives. For more than two years, Medika has questioned numerous aspects of the pandemic, including mandates and the “vaccination” of children and healthy adults.

Facts have emerged subsequently to support these views and we’d like to provide you with an authoritative range of articles to refer to that are properly referenced and contain actual facts. Our goal is to get people thinking. Questioning is not a crime. It leads to new ideas and innovations.

Here is a list of reading to look out for. The links to these pieces will be activated as they are published and you are welcome to reach out to us with questions and suggestions.

• Welcome to The Covid Rabbit Hole: A dystopian maze filled with deception and misdirection.
• The Covid Global Clinical Trials for mRNA. Thank you for Participating.
• When is a vaccine not a vaccine?
• On the Origin of Covid, with apologies to Darwin
• Covid’s Elephant in the Room
• Sudden Death, Pure Bloods, Myocarditis and more.
• Lockdowns and Mandates, Politics, Medicine and Orwell.
• The Demise of Freedom of the Press and Censorship.
• Is Long Covid a real thing?
• Learning to trust again in a post-Covid society?

The post The Covid Files: A Series Separating Pandemic Fact from Fiction appeared first on Medika Life.

Essentially, you have two choices, weighing the risks of the vaccine against your healthy child’s risk from contracting Covid or, in the second instance, balancing the vaccine risk against any pre-existing conditions your child may have that would make contracting Covid dangerous.

I’m not anti-vaccine, just to get that out the way. Lara’s had all her other shots and I am a firm believer in time-proven vaccines, like the polio and measles vaccine. Actual vaccines that prevent infection and control or eliminate disease. We all know by now that this description does not apply to the Covid “vaccines”. We aren’t dealing with actual vaccines when it comes to Covid and the risks of “vaccination”, based on fact, may far outweigh the benefits. Especially when it comes to mRNA technology.

This is a lengthy article, but if you’re here, I assume it’s out of concern for your child and wanting to establish risk, benefit and fact before you take the leap. This article will provide this, along with a basic overview of the technology involved in the vaccines.

Is mRNA dangerous?

Unproven medicines carry risk, particularly in the long term. It is one of the main reasons medicines can take five to eight years or in many instances even longer, to reach the marketplace, or rather patients. Side effects that are immediate are often picked up in clinical trials, but other side effects can take years to manifest. In the case of mRNA it becomes even more complex. As we are dealing with gene-based medicines, in the case of mRNA, side effects may only become evident in your offspring.

It’s a whole new ball game and one we’ve been working toward for the last decade. Make no mistake, mRNA medicines offer the promise of targeted individual treatment that could eradicate diseases like cancers. They are exciting and potentially life-saving. They are the future of medicine and we may have just seriously diminished their long-term credibility in the market place in one foul swoop, in an ill-conceived effort to medicate the entire planet against Covid.

Until the pandemic, mRNA treatments were restricted to end of life patients. Why? Well, we working tirelessly to better understand the risks involved in the technology and these treatments were only approved for people that had no other choice to prolong their lives. Impending death voids risk.

Then came Covid, and along with it, the need to make people feel safe and reboot our social connections and economies. Governments, perhaps in desperation, seized on the rapidly developed mRNA treatments, incorrectly labelled them as vaccines (instead of immunizations), and in doing so created a public perception. Get the shot and you’re safe. Why wouldn’t you be, that’s what vaccines do. In truth though, and as the public has discovered in recent months, these mRNA treatments were not vaccines. They do not prevent infection, transmission or the Covid disease.

The hurried Covid clinical trials were filled with flaws (more on this further into the article), both from the companies contracted to run the trials and in the reporting of the results. This article isn’t about allocating blame however, it is simply about sharing information, facts and the simple realities are that the original Covid mRNA clinical trials for adults were themselves flawed. Then came the trials for children.

What your child and mice have in common.

Easily answered. Pretty much nothing, aside from an established pattern of using mice in trials to establish human compatibility, and if you’re wondering why this question, it is because the approval by the FDA for vaccinating your child with mRNA technology was based on trials conducted on mice. Yup, you heard right. Mice, and to add insult to injury, only a few mice. Worth mentioning at this point, that success in mice doesn’t always translate into a viable product in humans.

Mice are commonly used in what we call “surrogate trials” and the easiest way to understand this is with an example one of my colleagues recently brought up, that of statins, a group of drugs used to lower your cholesterol levels. Statins were rigorously trialed over a long period of time and overcame numerous hurdles to become one of the best tolerated and safest drugs doctors have at their disposal. New companies soon added their own versions of these drugs, and, as we already knew by this stage how well tolerated the drugs were, these companies were allowed to use mice in so called surrogate trials, where the unfortunate, unpaid rodents got to stand in for human subjects.

No harm, no foul, simply science using hard won and long established protocols for safely testing a drug. Up until the pandemic, mRNA had been subject to the same safety protocols.

mRNA drugs may not be well tolerated and may not be safe to use. The truth is we simply don’t know enough yet of their long term effects and can only pray that the world’s largest clinical trial (read the Covid vaccination drive) proves them safe in the long term. We may have to wait a generation to establish their real impact on patients. This is a simple scientific fact. No long term safety data exists for mRNA medicines.

Establishing your child’s risk from SARS-COV2

If you’re a responsible parent, you’ve probably had your child immunized and vaccinated against a host of serious diseases. We do this to protect our children. For instance, young males contracting Mumps can, as a side effect of the disease, end up sterile. Measles, polio and many other childhood diseases can be potentially fatal and debilitating. The question you should be asking then, is how does Covid affect young children?

In the case of certain conditions that leave your child immune compromised, diabetes, heart disease, obesity and certain other conditions I will list at the end of the article, getting your child vaccinated against Covid makes sense. The risk of serious adverse events (SAE’s) from the vaccines are mitigated by your child’s likelihood to develop serious Covid. In other words, Covid poses more of a threat to your child than the mRNA vaccines. You must address risk-risk alongside risk-benefit.

“42 studies containing 275,661 children without comorbidities and 9,353 children with comorbidities were included. Severe COVID-19 was present in 5.1% of children with comorbidities, and in 0.2% without comorbidities”

Tsankov BK, Allaire JM, Irvine MA, Lopez AA, Sauvé LJ, Vallance BA, Jacobson K. Severe COVID-19 Infection and Pediatric Comorbidities: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Int J Infect Dis. 2021 Feb;103:246-256. doi: 10.1016/j.ijid.2020.11.163. Epub 2020 Nov 20. PMID: 33227520; PMCID: PMC7679116.

One of the conclusions drawn in the above study (linked in footer) was that it was impossible from the data to identify which comorbidities in children led to more serious Covid, but one stood out in the data, namely obesity.

It’s important to recognize that your child may also be suffering from an as-yet undiagnosed condition that would make them more susceptible to serious Covid. While other non-mRNA vaccines address Covid, none of these have yet achieved regulatory approval for use in children under 12 (see list in footer).

If you are however the lucky owner of a healthy hobbit, then you can with a high degree of confidence, assume your child will simply shrug off the Covid virus with minimal side effects. It would appear that Covid, particularly the current strains, to which children seem to be more susceptible (although this may simply be the effect of reopening schools, a know driver for influenza) does not prove deadly to young healthy adults or children. Only in extremely rare instances do healthy children develop serious Covid.

In short, Covid poses a very, very low health risk to healthy children of all ages. The same can not currently be said for the mRNA vaccines with a slew of widely reported, serious side effects, including heart-related damage. While there may as yet be some unfathomable reason for the vaccines not being linked to these reports (a scenario which seems less and less likely as time progresses), the onus of proving the vaccines are not at fault lies with the pharma companies. In this authors opinion they are too heavily invested in the products to address these concerns, so revert to lobbying to ensure the vaccines continued use.

Natural Immunity versus the mRNA shots

This is a non-starter right from the outset. It’s a little like pitting an elephant against a mouse in a tug of war. Naturally acquired immunity always trumps artificially prompted immunity, but this isn’t even really a discussion we should be having. mRNA treatments do not invoke immunity in the patient as they aren’t vaccines. You can still be infected, so you expose your child’s body to two sets of challenges by opting for the vaccine.

• In the first instance your child’s body must deal with the artificially introduced spike protein in the mRNA shot. This spike protein rapidly spreads throughout the patient’s body, embedding itself in all their organs, including the heart and brain, eliciting in some cases, a massive immune response. It is, what many suspect, leads to the SAE’s.
• Your child will still contract Covid at a later date, prompting another immune response and placing more stress on their tiny systems.

Worth mentioning here is that your child may very well already have been infected by the SARS-COV2 virus and simply shrugged it off, or only felt out of sorts for a few days. We do not test for prior infection before vaccinating a child or adult, suggesting that “wholesale vaccination” rather than individual treatment and the best interests of the patient drove the pandemic vaccination strategy. Natural acquired immunity was completely ignored.

ALWAYS test your child for Covid prior to opting for the vaccine, as administering the mRNA vaccines on top of an active Covid infection can be debilitating for the patient. This strategy is also recommended for adults.

Establishing real risk for mRNA Vaccines in children

As I mentioned earlier, the rushed clinical trials were about as far away from normal pharma and FDA protocols as you can get while still having your treatment approved, and then some. With the pandemic in full flow, we waived all sorts of standard safety protocols, including the usual “wait and see” phase which can run into years for most medicines. We are still unable to predict Covid risk accurately but Table 1 below sets out to do that based on data collected across the United Kingdom. This data is based on deaths prior to the vaccines being released.

You can see in the first line that prior to the vaccine roll out, the survival rate in children was 99.9973%. Knowing this, the decision to use an improperly trialed new technology with as yet, undetermined long term side effects and a known list of SAE’s that stretches into pages, was nothing short of criminal. The scientific community and governments rubber stamped mass vaccination knowing full well that their justification (looking out for others) lacked substance. mRNA vaccines did not reduce transmission, infection or the disease itself, only providing middling protection against death.

Now, the same institutions are advising you vaccinate your child. Below, a few more facts about the mRNA trials.

• The mRNA vaccines were never tested on nursing mothers, yet nursing mothers were advised by everyone that the vaccine was safe for them to use. Nursing mothers usually make up an integral part of new drug trials.

• The original trial revealed that a person was 95% ‘less likely’ to catch the autumn 2020 variant of COVID-19. This is known in medical speak as relative risk reduction, but to know the true value of any treatment one needs to understand for that person, by how much is their individual risk reduced by the vaccine – that is, the absolute individual risk reduction.

This is a very important point, as we base risk assessments on the real world efficacy of a product and this point is explained in stunning clarity by a recent article in the Journal of Insulin Resistance titled Curing the pandemic of misinformation on COVID-19 mRNA vaccines through real evidence-based medicine, ISSN: (Online) 2519-7533, (Print) 2412-2785. I’ve extracted the relevant part below to further explain the point of absolute individual risk reduction. It matters in adults, but 10 times more so in the case of healthy children.

Importantly, it turns out that the trial results suggest that the vaccine was only preventing a person from having a symptomatic positive test, and the absolute risk reduction for this was 0.84% (0.88% reduced to 0.04%). In other words, if 10000 people had been vaccinated and 10000 had not, for every 10000 people vaccinated in trial 4 would have tested positive with symptoms compared to 88 who were unvaccinated. Even in the unvaccinated group, 9912 of the 10000 (over 99%) would not have tested positive during the trial period. Another way of expressing this is that you would need to vaccinate 119 people to prevent one such symptomatic positive test (assumed to be indicative of an infection, which, in itself, is potentially misleading but beyond the scope of this article).

This absolute risk reduction figure (0.84%) is extremely important for doctors and patients to know but how many of them were told this when they received the shot? Transparent communication of risk and benefit of any intervention is a core principle of ethical evidence-based medical practice and informed consent.

Clearly, these facts dramatically impact the risk profile of these medicines. For healthy adults and children, the risk of developing serious Covid is outweighed by the risk of SAE’s for the vaccine. It’s a simple case of diminishing returns in terms of actual benefit to the patient and the vaccine is found wanting. The diminished benefits to healthy patients are outweighed by the vaccine’s SAE’s, known or otherwise. Table 2 below lays out very clearly how many people required a vaccine per age group to prevent a single death.

For those who are math orientated, the quoted article’s author lays out the methodology to arrive at your absolute risk reduction from the vaccine for an adult aged 44.

If there is a 1 in 119 chance the vaccine protects you from getting symptomatic infection from ancestral variants, then to find the protection against death, this figure (n = 119) must be multiplied by the number of infections that lead to a single death for each age group. This would give (for up to two months after the inoculation) the absolute risk reduction (for death) from the vaccine. For example, if my risk at age 44 from dying from Delta (should I get infected with it) is 1 in 3000, then the absolute risk reduction from the vaccine protecting me from death is 1 over 3000 multiplied by 119, that is, 1 per 357000.

• Trial participants were limited to the type of adverse event they could report on their digital apps, and some participants who were hospitalized after inoculation were withdrawn from the trial and not reported in the final results.
• After two months into the pivotal trials, the FDA allowed vaccine companies to offer the vaccine to subjects in the placebo group, essentially torpedoing any chance of properly recording adverse events from that point on, forcing a reliance of pharmacovigilance data.
• Trials in children did not show a reduction in symptomatic infections but instead used the surrogate measure of antibody levels in the blood to define efficacy, even though the relationship between Wuhan-spike vaccine-induced antibody levels and protection from infection is tenuous, at best. The Food and Drug Administration’s (FDAs) own website states that: Results from currently authorized SARS-COV-2 antibody tests should not be used to evaluate a person’s level of immunity or protection from COVID-19 at any time, and especially after the person received a COVID-19 vaccination.
• SAE’s reports are numerous and sadly appear far more common place than the governments and pharma suggest. In some instances, the mRNA vaccines are potentially harmful.

The general public associated a reduction in deaths with the original mRNA Covid trial. This was however not the case and in fact, no such data was presented, only interpreted as such by governments and health authorities, the scientific community and the media, placing a positive spin on the results. Again, from the article in the Journal of Insulin Resistance quoted above.

“Contrary to popular belief, what the trial did not show was any statistically significant reduction in serious illness or COVID-19 mortality from the vaccine over the 6-month period of the trial, but the actual numbers of deaths (attributed to COVID-19) are still important to note. There were only two deaths from COVID-19 in the placebo group and one death from COVID-19 in the vaccine group. Looking at all-cause mortality over a longer period, there were actually slightly more deaths in the vaccine group (19 deaths) than in the placebo group (17 deaths).”

Sadly, most websites still misreport the efficacy of the vaccines and vaccine related articles are often riddled with inaccuracies, even sites like Yale Medicine, which in a recently updated article (Oct 2022) continues to enforce the misconception of how effective the vaccines are. The quote below is taken directly from the article and is indicative of how scientific institutions continue to spread the pandemic vaccine narrative, confusing the public and essentially misleading them. The article also downplays the associated risks of the Covid vaccines.

“When Pfizer-BioNTech applied for FDA authorization for its vaccine in December 2020, its initial Phase 3 clinical data surpassed expectations with 95% efficacy, based on an independent analysis by the FDA.”

Kathy Kattela

A few parting thoughts

I have, for the last two years, spoken out strongly against the practice of enforcing Emergency Use medications on the public, through mandates or by coercion. Unfortunately, we set off down this path, restricting our children’s access to education based on their vaccine status. Now we are trying to coerce millions of parents across the globe to continue accepting the risk posed by mRNA shots and expose their children to potentially life threatening side effects, when the disease itself poses a very, very limited risk to healthy children.

No one should have the right to enforce potentially life threatening treatments on your child unless the end result is justified and they have made a risk based case for the use of the treatment. I have shown you how they have failed to do this and how, in reality, you have been misled over the duration of the pandemic about the efficacy and risks of the mRNA vaccines. Everything you’ve read above is fact and can be easily and readily verified.

As a parent I even advised my older adult children to avoid the mRNA vaccines and they all opted for the more traditional vaccines offered by the likes of Johnson & Johnson, where known SAE’s were all they had to contend with, rather than roll the dice on an untested genetic treatment employing a novel method of delivery.

I hope the article has been informative and that it in some small way helps you find peace as a parent concerned for the long term and immediate health of your child. Remember, the choice of vaccinating your child against Covid is yours.

Further Information

Covid treatments approved for children

• Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine for children ages 6 months through 4 years
• Moderna mRNA vaccine for children ages 6 months through 5 years
• Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA COVID-19 vaccine for children ages 5 through 9 years
• Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccine for children ages 6 through 11
• Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, now called Comirnaty, for people age 12 through 17
• Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccine for children ages 12 through 17
• Novavax non-mRNA COVID-19 vaccine for people age 12 and older

Conditions in children that may increase the risk of serious Covid

• Obesity
• Cancers
• Conditions that affect the child’s immune response
• Diabetes
• Heart Disease
• Chronic Lung Disease other than Asthma
• Seizure Disorders

Further reading

European Medicines Agency: Assessment Report, Covid19 Vaccine Moderna

National Library of Medicine: Severe COVID-19 Infection and Pediatric Comorbidities: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The post Should I Vaccinate my Child Against Covid? appeared first on Medika Life.

When it came to Covid treatments, AFLDS promoted the internet flavor of the day, first jumping on the Hydroxychloroquine bandwagon and then adding Ivermectin to their shopping cart of Covid wonders. As long as people were unsure how to treat their Covid symptoms, AFLDS preyed on them, exploiting their fear and lack of knowledge. As soon as I saw Dr. Pierre’s involvement, it piqued my interest, and I decided to dig a little deeper.

Sure enough, there’s a shop!

You can visit the good doctor at his premises in Westlake Village in California if your Botox is flat-lining, or you can visit his website, which, of course, features a shop. Hand-picked products the good doctor assures you are essential to that glowing complexion. He is, as I mentioned, a dermatologist.

I knew his website would contain a shop. It’s a hallmark of the type of “medical” professionals that exploit their positions of trust with their patients to monetize their practices. No big surprise there and while Dr Pierre may in fact be an excellent dermatologist (I have no issue with him practicing his specialty), he is no virologist and definitely not a pharmacologist. In short, he has absolutely no business going around on the internet making ridiculous claims about using medicines off-label.

I cannot speak to the doctor’s motivation in risking his practice by joining AFLDS. His degree indicates a certain level of intelligence and therefore one can only assume his motives are purely financial as his background would be sufficient for him to be able to scientifically evaluate the claims he makes as being false. Ergo, there is financial motivation or grift in the advice he offers.

In the video above, he also employs a typical disinformation tactic of quoting the world Health Organization (WHO) and then attaching a statement as if to attribute it to the WHO. To be clear, the WHO does not endorse either Ivermectin or Suramin as medicines to treat or prevent Covid. Dr Pierre also has claimed that receiving the Covid 19 vaccine will void your life insurance citing a debunked court case in “France, and claims that the American Council of Life Insurers (ACLI) said that life insurance policies may deny payment for people who die from Covid-19 vaccines.” But, there is no ACLI and there was no French court case.

Either way, the good doctor talks out of his hat. Neither Ivermectin nor Suramin will protect you against developing Covid. Please don’t waste your hard-earned cash buying off-label medicines from AFLDS, spend that money on fresh food and get some exercise. Remember, if you are at risk from Covid, please do get vaccinated. If you are uncertain if you are in an at-risk category, you can read this advice which clearly lays out which diseases and conditions place you at risk.

For stepping out of his professional lane and offering medical advice based on opinion rather than proven medical fact, promoting disinformation surrounding the pandemic, and associating with known grifters, Dr. Pierre has the ignominy of joining our celebrated list of quacks. If it walks like a duck…

The post Another AFLDS Quack, Meet Dr. Peterson Pierre appeared first on Medika Life.