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.

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.

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.

Calling it “arbitrary and capricious,” the New York Supreme Court struck down New York City’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate for public workers, ruling in favor of 16 unvaccinated city workers who had sued following their termination. Their reason? The vaccines failed to prevent infection and transmission.

Fresh on the heels of this recent decision, not everyone is paying attention, especially Kathy Hochul, the incumbent Governor of New York since 2021 and a Democrat. As an engineer of the NYC mandate in question, here’s what she had to say in a recent debate about her policy to dismiss workers who chose not to be vaccinated against Covid.

It’s a brave statement in the face of mounting evidence that not only New York, but the entire United States was at fault for coercing vaccination compliance and in many instances, mandating Covid vaccines. It is also, in view of recent events, politically short sighted and potentially disastrous for public health and related services in New York.

In the last month we have had confirmation from Pfizer of a fact many of us within the industry were well aware of almost two years ago. The Covid vaccines don’t prevent transmission. For those having a difficult time with this, let’s break it down into its simplest form.

Vaccinated people have always been able to contract and spread the SARS-COV2 virus that leads to Covid.

Spare a thought for all those vaccinated airline passengers, happily munching away without their masks in a sealed steel cannister.

A perfect storm

Data is now being released daily that is unraveling the best efforts of all involved to preserve the official Covid vaccine narrative. Couple this with the increased visibility of the vaccine injured across all forms of social media, and you have a problem, Houston. One which the orchestrators of the vaccine mandates seem to be wishing away rather than dealing with.

October has seen social media and news outlets flooded with warnings the Democrats have largely failed to heed.

• Pfizer announced at an EU Committee convened to investigate Covid that their vaccines were never tested for preventing transmission (link provided above)
• Possibly with the worst timing ever, the CDC unanimously approved the Covid vaccine for use in children under five and added it to the official list of childhood vaccines in the US, basing their decision on what can only be described as “hugely questionable” clinical trials. An uproar followed, with members of the public and political figures stepping into the melee. Fact-checkers published articles assuring the public that individual states could decide whether the child vaccine would be compulsory, but the damage was already done.
• Rochelle Walensky, the CDC director, fully vaccinated and boosted, announced she had Covid. This news was interspersed on social media with earlier clips from 2021 of her assuring the public they would not contract Covid or transmit the virus if they had been vaccinated. The clip below shows President Biden, Rochelle Walensky and Rachel Maddow doubling down on the official narrative.

President Biden has just received a booster dose in this week and made this statement shortly after to the media.

“It will be one injection of the corona vaccine every year, if you get it you are protected and if you don’t, you are putting yourself and others at risk.”

President Joe Biden, Oct 2022

It shows a continued inability across Democratic party lines to address the rapid unravelling of the official narrative as it doubles down on inaccurate and misleading statements relating to the vaccines, their efficacy and ignores their documented dangers. Ego, bravado, legal liability and a host of others factors are preventing the Democrats, who are now associated with Covid policy, from owning up to what each of their constituents already knows.

We are now at point in the evolution of Covid that suggests a simple path forward. Continued “vaccination”, or let’s call it what it really is – immunization – for at-risk groups, perhaps on a seasonal basis, as the SARS-COV2 virus doesn’t appear to be going anywhere soon, and encouraging the public to continue wearing masks in crowded areas. There were numerous reasons for the huge reduction in influenza cases in 2020 and 2021. Schools were closed (these are recognized as the primary source of “flu” infections), people were holed up in their houses, and, then when we did venture out, we were masked. It helped slow the spread of both Covid and influenza.

The Democrats are hemorrhaging support because of their inability to acknowledge past mistakes and it’s questionable if many even realize it. Indeed, the Republicans do. Confidence in the political system will be at a premium in 2022. To repeat falsehoods in the face of irrefutable facts is tantamount to political suicide. That alienates voters, voters the Democrats can ill afford to lose at this pivotal point in American history.

With voting for midterms gathering momentum, sticking to the facts as they emerge, acknowledging past mistakes and pledging to do better, may well serve the Democratic party more effectively than their current head-in-the-sand approach.

There is an unprecedented groundswell of cross-party support among the public for an end to the official Covid narrative. Republicans on the fence may well elect to climb back down, and their Democrat neighbors may soon be knocking on their doors. There is a fundamental difference between voting for an idiot and a liar; in this instance, people consider their lives to be at stake. A reckoning awaits those currently in power, and as with most unpleasant things, it is best dealt with now than left to fester.

Truth, at this point, is the only way forward for the Democrats. They may yet choose to eschew it.

The post Vaccines and Mandates Could Be the Undoing of the Democratic Party appeared first on Medika Life.

The treatments developed in response to Covid were both necessary and bold. For many, these therapeutic mitigators (a far more accurate description than vaccine) were and are life saving, a part of humanity traversing its first modern global pandemic. This article isn’t about the medicines themselves, rather about how governments and health authorities chose to define them. It is about mandates, enforced legally, sneakily, or otherwise on the general population and how, in the aftermath of these mandates, hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of patients, suffering from listed and unlisted side effects, are left with no where to turn. No recourse.

It is about regulatory authorities’ ethical and moral responsibility to these patients, many of whom do not possess the financial means to seek help for their conditions, and about who, ultimately, should bear the weight of the huge costs associated with compensation. It is a complex question, one that may well end up in our higher courts across the globe, as those who bear the onus, will attempt to shirk their responsibilities. Before I assign blame, for reasons I will be more than clear about, let’s first examine how we arrived here.

A time for firsts

The last two years has witnessed a lot of firsts, as the pandemic swept across the globe, crippling economies and upending our societies as it highlighted the fragile human ecosystem. We had built based on the flawed assumption that we were untouchable. SARS-CoV2 proved otherwise.

Two years and six months into the pandemic, the virus still confounds, mutating into, what fortunately appears to be, less and less virulent strains. More contagious, yes, but less deadly. A new “influenza” to add to the existing strains, but it’s a dangerous comparison to draw as Covid is proving far more debilitating in terms of it’s long term impacts on our bodies. How, where and why the virus stays on with some of us, is only now beginning to emerge. Long term after effects require, well, a long term, and it may take years to fully understand just how the SARS-CoV2 virus has affected us.

I started by saying we’ve lived through a lot of firsts since the pandemic made headlines in late December of 2019. Among those firsts was the development of multiple “vaccines” to address the virus. In reality these treatments, developed in record time, by Pfizer, Moderna, J&J have been mischaracterized as vaccines. They aren’t vaccines, not even if you stretch the definition of a vaccine.

What each of these companies had in fact developed where different versions of what proved, in many instances, to be a life saving treatment for individuals who developed severe Covid in response to contracting the virus. Particularly those individuals who lived with identified comorbidities. The new treatments reduced the risk of death for at-risk individuals and the aged by up to 90%. That’s a massive saving of life. Of equal import was the breathing space these treatments afforded our healthcare services around the globe.

Then, swiftly on its heels, came another first. Murmurings of enforcing these treatments on all members of the public. There was outrage or angst from almost every sector of society, so rather than issuing blanket mandates, governments turned to other means to enforce Covid vaccination. In strategies that medical historians will revisit, individuals had their freedom of movement, right to access and their employment held hostage in exchange for compliance. Natural immunity was ignored, an individuals state of health was ignored.

Everyone, governments decided, would be “vaccinated” with the new treatments and most members of the public complied, either from a sense of civil obedience or to ensure they could simply continue to function in society, earn a living, attend college, enter shopping malls or board public transport. The health benefit was evident – avoiding hospitalization or death. But, what was not evident were the potential side effects, many of which were still being explored.

In an ideal world, these new treatments would have simply achieved their desired goal, and either persisted in our bodies as part of our viral record, or disappeared along with the defeated virus. In reality, these treatments had, and still have, side effects, some of which are fatal. The argument that listed side effects impact a very small segment of the population has been rendered all but moot by scale. Inject billions and that small percentage grows into a much larger problem, millions in fact, as we show below. These affected patients face very real health challenges in the short term, and we can only pray that long term side effects that are yet to manifest are not significant in nature.

Getting a drug or vaccine approved for release to the public can take years and years of safety and efficacy testing and clinical trials. The reasoning is simple. Long term side effects take years to manifest, so in the interests of public safety, we wait out this period to ensure we aren’t endangering the public. It’s terribly frustrating; however, scientifically important.

Covid, or rather Governments responding to the virus globally, unilaterally decided to toss the historic scientific rule book. Emergency Use Authorization was granted off the back of shortened clinical trials and in less than a year Covid was under attack, from not one, but multiple treatments relying in some instances on novel delivery techniques that had, up till that point, been restricted to end of life patients. Desperate times call for desperate measures.

Never before had we attempted to vaccinate entire populations and the scale and enormity of the task that lay ahead was enough to overwhelm even the most efficient of healthcare services. Perhaps, with hindsight, some politicians might argue they were oversold on the efficacy or safety of these new treatments, many not fully understanding that these vaccines were in point of fact not vaccines, but desperately needed treatments to reduce mortality. By late 2020, it was all really pretty irrelevant. Lockdowns, financial pressures, healthcare pressures and outcries from every corner of society for a return to normalcy threatened to unseat any regime that didn’t act, and act swiftly.

The “vaccines” were the obvious panacea.

Now, 18 months later, most of the planet has been vaccinated, with some patients having received multiple doses and boosters, often from differing companies (something I’ll address below). Most recent WHO estimates put current global treatments at around an eyewatering 11,655,356,423 vaccine doses that have been administered. To understand how this extrapolates in real terms to people who’ve experienced side effects, lets take figures quoted by Pfizer themselves. In their initial trials, 0.6% of candidates aged 18 and older experienced a serious adverse reaction to the vaccine.

In fairness, companies have a hard time distinguishing which serious adverse events (SAE’s) are as a result of the medication being administered and which are just normal run of the mill events that would have impacted someone anyway. Control groups indicate just how often this happens. In the same trial Pfizer reported 0.5% SAE’s in their control group (placebo administered).

To quote their clinical trial, “The proportions of participants who reported at least 1 serious adverse event were 0.6% in the vaccine group”. Let’s half that figure and be conservative. Extrapolate it to the number of vaccinated individuals above, assuming that adverse events are as common among the other brands of vaccine. It works out at around 35 million people, who have potentially experienced one serious side effect or another. It’s a staggering figure.

In Europe alone, where Pfizer has administered 611 million doses, this would account for 1.8 million individuals (0.35%) who’ve experienced a potential serious adverse event. Scale is everything.

Accountability, Pharma and Government

In terms of the vaccines, limited accountability exists for the pharmaceutical industry. In almost all instances, access to the treatments meant governments shouldering lengthy legal waivers that have effectively render pharmaceutical companies immune to any fallout (read side effects) experienced by patients. You can understand the desire of the companies to protect themselves, given the scale of treatments. One look at that figure above from the WHO and you can imagine the scale of liability had things gone wrong.

It may also explain why the industry was eager to have these new treatments sold under the “vaccine” label as the vaccine industry boasts rigorous legal precedent to virtually indemnify manufacturers against any legal action.

Sadly, for a small sector of the global population that received the vaccines, things have gone wrong. In some instances fatal blood clots have claimed lives, heart conditions have affected healthy teenagers, some patients have suffered perhaps irreversible hair loss, the listed side effects are numerous and vary from vaccine to vaccine, further complicating the issue of who is to blame. The use above of the term “small” is again only relevant when measured against the global population. Tens of millions of people tend to become statistically insignificant when you’re dealing with billions.

The approved use of multiple vaccine brands in a single patient has further muddied the water. If you’ve had vaccines administered from Pfizer, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson, whose to say which vaccine caused you to experience side effects. The more delayed the onset of symptoms, the more difficult it becomes to impart blame to a single manufacturer. Proving these treatments are to blame for a new wave of disease or a particular condition becomes even more complex if you lack a control group (unvaccinated) for comparison, something that will prove more and more challenging as vaccination rates rise globally.

What is not open to debate however, is that almost all patients suffering from conditions directly ascribed to the administration of a Covid vaccine, face an uphill battle on almost every front.

Healthcare and its providers are reticent to lay the blame for conditions at the door of treatments that were heralded as life saving. Eroding the public’s confidence in the Covid vaccines can be a death knell for any medical practitioner. We are still reliant on the Covid vaccines, a dependency that will continue no doubt for the foreseeable future, and the fact that follow up shots (boosters) are not being utilized, even in at risk populations, is worrying. Creating fear in the public’s mind is frowned on, both within and outside of the industry. The publicly acceptable narrative (which seeks to minimize the risk of adverse events) must be preserved at all costs.

Ignorance within healthcare as to the potential side effects of the vaccines and how these manifest in patients is also still an issue. More needs to be done to educate doctors, enabling them to accurately diagnose Covid vaccine related conditions. It’s an unenviable task, given that the medical sector is not in possession of any long term data from the original trials. We’re learning on the fly here, far from ideal in clinical terms and definitely not helpful for patients.

The VAERS system, active within the US for reporting adverse events, is possibly the most flawed system created by the NIH. Instead of limiting the systems input to trained medical professionals, anyone can access it, casting more than a little plausible doubt on the data’s integrity. The tool is in desperate need of an overhaul to legitimize the data it provides. Healthcare providers now have access to new codes through ICD 11 to identify Covid vaccine side effects, so by extension, repurposing VAERS doesn’t seem like a huge reach.

For some individuals, they are fortunate enough to have health cover. Many patients don’t and they are the ones who stand to lose the most. Currently, they have absolutely no options on the table other than to live with or die with, depending on the severity, the vaccine related conditions that have afflicted them. Consider the following for a moment.

Your government legally forced, cajoled, bullied or shamed you into accepting the vaccine. If you don’t agree with this statement I suggest you consult government workers, policemen, firefighters and frontline staff whose jobs were threatened by one simple statement. Vaccinate, or resign. I suggest you speak to people whose access to their workplace, schools and other public spaces was revoked, pending the production of a vaccine certificate. Bullying tactics from governments to afraid to resort to legitimate and open legal enforcement in the event things went wrong.

Governments engaged in these tactics knowing full well they had insulated the manufacturers against any claims arising from harm. They did this, knowing full well that the trials for the treatments they were mandating were far from conclusive or complete. I was recently vaccinated in the Philippines after already having contracted Covid. Part of the process involved signing a waiver that indemnified the government against all claims stemming from the administration of the vaccine. Ironic, considering the government’s insistence on vaccination with a product they were ensuring the public was absolutely safe.

Almost all governments globally were and are in the same boat and how they choose to respond now to a growing problem may well determine their futures.

Doing right by Joe Public

So to recap, countries are now faced with countless “vaccine victims”. People who have reacted negatively to, or in the worst instances, died from the administration of the Covid vaccines. Many of these individuals were coerced into taking the treatment. Given the choice, some may have declined, but policies advocated and initiated by governments globally left them with no choice. Vaccinate or be excluded from society. For this segment of the population, their current condition leaves a particularly bitter aftertaste.

Of course many did what they considered to be their civic duty and happily volunteered themselves at clinics across the globe to be vaccinated. No mention was made of naturally acquired immunity, no distinctions were drawn between the at-risk and healthy segment of the population. Everyone was encouraged to get vaccinated with a treatment that did not reduce the risk of transmission or infection, it simply reduced the risk of death. And obviously, here too, patients encountered side effects.

An ethical government, seeking to repair and restore credibility in both its healthcare systems and scientific community would at this point hold up its hands and extend an olive branch. At the very least, blanket coverage to those individuals whose health may have been compromised by the vaccines. Failure to act now will have long lasting implications for almost all of society and without much thought, I can suggest a few consequences right off the cuff.

• Hugely expensive and protracted legal battles will ensue, with class actions filed on behalf of the affected. In the US for instance, legally mandating any form of EUA drug is in direct contradiction to existing FDA and Federal guidelines. The issue is also highly politicized and will at some stage be weaponized for political gain.
• The cost to healthcare systems will in many ways emulate the burdens placed on them by the pandemic. Vaccination continues unabated across the globe and it is not unrealistic to expect patients encountering adverse reactions to exceed 50 million or more in number. This is another pandemic, one of our own creation.
• The cost to the labor markets in terms of manhours lost couldn’t come at a worse time, considering the fragility of economies across the globe. 12 months down the road, we may find ourselves in a position where funds to assist this group are simply not available, as talk or recessions and stock market implosions permeate the media.

The perfect storm

Coupled to an emergent and growing “long Covid” group, vaccine victims present a self created challenge to the medical industry and our societies. We have an ethical obligation to ensure these patients receive access to care. Any other course of action will leave the industry and the power bases that wield it, looking yet more callous and disassociated from their patients and electorate.

More importantly, as we spread across the planet in ever increasing numbers, living in closer and closer proximity to each other and our food sources, the next pandemic could be just around the corner. Add global warming to the mix and the associated melting permafrost threatens us with a new source of pathogens, frozen in the soil for thousands and thousands of years. Pathogens that could potentially prove far more damaging than Covid.

Trust and a blind belief in governments, scientists and healthcare systems has been eroded, some would suggest irreparably. Our failure to address current issues within healthcare that affect millions will not escape the watchful eye of the public. Round 2 in our challenge against global pathogens may turn out to be the decisive round if we do not get our act together now.

And please, let’s stop calling these important treatments vaccines. They are, in the words of a colleague, therapeutic mitigators, . Reducing hospitalization or death is an incredible feat of medicine. We honor this scientific achievement by calling them what they are – breakthrough treatments that mitigate a clear and present viral danger. I’ll leave you with an extract from the Vaccine Alliance to consider, directly from GAVI itself. Bold added for emphasis.

Vaccines differ from other medical drugs in two important ways. The first is that they are designed to prevent disease, rather than treat it. They do this by priming a person’s immune system to recognise a specific disease-causing bacteria, virus or other pathogen. This “memory” can last years, or in some cases for life, which is why vaccination can be so effective, stopping people from getting sick rather than waiting until disease occurs.

Gavi Website, gavi.org

A far cry from the method of action of current Covid “vaccines” which are designed to mitigate symptoms that develop as a result of a serious Covid infection. Life saving yes, a vaccine? Absolutely not.

The post Up to 35 Million People May Already Have Had Adverse Vaccine Reactions appeared first on Medika Life.

The study, recently published in The BMJ, showed that the incidence of mortality from COVID-19 amongst those considered fully vaccinated increased with age, deprivation, being male, and for those with Indian and Pakistani ethnicity.

The study identified the following at-risk groups (HR indicates Hazard Ratio);

• Down’s syndrome (HR 12.7)
• Kidney transplantation (HR 8.1)
• Sickle cell disease (HR 7.7)
• Chemotherapy (HR 4.3)
• Care home residency (HR 4.1)
• HIV/AIDS (HR 3.3)
• Liver cirrhosis (HR 3.0)
• Neurological conditions (HR 2.6)
• Recent bone marrow transplantation or a solid organ transplantation ever (HR 2.5)
• Dementia (HR 2.2)
• Parkinson’s disease (HR 2.2)

Details of the study

The mean age of people in the cohort was 52 years and the data were drawn from 2031 COVID-19 deaths and 1929 COVID-related hospital admissions, of which 81 deaths (4%) and 71 admissions (3.7%) occurred 14 or more days after the second vaccine dose.

Researchers used the QCovid tool to analyze outcomes in adults aged 19 and over between December 8 last year and June 15 of this year. National linked datasets from general practice were used, national immunization, and SARS-CoV-2 testing, death registry, and hospital episode data, in order to analyze a sample of more than 6.9m vaccinated adults. Of those, 74.1% had received two vaccine doses.

According to Julia Hippisley-Cox, professor of clinical epidemiology and general practice at the University of Oxford, who co-authored the paper;

“The UK was the first place to implement a vaccination program and has some of the best clinical research data in the world. We have developed this new tool using the QResearch database, to help the NHS identify which patients are at the highest risk of serious outcomes despite vaccination, for targeted intervention. This new tool can also inform discussions between doctors and patients about the level of risk, to aid shared decision making.”

The study results are provided to allow individuals to assess their own personal risk more accurately and should not, in any way, be considered suggestive of any inefficacy of the vaccines themselves. The Covid-19 vaccines continue to offer a high level of protection against severe Covid.

If, however, you suffer from any of the listed conditions above, you need to be aware that your risk profile may remain elevated and that you will still need to exercise care with regards to exposing yourself to the virus.

The post These Vaccinated Groups are Still at Risk of Severe Covid, UK Study Finds appeared first on Medika Life.

Here then, alphabetically and divided into four sections, is an update on which states are viewing the vaccine passport as a helpful tool, whose on the fence, whose limiting the passport’s use, and which states are simply banning it outright. We’ll start with the pro-states or those who are in favor of the passport. Data provided with thanks by Beckers Hospital Review.

States endorsing vaccine passports

1. Hawaii Gov. David Ige said on April 5 that the state is testing the tech needed to support a vaccine passport, but that it won’t be ready for another four weeks or so, according to the Honolulu Star-Advertiser. On April 20, Mr. Ige tweeted that the state will launch a vaccination verification program on May 11 to support inter-county travel.
2. New Jersey does not plan to launch a statewide vaccine passport system, but Gov. Phil Murphy said he is open to the idea if the state follows federal guidelines, MIT Technology Review reported.
3. In March, New York became the first state to launch a COVID-19 vaccine passport, dubbed Excelsior Pass. The digital platform is free and voluntary for New Yorkers to confirm recent negative PCR or antigen test results as well as proof of vaccination.
4. West Virginia Gov. Jim Justice has not prohibited proof-of-vaccination requirements at any level of government, MIT Technology Review reported.

States limiting vaccine passports

1. Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey issued an executive order on April 19 to prohibit all state and local governments from requiring people to prove their COVID-19 vaccination status to receive services or enter an area. The ban however does not apply to private businesses and healthcare institutions.
2. California is not pursuing a mandatory COVID-19 vaccine passport requirement but will work with the private sector to monitor the development of any passports mandated for businesses such as sports teams or event venues, Los Angeles Magazine reported April 26.
3. Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker said he thinks a vaccination app would be useful but should not be mandatory to enter any event or facilities, stressing that the tech would be offered as a personal choice, according to a March 24 Center Square report.

States on the fence on vaccine passports

1. Colorado does not require vaccine passports, but state health department officials in April said they may explore adopting the concept, MIT Technology Review reported.
2. Connecticut is still up in the air regarding mandatory COVID-19 vaccine passports, despite Gov. Ned Lamont’s claims that the state would begin conversations on the topic once vaccinations open to everyone. Vaccination eligibility opened to all residents 16 and older on April 1. In March, Mr. Lamont said he does expect “some type of passport or validation … probably led by the private sector, according to a May 5 Yale Daily News report.
3. Louisiana has not yet decided on any vaccine passport programs in the state, with Gov. John Bel Edwards referring to it being “a little early in the process to know how these kinds of vaccine verifications would actually work,” according to an April 7 local NBC affiliate WDSU report.
4. North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper at the end of March said his administration is exploring the development of a vaccine passport for residents, according to an April 21 North State Journal report.
5. Rhode Island Gov. Dan McKee in May said he would leave it up to business owners and employers to choose masking and vaccination requirements for their businesses, MIT Technology Review reported.

States banning vaccine passports

1. Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey signed a bill on May 24 that prevents state government entities from issuing vaccine passports and blocks businesses from requiring such documentation in exchange for services, CNN reported.
2. Alaska Gov. Mike Dunleavy issued an executive order preventing the state’s government from requiring vaccine passports for travel, MIT Technology Review reported.
3. Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson signed off on a law that prevents state and local governments from requiring COVID-19 vaccine or proof of vaccination in order to receive services, MIT Technology Review reported.
4. Delaware Gov. John Carney said the state will not pursue vaccine passports, MIT Technology Review reported.
5. On April 2, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed an executive order prohibiting the use of COVID-19 vaccine passports in the state, citing privacy concerns and freedom as the main reasons for the ban.
6. Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp tweeted his opposition April 6 to “any kind of state-mandated” vaccine passport, writing that “While the development of multiple safe, highly effective COVID-19 vaccines has been a scientific miracle, the decision to receive the vaccine should be left up to each individual.”
7. Idaho banned any state and government entities from requiring vaccine passports for residents to receive public services or access facilities, Gov. Brad Little said in an April 7 statement.
8. Indiana enacted a law that prevents state and local government units from creating or mandating a vaccination card or passport, according to a May 24 Fox 59 report.
9. Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds pledged on April 7 that the state will oppose vaccine passports legislatively or on an executive level as she believes the tech violates personal choice, privacy and HIPAA, according to local CBS affiliate KMTV.
10. Kansas lawmakers on May 8 approved a proposal that includes a ban on vaccine passports, but the legislation has not yet been enacted, MIT Technology Review reported.
11. Kentucky does not require vaccine passports, but Rep. Brandon Reed is writing a bill that would ban the government from enforcing them, MIT Technology Review reported.
12. Maine is not planning on creating a statewide vaccine passport system, but residents are encouraged to carry their immunization card if they need it, MIT Technology Reviewreported.
13. Maryland does not require vaccine passports and currently does not have legislation addressing them, MIT Technology Review reported.
14. Massachusetts has not banned the use of vaccine passports, but Gov. Charlie Baker said in April that he opposes the technology, MIT Technology Review reported.
15. Michigan’s House of Representatives passed a bill on June 2 banning vaccine passports, MIT Technology Review reported.
16. Minnesota’s Senate passed a bill in May that prevents people from being required to “possess, wear or display any indicator” that they received a specific test result or have antibodies for communicable diseases, MIT Technology Review reported.
17. Mississippi Gov. Tate Reeves in April said he doesn’t support vaccine passports, and the state is not pursuing the technology, MIT Technology Review reported.
18. Missouri’s House and Senate approved a bill in May that bans vaccine passports, but Gov. Mike Parson has not yet approved or vetoed the legislation, MIT Technology Review reported.
19. Montana Gov. Greg Gianforte issued an executive order on April 13 prohibiting the use of vaccine passports, he announced on Twitter.
20. Nebraska will not participate in any vaccine passport initiatives, Gov. Pete Ricketts announced March 31, claiming the tech is a violation of “two central tenets of the American system: freedom of movement and healthcare privacy.”
21. Nevada has not banned the use of vaccine passports, but they are not required within the state, MIT Technology Review reported.
22. New Hampshire currently is not developing or requiring vaccine passports, MIT Technology Review reported.
23. New Mexico does not have any vaccine passport requirements and has no plans to develop a system, MIT Technology Review reported.
24. North Dakota lawmakers passed a limited ban on vaccine passports in April; the ban prevents state and local governments from requiring proof documents and prevents businesses from requiring vaccination documents for access, entry or services, MIT Technology Review reported.
25. Ohio Health Director Stephanie McCloud on May 17 told Spectrum News that the state will not implement digital vaccine passports. She said Ohio is not working with any private individuals on any type of passport whatsoever, including digital.
26. Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt issued an executive order on May 28 banning state agencies from requiring vaccinations as a condition of entry to public facilities, MIT Technology Review reported.
27. Oregon does not require vaccine passports, MIT Technology Review reported.
28. Pennsylvania senators on May 6 introduced legislation that would ban the state from requiring COVID-19 vaccine passports, Fox 43 reports. Gov. Tom Wolf’s administration has previously said it would not require vaccine passports.
29. South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster issued a COVID-19 mandate on May 11 that bans the use of vaccine passports across the state and prevents schools and governments from creating mask mandates, according to NPR.
30. South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem issued an executive order in April banning the use or development of vaccine passports, MIT Technology Review reported.
31. Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee also took to Twitter on April 6 to vocalize his opposition of the tech, writing that he believes the “COVID-19 vaccine should be a personal health choice, not a government requirement.”
32. Texas also instituted a ban on COVID-19 passports on April 5, which prevents the state and some businesses from requiring passports of customers to prove they have been vaccinated against COVID-19.
33. Utah passed a law in April that blocks the state government from requiring people to get the COVID-19 vaccine and use vaccine passports, according to an April 6 Salt Lake Tribune report.
34. Vermont’s House of Representatives introduced a bill to ban vaccine passports in May, MIT Technology Review reported.
35. Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam in May said he has no plans to use vaccine passports in the state, MIT Technology Review reported.
36. Washington state Rep. Jim Walsh drafted legislation in April to prohibit vaccine passports, MIT Technology Review reported.
37. Wisconsin has not banned the use of vaccine passports, but a series of bills were introduced in April to prohibit the use of the technology, MIT Technology Review reported.
38. Wyoming Gov. Mark Gordon barred state officials from requiring residents to have COVID-19 vaccine passports, according to a May 9 Buckrail report.

The post Vaccine Passports. Where Does Your State Stand? A List of all 50 States appeared first on Medika Life.

The actual truth of their “frontline” engagement with Covid is a far cry from what they’d have you believe, most never having come remotely close to a Covid patient. Smoke, mirrors, and misdirection.

No good scam is replete without the monetization of the con and as time passes Americas Frontline Doctors (AFLDS) seem to have found the niche they’ve been looking for. Welcome to the “New Republics” medical branch. AFD will provide reasonably priced consultations and loosely regulated access to medication for all the extremists, QAnon members, and Republican radicals out there.

All from the comfort of your telehealth consultation.

This screenshot below, taken from the comments on a Children’s Health Defense article, the website run by anti-vaxxer, Robert F. Kennedy, Jnr, 

So there you have it. Simple quick, easy access to medicines that could potentially prove fatal (HCQ) to you. Just hop online and pay your $90. 

In case you’re wondering why people are still so concerned about contracting the SARS-CoV2 virus in a largely vaccinated American public, the answer is simple. This group and its advocates refuse to vaccinate themselves or their children.

For the unvaccinated, Covid still poses a huge risk and many of these individuals will end up in ICU facilities across the country over the next few months, placing yet further demands on America’s depleted public health resources. There is also no conclusive evidence to suggest hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin are effective prophylaxis or treatments for Covid-19, so the AFLDS is potentially exposing thousands of Americans to real harm.

Actions you’d be hard-pressed to explain away as being supportive of the Hippocratic oath.

Buy the Lie

On the surface, AFLDS sells a hugely believable front, supported in no small part by their abundance of medical degrees and qualifications. Any layman looking at the site can be easily forgiven for being sucked into the con. The AFLDS’s main mouthpiece is none other than January 6 insurrection debutante, Dr. Simone Gold, currently awaiting trial for her part in storming the Capitol.

Now whilst most Americans would immediately do a double-take on this news, for the New Republicans, hell-bent on destroying America’s democracy, Gold’s presence in AFLDS serves more as a recommendation than a discouragement. Anti-vaccine propaganda (AFDLDS are anti-vaccine) litters their site and in their latest publicity stunt, they have turned to the courts to create more media furor.

On the 20th of May 2021, they filed a petition in the US District Court of Alabama, requesting a temporary injunction on covid vaccines being administered to children. Gold’s name is noticeably absent from the list of plaintiffs, for obvious reasons.

AMERICA’S FRONTLINE DOCTORS, ETC.; and DR. SCOTT JENSEN, MD, Individually; and ELLEN MILLER, Individually and as Guardian of 3 Minor Siblings; and JODY SOBCZAK, Individually and as Father of 2 Minor Children; and DEBORAH SOBCZAK, Individually and as Mother of 2 Minor Children; and LYLE BLOOM, Individually and as Father of 2 Minor Children; and, JULIE BLOOM, Individually and as Mother of 2 Minor Children; and ANDREA MCFARLANE, RN Individually and as Mother of 4 Minor Children; and JENNIFER GREENSLADE, Individually and as Mother of 2 Minor Children; and ….

In their claim, they state the following. Sections in parenthesis added by the author;

the injections (Covid Vaccines) are dangerous biological agents that have the potential to cause substantially greater harm than the COVID-19 disease itself, and numerous laws have been broken in the process of granting these EUAs and pushing these injections on the American people.

Like many other radical, conspiracy-based groups AFLDS has turned to alternate closed social media groups like Telegram to avoid censure on more traditional platforms.

And they’re not sitting about idly either. Gold and her entourage of Covid Vaccine doubters have taken their carnival show on the road, exploiting every Republican-based organization they can reach on their meandering path across the US.

The irony of a group of doctors running about across America bad-mouthing another group of doctors, and then expecting people to believe them because, well, “they’re doctors” cannot be lost on many.

If you’re in the market for accurate and evidence-based health advice we strongly recommend avoiding the AFLDS. If you come across one of their many shill’s advertising their services online, ignore them. Should you happen to see one of the shows advertised, save yourself some time and sanity. Go and watch a movie instead. It’s also fiction, but it isn’t going to harm your health.

That step too far

By associating with QAnon, radical elements, and anti-vaccine campaigners these doctors lend legitimacy to the causes they seek to exploit for financial gain. To many Americans, the goal of a “New Republic” isn’t merely a pipe dream but something they want to see realized.

A new regressive version of America, filled with racism, sexism, outdated religious doctrine, and free of reason and the rule of law. AFLDS would like to offer its services to this vision of America. All you need to access healthcare is your $90 and an internet connection. If they get their way, there’s going to be an awfully long hold before that telehealth call is connected.

They are playing a dangerous game and one that time itself will unravel as all their wild allegations about vaccine experimentation fall by the wayside. The concern now is how many innocent patients they lead astray in the interim, how many people have their health compromised by a group of individuals who swore an oath to protect them.

If you have a need to report any of the doctors engaged with AFLDS you can make use of the links provided below. We recommend lodging complaints with individual state boards where the doctors are licensed to practice.

The post America’s Frontline Doctors Want to Become the New Republic’s NIH appeared first on Medika Life.

The Oxford Vaccine Group’s Com-Cov vaccine trial is studying the use of different combinations of approved COVID-19 vaccines for the first and second immunization doses. The study is being led by the Oxford Vaccine Group (Chief Investigator Associate Professor Matthew Snape) and delivered by a network of trial sites across the UK. The study is funded by the Vaccine Task Force and the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). According to Prof. Snape;

“Whilst this is a secondary part of what we are trying to explore through these studies, it is important that we inform people about these data, especially as these mixed-doses schedules are being considered in several countries. The results from this study suggest that mixed dose schedules could result in an increase in work absences the day after immunization, and this is important to consider when planning immunization of healthcare workers.”

He added the following, to ensure people are aware of the absence of any danger.

“Importantly, there are no safety concerns or signals, and this does not tell us if the immune response will be affected. We hope to report these data in the coming months. In the meantime, we have adapted the ongoing study to assess whether early and regular use of paracetamol reduces the frequency of these reactions.”

Participants who had Pfizer/BioNTech followed by Oxford/AstraZeneca, and Oxford/AstraZeneca followed by Pfizer/BioNTech, 4 weeks apart, saw more reactions than those who had two doses of the same vaccine. It’s important to note that these data were obtained in participants aged 50 years and older, and reactogenicity (the patient’s reactions to the vaccine) might be higher in younger age groups for whom a mixed vaccination schedule is being advocated in countries like Germany, France, Sweden, Norway, and Denmark.

So if you run the risk of feeling bad for a day or two, perhaps even missing a day’s work, should you still get the vaccine? Absolutely, here the risk explained in a simple graphic, courtesy of Com CoV.

Common symptoms of COVID-19 include fever, tiredness, dry cough, and changes to taste and smell. Whilst about 80% of infected people have no or mild symptoms and will recover from the infection without needing special treatment, approximately 10–15% of cases (2–3 in 20) progress to develop severe symptoms, and about 5% (1 in 20) become critically ill.

The Covid vaccines reduce the odds of developing severe Covid dramatically. If we take a group of 100 critically ill Covid patients that haven’t been vaccinated, reverse the clock, and vaccinate them before they become ill, only between 5 and 10 of these individuals would actually become severely ill. That’s 90–95 people’s lives saved and as Covid mutates and becomes more infectious to a younger demographic, that could be your life on the line. Get the vaccine if you haven’t had it yet.

So what are these mild to moderate side effects?

Again, Com Cov comes to the rescue with an extensive list they’ve compiled and we’ve duplicated it below for your convenience.

Common side effects

People very often have tenderness, pain, warmth, redness, itching, swelling or bruising or less commonly have a small lump in their arm where they have been vaccinated.

Other common systemic side effects

Some people can develop these symptoms after vaccination. They usually last for less than a week after you are vaccinated (more commonly 24–48hours afterward).

• Fatigue
• Headaches
• Flu-like symptoms, such as high temperature, sore throat, runny nose, cough and chills
• Muscle aches
• Joint aches
• Feeling unwell (malaise)
• Feeling sick or nauseated or vomiting

Other less common side effects:

• Abdominal pain
• Decreased appetite
• Feeling dizzy
• Swollen lymph nodes (glands)
• Excessive sweating, itching skin or rash

These symptoms can be reduced by the use of paracetamol around the time of immunization and over the next 24 hours.

After vaccination with the BNT162b2 (Pfizer/BioNTech) vaccine, difficulty sleeping has been observed in fewer than 1 in 100 people, and weakness of the muscles on one side of the face has been observed in fewer than 1 in 1000 people. These are transient symptoms, in other words, they pass quickly.

The post Mixing Covid Vaccines May Not Be a Great Idea, Research Shows appeared first on Medika Life.

First of all, it’s important to draw a strong distinction between the older lines of cultured fetal lung cells and other organ cells, referred to below (the cells we’re discussing in this article), and freshly harvested tissue required for the extraction of stem cells for murine experimentation. Fetal cell lines are cells that grow in a laboratory. They descend from cells taken from elective abortions in the 1970s and 1980s. Those individual cells have since multiplied into many new cells over the past four or five decades, creating fetal cell lines.

Current fetal cell lines are thousands of generations removed from the original fetal tissue. They do not contain any tissue from a fetus. Vaccine development relies on these fetal cell lines. Although not relevant to this discussion, readers may gain insight from this article about the importance of fetal cell cultures and stem cells to research and scientific advances.

The cells we’re discussing shouldn’t be confused with fetal stem cells either, which were first isolated and cultured by John Gearhart and his team at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in 1998 (Shamblott et al., 1998). These cells known as primordial germ cells are the precursors of eggs and sperms and were isolated from the gonadal ridges and mesenteries of 5–9-week fetuses obtained by therapeutic abortion. Embryonic germ (EG) cells isolated from them are found to be pluripotent. Challenges associated with the isolation of these stem cells are (1) they can be obtained only from 8- to 9-week-old fetuses and (2) EG cells have limited proliferation capacity, so they cannot be kept viable for an extended period.

None of the COVID-19 vaccines in development use fetal cells taken from recent abortions.

Fibroblasts

The preferred type of fetal cell to culture vaccines in is called a fibroblast. Fibroblast cells hold skin and other connective tissue together. The fetal fibroblast cells used to grow vaccine viruses were first obtained from elective termination of two pregnancies in the early 1960s. These same fetal cells have continued to grow in the laboratory and are used to make vaccines today. No further sources of fetal cells are needed to make these vaccines.

Fetal cells are particularly suited to the task of growing vaccines.

• Viruses need cells to grow and tend to grow better in cells from humans than animals (because they infect humans).
• Almost all cells die after they have divided a certain number of times; scientifically, this number is known as the Hayflick limit. For most cell lines, including fetal cells, it is around 50 divisions; however, because fetal cells have not divided as many times as other cell types, they can be used longer. Our ability to maintain cells at very low temperatures in liquid nitrogen has enabled scientists to continue using the same fetal cell lines- almost 60 years later – that were first isolated in the 1960s.

As scientists studied these viruses in the lab, they found that the best cells to use were the fetal cells mentioned above. When it was time to make a vaccine, they continued growing the viruses in the cells that worked best during these earlier studies.

Comparing Apples with Apples

According to Nature, cell lines derived from aborted fetal tissue have been fairly commonplace in research and medicine since the creation in the 1960s of the WI-38 cell strain, which was derived at the Wistar Institute in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and MRC-5, which came from a Medical Research Council laboratory in London. Viruses multiply readily in these cells, and they are used to manufacture many globally important vaccines, including those against measles, rubella, rabies, chickenpox, shingles, and hepatitis A.

An estimated 5.8 billion people have received vaccines produced on these two cell lines which, with others, have become standard laboratory tools in studies of aging and drug toxicity. (Research with such lines is not covered by US regulations governing the use of fresh fetal cells and tissue nor captured in the NIH database.) In the past 25 years, fetal cell lines have been used in a roster of medical advances, including the production of a blockbuster arthritis drug and therapeutic proteins that fight cystic fibrosis and hemophilia.

Just so we know what we’re actually discussing here let’s group the covid vaccines currently in circulation and see how each one is affected by the fetal cell debate. Here’s a really useful infographic from the WHO to help identify each.

Vaccine makers may use fetal cell lines in any of the following three stages of vaccine development:

• Development: Identifying what works
• Confirmation: Making sure it works
• Production: Manufacturing the formula that works

mRNA Vaccines

Neither the Pfizer nor Moderna vaccines used fetal cell lines during the development or production phases. (So, no fetal cell lines were used to manufacture the vaccine, and they are not inside the injection you receive from your doctor.) Both companies, have however used the fetal cell line HEK 293 in the confirmation phase to ensure the vaccines work. All HEK 293 cells are descended from tissue taken from a 1973 elective abortion that took place in the Netherlands.

So no chance of any contamination for the mRNA vaccines or any potential for the inclusion of DNA material.

Adenovirus Vaccines

The Johnson & Johnson vaccine is an adenovirus vector vaccine. (Adenovirus is the virus that causes the common cold. The virus in this vaccine has been changed so that it does NOT cause illness.) With this type of vaccine, a carrier, in this case, adenovirus, acts as a delivery vehicle. The adenovirus has had the coronavirus spike protein added to its DNA.

The adenovirus carries that genetic material into your body, delivering its modified DNA to your cells. Your cells will then make the spike protein, activating your immune system. Once activated, your immune system creates antibodies to fight off the spike protein. Materials for the production of these types of vaccines are grown in fetal cell cultures.

Johnson and Johnson’s adenovirus vaccine

Vaccines for varicella (chickenpox), rubella (the “R” in the MMR vaccine), hepatitis A, rabies (one version), and COVID-19 (one U.S.-approved version) are all made by growing the viruses in the original fetal cell lines described above. All of these, except for the covid vaccine, are made using fibroblast cells. The covid vaccine from Johnson & Johnson (J&J)/Janssen is made using fetal retinal cells (PER.C6).

The retinal cells used to make the covid adenovirus vaccine (J&J/Janssen) were isolated from a fetus terminated in 1985. The cells were subsequently adapted for use in growing adenovirus-based vaccines in the late 1990s.

Adenovirus-based vaccines that cannot replicate when administered to people need to be produced in cells that have the necessary gene to allow for large quantities of the virus to be made. The retinal cell line, called PER.C6, was adapted to enable the production of these altered viruses. Even though fetal cells are used to grow vaccine viruses, vaccines do not contain these cells or pieces of DNA that are recognizable as human DNA. People can be reassured by the following:

• When viruses grow in cells, the cells are killed because in most cases the new viruses burst the cells to be released.
• Once the vaccine virus is grown, it is purified, so that cellular debris and growth reagents are removed.
• During this process of purification, any remaining cellular DNA is also broken down.

AstraZeneca Vaccine

During its development, the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine used kidney cell lines from a fetus aborted in 1973. The modified cells are used to help the vaccine replicate (a ‘vaccine factory’) and are then removed before the vaccine is completed. The method of production is not dissimilar from the Johnson and Johnson vaccine and at the risk of repeating myself, simply refer to the section above.

What about DNA Contamination?

This is only applicable to covid vaccines grown in fetal cell cultures (adenovirus) and we’ve discussed the mRNA transfer of materials to your DNA extensively in this vaccine-related article here. Adenoviruses are members of the viral family that are responsible for the common cold. This is important as none of the viral material in our DNA originates from this family of viruses.

The only viruses known to be able to integrate with our DNA are retroviruses. The coronaviruses and adenoviruses are not retroviruses, the HIV virus is an example of a retrovirus. Around 8% of our genetic material is comprised of our brushes with retroviruses over a period spanning hundreds of thousands of years. In addition to this important factor, the following precludes DNA transfer from an adenovirus vaccine to a human

• Integrase — A person’s DNA cannot be changed without the presence of an enzyme, called integrase. Integrase is not an ingredient in either adenovirus covid vaccine.
• Stability of DNA — Because DNA is not stable when exposed to certain chemicals, much of it is destroyed in the process of making the vaccine. Therefore, the amount of human DNA in the final vaccine preparation is minimal (trillionths of a gram) and highly fragmented. Because the DNA is fragmented, it cannot possibly create a whole protein that could be harmful.
• Opportunity — DNA from the vaccine is not able to incorporate itself into cellular DNA. In fact, if this could be accomplished, gene therapy would be much easier than it has been.

Medika encourages anyone with concerns about the use of fetal cell lines in vaccine development to weigh the risks and benefits of the Covid vaccines with their doctor and have a personal conversation with a faith leader.

The Vatican has issued clear guidance that permits Roman Catholics in good faith to receive COVID-19 vaccines that use fetal cell lines in development or production.

References

1. Children’s Hospital of Philidelphia. Vaccine Ingredients — Fetal Cells
2. Nebraska Medicine. Do the COVID-19 vaccines contain aborted fetal cells

The post The Facts About Fetal Cells and Covid Vaccines Explained appeared first on Medika Life.