Why is a gene-editing technology even called a vaccine?

1. Why is a gene-editing technology called a vaccine? The term vaccination comes from the 18th-century practice of cowpox; vacca is the Latin word for cow, and then became the term for the practice of introducing a minute amount of a pathogen into the body to stimulate an immune response, as a supposed prophylactic measure in case of exposure to that pathogen in a later stage.

But mRNA interventions do not work to directly elicit an immune response. According to their manufacturers, they introduce a set of instructions in the form of a gene sequence, which enters the body’s own cells and uses them as factories to produce the S1 spike protein. All for the secondary benefit, they hope, of mounting an immune response against a toxin the body is now making. So the body is now set up to attack itself, becoming both the attacker and the defender, which is the definition of an autoimmune disease.

We generate autoimmune diseases en masse, just to create a quasi-immunity against part of a virus. It is extremely dangerous, with the short-term consequences of disability and death from neurological and cardiac damage already manifesting, and the medium and long-term consequences unknown. As a result of the depletion of the body’s natural defenses, it is quite possible that many agents normally dormant in the body, such as TB, will be activated and cancerous tumors may erupt whose cells are otherwise kept in check by healthy immune systems; this can trigger a condition known as VAIDS – vaccine-acquired immune deficiency syndrome.

2. How many people would have been injected if they had known that the procedure changed part of their DNA?

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

Hospital Backs Down, Lets Patient Get Ivermectin Instead of Paying $10K a Day in Fines

3. Why are mRNA interventions called “gene therapy”?

Therapy is a word reserved for treating a condition, disorder, or disease. The arrogance to administer therapy to healthy individuals is unwarranted interference at best, assault at worst.

4. Why do professions ending in “ologist” suddenly need studies to explain the obvious, namely that naturally acquired immunity is much better than anything artificially stimulated?

The immune system is a versatile, powerful, complex system that has evolved over millennia and is far from being fully understood. What is known is that when the body suffers from a disease, it mobilizes a battery of defense mechanisms that work in harmony, producing antibodies as the first line of defense to kill pathogens circulating in body fluid or on tissue surfaces, and a T-cell response to interact with pathogens if they succeed in entering cells where they can multiply, because antibodies cannot reach those cells. Once they have recovered from a particular infection, the body’s T cells retain a broad spectrum and long memory,

In contrast, vaccines that elicit high antibody levels cause a concomitant reduction in the T cell response. When the T-cell response is suppressed, and the pathogen escapes the antibodies, invades the cells and begins to multiply, unlike in an unaffected immune system, the means to fight the microbe are not available, leaving it with a persistent infection. , or cause an infection of a longer duration. In addition, the antibodies elicited by vaccination are specific, not broad spectrum, making them easier to evade by a related pathogen.

Pfizer is accused of experimenting on orphaned babies to test their Covid-19 vaccine

5. What is meant by “decreasing vaccines”?

Vaccines by themselves do not confer immunity. They aim to provoke a response from the individual’s own immune system. How sustainable and effective that is is a whole area of research. But if the initially observed immune response disappears within a short time, it means that the intervention has failed in its purpose. Continued overstimulation of the body’s immune responses by more failed treatments only weakens the body’s innate defenses, making it more vulnerable to attack by toxic substances.

6. Why was the mRNA cargo said to remain in the deltoid muscle, at the site of the injection, or near it? On what basis was this assumption made?

Professor Michael Palmer gave a video presentation on the pharmacokinetics and toxicity of mRNA injections, in the context of the symposium “Doctors for Covid Ethics” on July 30, 2021, with a biodistribution study of the spike proteins and how they are used in particular. high concentrations migrated to the liver, spleen and ovaries. The mRNA “packets” containing the gene sequence are suspended in lipid nanoparticles (LNPs), which are essentially tiny fat bubbles used to deliver genetic material into cells. But our immune system has all kinds of ways to protect our cells from invasion, so polyethylene glycol (PEG) is added to promote wide distribution throughout the body; to deliver a toxin-creating gene sequence into the cells of all our body systems. Then why the claim that most of the load remains in the arm muscle? The above information is provided by Dr. Byram W. Bridle in his article A Moratorium on mRNA “Vaccines” is Needed. Re-Visiting the Biodistribution of Lipid Nanoparticles, published on Substack on April 22, 2022 under Covid Chronicles. He also informs us that PEG is the compound most associated with causing anaphylactic shock (severe hyper-acute allergic reaction).

UK Government and Corrupt Scientific Advisers Faced for “Crimes Against Humanity and Mass Murder”

7. Why do academics and doctors recommend giving it to the elderly and people with compromised immune systems?

Does it make sense to give people with weakened or weak immune systems an intervention that will further impair their ability to fight off everyday infections? Project Veritas recently released a leaked recording of a December 2020 Zoom call from AstraZeneca in which its CEO, Pascal Soriot, stated that the millions of people with weakened immune systems should not receive a covid vaccine. Jon Rappoport points out that he himself explained the simple reason for this as early as early 2020, which was that a vaccine is supposed to trigger an immune system response, but if the system is weak and unable to respond, the vaccine functions as a “super high toxic invader that overwhelms the body.”

This has not stopped the European Medicines Agency from stating: “There is limited data on immunocompromised people. But while they may not respond as well to the vaccine, there are no particular safety concerns. Immunocompromised people can still be vaccinated as they may be at higher risk from Covid-19. And, of course, from our own
Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization (SAGE) came the recommendation that “severely or moderately immunocompromised individuals should be offered an additional dose of vaccine”.

Via Thelightpaper.co.uk Darren Smith (p. 10)

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.