{"id":92200,"date":"2021-10-24T09:14:36","date_gmt":"2021-10-24T13:14:36","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/stateofthenation.co\/?p=92200"},"modified":"2021-10-24T09:14:36","modified_gmt":"2021-10-24T13:14:36","slug":"it-is-now-apparent-that-these-vaccine-products-in-the-blood-stream-are-toxic-to-humans","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/stateofthenation.co\/?p=92200","title":{"rendered":"\u201cIt is now apparent that these [VACCINE] products in the blood stream are toxic to humans.”<\/b>"},"content":{"rendered":"

It All Makes Sense Once You Realize They Want to Kill Us<\/h1>\n

MIKE WHITNEY
\nThe Unz Review<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

\n
<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n

\u201cIt is now apparent that these products in the blood stream are toxic to humans. An immediate halt to the vaccination programme is required while an independent safety analysis is undertaken to investigate the full extent of the harms, which the UK Yellow Card data suggest includes thromboembolism, multi-system inflammatory disease, immune suppression, autoimmunity and anaphylaxis, as well as Antibody Dependent Enhancement (ADE).\u201d\u00a0Tess Lawrie,\u00a0<\/a>Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\n

\u201cFor we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.\u201d Ephesians 6:12<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Question\u2013<\/b>\u00a0Have the mRNA vaccines been tested on animals?<\/span><\/p>\n

Answer\u2013\u00a0<\/b>Yes, they have.<\/span><\/p>\n

Question\u2013\u00a0<\/b>Were the animal trials successful?<\/span><\/p>\n

Answer\u2013<\/b>\u00a0Yes and no.<\/span><\/p>\n

Yes, the experiments on mice showed that a low dose of the vaccine induces a robust antibody response to the infection.<\/span><\/p>\n

But, no, the antibodies were not able to attack the spike protein from a different strain of the virus.<\/span><\/p>\n

Question\u2013<\/b>\u00a0I\u2019m not sure what that means? Do you mean that the vaccine DOES provide some limited protection from the original (Wuhan) virus, but does not necessarily provide protection from the variants?<\/span><\/p>\n

Answer\u2013<\/b>\u00a0That\u2019s right, but it\u2019s a bit more complicated than that because\u2013 as the virus changes \u2014 the antibodies that helped to fight the original virus can actually enhance the \u201cinfectivity\u201d of the variant. In other words, vaccine-generated antibodies can switch-sides and increase the severity of the illness. Simply put, they can make you sicker or kill you. Scientists have known this for a long time. Check out this clip from a 2005 research paper:<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\u201cA jab against one strain might worsen infection with others\u2026.<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

In the.. study, Gary Nabel of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.. injected mice with spike protein from a SARS virus taken from a human patient infected in early 2003. They then collected the antibodies the animals produced.<\/span><\/p>\n

In lab experiments,\u00a0they showed that these antibodies were unable to attack spike protein from a different strain of SARS,\u00a0<\/b>isolated from a patient infected in late 2003\u2026.The team next tested whether the antibodies would attack spike proteins from two SARS strains isolated from civets, from which the virus is thought to have originally jumped into humans.\u00a0In this case, they found hints that the antibodies actually boosted the ability of the virus to infect cells.<\/b>\u2026<\/span><\/p>\n

The results show that the virus changes over time, so that a strain that crops up in one outbreak might be quite different from that in a later outbreak. \u201cThis virus is not standing still and we need to take this into account,\u201d Nabel says.<\/span><\/p>\n

This raises the prospect that\u00a0a vaccine against one strain of SARS virus could prove ineffective against others. Worse, a jab against one strain might even aggravate an infection with SARS virus from civets or another species.\u00a0<\/b>\u201cIt\u2019s obviously a concern,\u201d Nabel says..
\nThis would not be the first case where exposure to one strain of a virus can worsen infection with another.\u201d (\u201cCaution raised over SARS vaccine\u201d,<\/a>\u00a0Nature)<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Question\u2013<\/b>\u00a0I\u2019m still confused. Can you summarize what they\u2019re saying?<\/span><\/p>\n

Answer\u2013\u00a0<\/b>Sure. They\u2019re saying that\u00a0scientists have known for nearly two decades that vaccines narrowly aimed at just one protein are bound to fail.<\/b>\u00a0They\u2019re saying that the spike protein is highly-adaptable and capable of changing its shape to survive. They\u2019re saying that\u00a0vaccines aimed at the spike protein will inevitably produce variants that evade vaccine-generated antibodies.<\/b>\u00a0They\u2019re saying that by narrowing the vaccine\u2019s focus to the spike protein alone, the drug companies have ensured that previously helpful antibodies will do an about-face, allow the virus to enter healthy cells, replicate at will, and cause sickness or death. They are saying that\u00a0the current crop of vaccines is in fact perpetuating the pandemic.<\/b>\u00a0And\u2013since the science has been clear for the last 16 years\u2013 we can add one more observation to the list, that is, that the current approach to mass vaccination is neither haphazard, slapdash or random. It is intentional.\u00a0The vaccination campaign managers are deliberately ignoring the science in order to sustain a permanent state of crisis.<\/b>\u00a0Science is being manipulated to achieve a political objective.<\/span><\/p>\n

Question\u2013\u00a0<\/b>I think you\u2019re exaggerating, but I\u2019d like to get back to the animal trials instead of arguing politics. As you probably know, the reports in the media do not square with your analysis, in fact, all of the articles in the MSM say the animal trials were a rousing success. Here\u2019s a short blurb that I found today that confirms what I\u2019ve been saying:<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\u201c\u2026vaccination of nonhuman primates with the mRNA vaccine induced robust SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing activity and notably, rapid protection in the upper and lower airways\u2026.\u201d (Covid-19, NIH.gov<\/a>)<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Question\u2013<\/b>\u00a0Are you suggesting the authors are lying?<\/span><\/p>\n

Answer\u2013<\/b>\u00a0No, they are not lying. They\u2019re just not telling you the whole truth, and you need to know the whole truth so you can make an informed decision.\u00a0The vaccines DO provide some (temporary) protection.<\/b>\u00a0We don\u2019t dispute that. They also trigger a strong immune response. We don\u2019t dispute that either.\u00a0But what difference does it make?<\/b>\u00a0Let me explain: Let\u2019s say, you have a really bad head cold so you take a new medication that you think will relieve the pain. And\u2013sure enough\u2013 an hour after taking the pills\u2013 Presto \u2014 your congestion and headache are completely gone. That\u2019s fantastic, right? Wrong, because what you fail to realize is that the medication is laced with slow-acting strychnine that kills you three days later. Do you still think it was a good idea to take the medication?<\/span><\/p>\n

Of course, not. And the same rule applies to\u00a0these vaccines which do, in fact, boost your antibodies and provide some fleeting \u201cimmunity\u201d. But they can also kill you.<\/b>\u00a0Don\u2019t you think that should be factored in to your decision? Keep in mind, people have died 3, 4, 5 weeks after inoculation without any prior warning. Many of them might have even been bursting with antibodies, but they\u2019re still dead. Can you see the problem?<\/span><\/p>\n

Question\u2013<\/b>\u00a0Okay, but there\u2019s still this matter about the animal trials. The media says that the drug companies performed the animal trials and they were successful. Do you disagree with that?<\/span><\/p>\n

Answer\u2013\u00a0<\/b>They were not successful and the \u201cfact checkers\u201d that were hired to discredit vaccine critics like me, have deliberately mischaracterized what happened in the trials. For example, here\u2019s a typical \u201cfact checker\u201d article titled\u00a0\u201cCOVID-19 vaccines did not skip animal trials because of animal deaths\u201d<\/a>\u00a0by Reuters. Here\u2019s an excerpt:<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\u201cPosts claiming that COVID-19 vaccine producers skipped animal trials due to the animals in those trials dying are false. Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson, which have been granted emergency authorization use by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the United States, all conducted animal trials and had no significant safety concerns to report.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Sounds reassuring, right? But then they say:<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\u201cDue to time constraints and the urgency to find a vaccine\u202ffor COVID-19,\u202fModerna and Pfizer\u202fdid receive\u202fapproval to run animal testing and early trials on humans at the same time, as opposed to\u202ffully\u202fcompleting animal trials before moving on to human trials. This, however, does not mean animal trials were skipped or that the safety of the vaccines were compromised.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Let me see if I got this straight: The drug companies were in such a hurry that they conducted their minimalist animal trials at the same time as their human trials (which is unprecedented) and then rushed the results to the FDA so they could be rubber stamped and waved through under the Emergency Use Authority?<\/span><\/p>\n

Is that how it went down?<\/span><\/p>\n

Yes, it is.<\/span><\/p>\n

But if they were rushed through in a couple months, then\u00a0the \u201cfact checkers\u201d are tacitly admitting that there is no long-term safety data<\/b>. And there IS no long-term safety data,\u00a0nor is there any attempt to disprove the research from the earlier trials where the ferrets, mice and other animals died following injection of mRNA vaccines<\/b>. They don\u2019t deny it, they just ignore it as if sweeping it under the rug will make it all go away. Here\u2019s a clip from the research paper that Reuters refers to in its article:<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\u201cWe demonstrate that\u00a0the candidate vaccines\u2026 respectively\u2014induce strong antigen-specific immune responses in mice and macaques<\/b>\u2026.Both (vaccines) protected 2\u20134-year-old macaques from challenge with infectious SARS-CoV-2, and there was reduced detection of viral RNA in immunized macaques as compared to those that received saline.\u201d (Note\u2013We\u2019ve already acknowledged that the vaccines do produce a strong immune response. Here\u2019s more:)<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cNeutralizing GMTs declined by day 56 (35 days after dose 2)<\/b>, consistent with the contraction phase; however, they remained well above the GMT of the human sera panel. The duration of\u00a0the study was not long enough\u00a0<\/b>to assess the rate of decline during the plateau phase of the antibody response.\u201d (\u201cBNT162b vaccines protect rhesus macaques from SARS-CoV-2\u201d<\/a>, Nature)<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Can you see what\u2019s going on? The trial was only 56 days-long, in fact,\u00a0none of the animal trials exceeded 56 days.<\/b>\u00a0Think about that for a minute. The reason the animals died in prior trials is because they were exposed to a mutated version of the (wild) virus that eventually killed them. That\u2019s how\u00a0ADE (antibody-dependent enhancement) works. It doesn\u2019t happen overnight and it doesn\u2019t happen in 56 days. It takes much longer than that for a mutated version of the virus to emerge and reinfect the host<\/b>. The drug companies know that. They\u2019re not stupid. So the fact that the animals mounted a strong immune response is completely irrelevant. We KNOW they mounted a strong immune response. We also know they died some months later when a different strain of the virus emerged. Bottom line:\u00a0The production of antibodies does not mean a drug is safe.<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

The obvious purpose of the trials was to get the vaccines over the finish-line before anyone figured out what was going on. It\u2019s the same reason why the drug companies \u201cunblinded\u201d their human trials after the vaccines got the green light from the FDA. Shortly after the trials were concluded, the people in the placebo arm were allowed to get vaccinated.<\/span><\/p>\n

Why would they do that? Why would they vaccinate the people who willingly allowed themselves to be guinea pigs for the sake of public health, only to vaccinate them shortly after, thus, eliminating any chance of finding out what the long-term safety issues might be? It makes no sense, does it?<\/span><\/p>\n

Take a look at this short clip from the British Medical Journal whose scientists are equally bewildered:<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\u201cThe (drug) companies say they have an ethical obligation to unblind volunteers so they can receive the vaccine. But some experts are concerned about a \u201cdisastrous\u201d loss of critical information if volunteers on a trial\u2019s placebo arm are unblinded<\/b>\u2026<\/span><\/p>\n

Although the FDA has granted the vaccines emergency use authorization, to get full license approval two years of follow-up data are needed.\u00a0The data are now likely to be scanty and less reliable given that the trials are effectively being unblinded.<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

Consumer representative Sheldon Toubman, a lawyer and FDA advisory panel member, said that Pfizer and BioNTech had not proved that their vaccine prevents severe covid-19. \u201cThe FDA says all we can do is suggest protection from severe covid disease; we need to know that it does that,\u201d he said.<\/span><\/p>\n

He countered claims, based on experience with other vaccines, six weeks of follow-up was long enough to detect safety signals.<\/b>\u00a0Six weeks may not be long enough for this entirely new type of \u201cuntested\u201d [mRNA] vaccine, Toubman said.<\/span><\/p>\n

Goodman wants all companies to be held to the same standard and says they should not be allowed to make up their own rules about unblinding. He told The BMJ that, while he was \u201cvery optimistic\u201d about the vaccines,\u00a0\u201cblowing up the trials\u201d by allowing unblinding \u201cwill set a de facto standard for all vaccine trials to come.<\/b>\u201d And that, he said, \u201cis dangerous.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

(\u201cCovid-19: Should vaccine trials be unblinded?\u201d<\/a>\u00a0The British Medical Journal)<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Do you like his choice of words: \u201cblowing up the trials\u201d? Do you think it is a fair description of what the drug companies did?<\/span><\/p>\n

Yes, it is.<\/span><\/p>\n

And what possible motive would the drug companies have to blow up the trials? I can see only two possibilities:<\/span><\/p>\n

    \n
  1. They think their vaccine is so terrific, it will save the lives of many of the people in the placebo group.<\/li>\n
  2. They expect a high percentage of the people in the vaccine group to get either severely sick or die, so they want to hide the evidence of vaccine-linked injury.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Which is it?<\/span><\/p>\n

    You know the answer. Everyone watching this farce knows the answer.<\/span><\/p>\n

    Question\u2013\u00a0<\/b>Okay, so let\u2019s cut to the chase: Are the vaccines are safe or not?<\/span><\/p>\n

    No, they are not safe.\u00a0<\/b>The way we decide whether a drug is safe or not is by putting it through a rigorous process of testing and clinical trials. After the testing, the data is passed on to physicians, statisticians, chemists, pharmacologists, and other scientists who review the data and make their recommendations or criticisms. That didn\u2019t happen with the Covid vaccines, in fact,\u00a0all the normal standards and protocols were suspended in the name of \u201curgency\u201d<\/b>. But many believe that the \u201curgency\u201d was manufactured to push through vaccines that would never have been approved on their own merits. All you have to do is\u00a0look through the vaccine injury data (VAERS) and you\u2019ll see this is the most lethal medical intervention of all time\u00a0<\/b>and, yet, the public health experts, the media and the government keep crowing that they\u2019re \u201csafe and effective\u201d. It\u2019s nonsense and the drug companies know it\u2019s nonsense which is why they reject all liability for the people that are going to be killed by these \u201cpoison-death shots.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

    Do you know what goes on inside your body after you are injected with one of these \u201cgene based\u201d vaccines?<\/span><\/p>\n

    Once the vaccine enters the bloodstream it penetrates the cells that line the blood vessels forcing them to produce spike proteins that protrude into the bloodstream like millions of microscopic thorns. These thorns activate blood platelets which trigger blood clotting followed shortly after by an immune response that destroys the infected cells thus weakening the vascular system while draining the supply of killer lymphocytes. In this way, the vaccine launches a dual attack on the body\u2019s critical infrastructure causing widespread tissue damage throughout the circulatory system while leaving the immune system less able to fend off future infection.<\/span><\/p>\n

    Now if you think you can have a long-and-happy without a functioning circulatory system, then none of this matters. But if you\u2019re bright enough to realize that wreaking havoc on your vascular system is the fast-track to the graveyard, then you\u2019ll probably understand that injecting these \u201cpoison-death shots\u201d is a particularly bad idea.<\/span><\/p>\n

    By the way, it\u2019s a real stretch to call these hybrid injections, \u201cvaccines\u201d. They have about as much in common with a traditional vaccine as a python does with a coffee table. Nothing.\u00a0The \u201cvaccine\u201d moniker was chosen in order to shore-up public confidence, that\u2019s all. It\u2019s part of a marketing strategy<\/b>. There is no real similarity. The majority of people trust vaccines and see them as a shining example of medical achievement. The drug companies wanted to tap into that trust and use it for their own purposes. That\u2019s why they called it a \u201cvaccine\u201d instead of \u201cgene therapy\u201d which more accurately describes \u2018what it does.\u2019 But\u2013like we said\u2013 it\u2019s just a marketing strategy.<\/span><\/p>\n

    Have you ever wondered how the drug companies were able to roll out their own-individual vaccines just weeks apart from each other? That\u2019s a pretty good trick, don\u2019t you think; especially since vaccine development typically takes from 10 to 15 years. How do you think they managed that? Here\u2019s an excerpt from an article which provides a little background on the topic:<\/span><\/p>\n

    \n

    \u201cThe virus behind the outbreak that began in Wuhan, China, was identified on Jan. 7.\u00a0Less than a week later \u2014 on Jan. 13 \u2014 researchers at Moderna and the NIH had a proposed sequence for an mRNA vaccine against it,<\/b>\u00a0and, as the company wrote in government documents, \u201cwe mobilized toward clinical manufacture.\u201d\u00a0By Feb. 24, the team was shipping vials from a plant in Norwood, Mass.<\/b>, to the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, in Bethesda, Md., for a planned clinical trial to test its safety.\u201d (\u201cResearchers rush to test coronavirus vaccine in people without knowing how well it works in animals\u201d<\/a>, Stat)<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

    Got that? \u201cThe virus broke out in Wuhan\u2026on Jan. 7, and less than a week later Moderna had a proposed sequence for an mRNA vaccine against it???<\/span><\/p>\n

    Really? Is that the same Moderna that had been playing-around with mRNA for over a decade but was never able to successfully bring a vaccine to market?<\/span><\/p>\n

    Yep, the very same company. Here\u2019s more:<\/span><\/p>\n

    \u201cAnd by Feb. 24, the team was shipping vials from a plant in Norwood, Mass??\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

    Wow! Another Covid miracle! You almost get whiplash watching these companies crank out their \u201cwonder drugs\u201d at record-breaking speed.<\/span><\/p>\n

    Keep in mind, there\u2019s a very high probability that the virus was man-made, (In other words, it\u2019s a bioweapon.) and the people who have been implicated in the funding and creation of that bioweapon are also closely aligned with the big drug companies that have produced the antidote in record time that has already netted tens of billions of dollars in profits for a drug for which there was no reliable animal testing, no long-term safety data, and no formal regulatory approval.<\/span><\/p>\n

    So I\u2019ll ask you again: Doesn\u2019t that all sound a bit suspicious?<\/span><\/p>\n

    Is it really that hard to see the outline of a political agenda here?\u00a0<\/b>After all, aren\u2019t the drug companies working with the regulatory agencies that are working with the public health officials that are working with the media that are working with the corrupted politicians that are working with the Intel agencies that are working with the meddling globalist billionaires that are working with the giant private equity firms that oversee the entire operation pulling the appropriate strings whenever needed?<\/span><\/p>\n

    It sure looks like it.<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

    And, don\u2019t the tectonic social changes we\u2019ve seen in the last year have more to do with a broader scorched-earth campaign launched by the \u201cparasite class\u201d against the rest of humanity than they do with a fairly-mild virus that kills mainly old and frail people with multiple underlying health conditions?
    \n<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

    Right, again. In fact, many have noticed the cracks in the pandemic artifice from the very beginning, just as many have pointed out that the virus-meme is just the mask behind which parasites continue to conduct their global restructuring project. In short, it\u2019s all about politics; bare-knuckle, take-no-prisoners NWO politics.<\/span><\/p>\n

    Answer\u2013\u00a0<\/b>You\u2019ve asked a number of questions about the animal trials, but none about the biodistribution and the pharmacokinetics studies that were done at the same time. Why is that? (Note-<\/b>-Pharmacokinetics; \u201cthe branch of pharmacology concerned with the movement of drugs within the body.\u201d)<\/span><\/p>\n

    Question\u2013\u00a0<\/b>I didn\u2019t know there were any. Did the media report on them?<\/span><\/p>\n

    Subscribe to New Columns<\/a><\/div>\n

    Answer\u2013\u00a0<\/b>No, they didn\u2019t. They completely ignored them, even though they were produced by Pfizer and provide essential information about where the substance in the vaccine goes in the body, in what amounts, and for how long. By knowing how the drug is distributed, it is possible to make educated assumptions about its effect on the organs and other tissue. In other words, these studies are invaluable. The Doctors for Covid Ethics have done extensive research on the studies and written a report titled \u201cThe Pfizer mRNA vaccine: pharmacokinetics and toxicity\u201d. Here\u2019s a few excerpts that help to illustrate the dangers of the vaccines:<\/span><\/p>\n

    \n

    \u201cAs with any drug, a key consideration for the toxicity of the COVID mRNA vaccines is where exactly in the body they end up, and for how long they will stay there. Such questions, which are the subject of pharmacokinetics, are usually thoroughly investigated during drug development. Initial studies on pharmacokinetics and also on toxicity are carried out in animals\u2026 this document has rather far-reaching implications:\u00a0it shows that Pfizer\u2014as well as the authorities that were apprised of these data\u2014 must have recognized the grave risks of adverse events after vaccination<\/b>\u00a0even before the onset of clinical trials. Nevertheless,\u00a0Pfizer\u2019s own clinical trials failed to monitor any of the clinical risks that were clearly evident from these data, and the regulatory authorities failed to enforce proper standards of oversight.\u00a0<\/b>This dual failure has caused the most grievous harm to the public\u2026.<\/span><\/p>\n

    What do Pfizer\u2019s animal data presage for biological effects in humans?<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n