18 Reasons Not To Get A COVID Vaccine
1. Vaccine makers are immune from liability
The only
industry in the world that bears no liability for injuries or deaths resulting
from their products are vaccine makers.
As first established in 1986 with the National Childhood Vaccine
Injury Act, and reinforced by the Public Readiness and Emergency
Preparedness (PREP) Act, vaccine makers cannot be sued — even if
they are shown to be negligent.
The COVID vaccine makers are allowed to create a one-size-fits-all product, with no testing on
sub-populations (i.e. people with specific health conditions), and yet they are
unwilling to accept any responsibility for any adverse events or deaths their products cause.
If a company is not willing to stand behind its product as safe,
especially one rushed to market, I am not willing to take a chance on
that product.
No
liability. No trust. Here’s why …
2. The checkered past of vaccine companies
The four
major companies who are making COVID vaccines are/have either:
·
Never brought a vaccine to market before COVID (Moderna and Johnson & Johnson).
·
Are serial felons (Pfizer, and AstraZeneca).
·
Are both (Johnson & Johnson).
Moderna had been trying to “Modernize our RNA”
(thus the company name) for years, but had never successfully brought any
product to market. How nice for the company to get a major cash infusion from
the government to keep trying.
In fact, all major vaccine makers (save Moderna) have paid out
tens of billions of dollars in damages for other products they brought to
market when they knew those products would cause injuries and death — see Vioxx, Bextra, Celebrex, Thalidomide and opioids as a
few examples.
If drug
companies willfully choose to put harmful products in the market — when they
can be sued — why would we trust any product where they have no liability?
Three of
the four COVID vaccine makers have been sued for products they brought to
market even though they knew injuries and deaths would result.
·
Johnson & Johnson has lost major lawsuits in 1995, 1996, 2001,
2010, 2011, 2016, 2019 (For what it’s worth, the company’s vaccine also contains
tissues from aborted fetal cells,
perhaps a topic for another discussion).
·
Pfizer has the distinction of the biggest criminal
payout in history. The company lost so many lawsuits it’s hard to count. You
can check out its rap sheet here. Maybe that’s why Pfizer is demanding that countries where they don’t have
liability protection put up collateral to cover vaccine-injury lawsuits.
·
AstraZeneca has similarly lost so many lawsuits
it’s hard to count. Here’s one. Here’s another…you get the
point. And in case you missed it, the company had its COVID vaccine suspended
in at least 18 countries over
concerns of blood clots, and it completely botched its meeting
with the FDA with numbers from their study that didn’t match.
·
Oh, and apparently Johnson & Johnson (whose vaccine was
granted Emergency Use Authorization in
the U.S.) and AstraZenca (whose vaccine is not approved in the U.S.), had a little mix up in their ingredients … in 15
million doses. Oops.
Given the
free pass from liability, and the checkered past of these companies, why would
we assume that all their vaccines are safe and made completely above board?
Where
else in life would we trust someone with that kind of reputation?
To me
that makes as much sense as expecting a remorseless, abusive unfaithful lover
to become a different person because a judge said deep down they are a good
person.
No. I
don’t trust them. No liability. No trust. Here’s another reason why I don’t
trust them …
Ask
Congress to Investigate COVID Origins - Take Action
3. Ugly history of attempts to make coronavirus vaccines
There
have been many attempts to make viral vaccines in the past that ended in utter
failure — which is why we did not have a coronavirus vaccine in 2020.
In the 1960s, scientists attempted to make an RSV (respiratory
syncytial virus) vaccine for infants. In that study, they skipped animal trials because the
trials weren’t required then.
In the end, the vaccinated
infants got much sicker than the unvaccinated infants when exposed to the virus
in nature, with 80% of the vaccinated infants requiring hospitalization. Two of them died.
After 2000, scientists made many
attempts to create coronavirus vaccines. For the past 20 years, all ended in
failure because the animals in the clinical trials got very sick and many died,
just like the children in the 1960s.
You can read a summary of this history/science here. Or if you want
to read the individual studies you can check out these links:
·
In 2004, attempted vaccine produced hepatitis in ferrets.
·
In 2005, mice and civets became sick and more susceptible to
coronaviruses after being vaccinated.
·
In 2012, the ferrets became sick and died. And in this study, mice and ferrets developed lung disease.
·
In 2016, this study also
produced lung disease in mice.
The
typical pattern in the studies referenced above is that the children and the
animals produced beautiful antibody responses after being vaccinated. The
manufacturers thought they hit the jackpot.
The problem came when the children and
animals were exposed to the wild version of the virus.
When that happened,
an unexplained phenomenon called
antibody dependent enhancement, also known as vaccine enhanced disease, occurred where the immune
system produced a “cytokine storm” (i.e. overwhelmingly attacked the body)
and the children/animals died.
Here’s
the lingering issue: The vaccine makers have no data to suggest their rushed
vaccines have overcome that problem.
In other words, never
before has any attempt to make a coronavirus vaccine been successful, nor has
the gene-therapy technology in mRNA “vaccines” been safely brought to market.
We might assume that because the companies received billions of dollars in
government funding, they must have figured out that problem.
Except they
don’t know if they have …
4. The ‘data gaps’ submitted to FDA by vaccine makers
When vaccine makers submitted their papers to the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) for the Emergency Use Authorization (which
is not the same as a full FDA approval), among the many “data gaps” they reported was that they have
nothing in their trials to suggest they overcame that pesky problem of vaccine
enhanced disease.
They
simply don’t know if the vaccines they’ve made will also produce the same
cytokine storm (and deaths) as previous attempts at such products.
As Dr. Joseph Mercola points out …
“Previous attempts to develop an mRNA-based drug
using lipid nanoparticles failed
and had to be abandoned because when the dose was too low, the drug had no
effect, and when dosed too high, the drug became too toxic. An
obvious question is: What has changed that now makes this technology safe
enough for mass use?”
If that’s
not alarming enough, here are other gaps in the data — in other words, there is
no data to suggest safety or efficacy regarding:
·
Anyone younger than age 18 or older than age 55.
·
Pregnant or lactating mothers.
·
Autoimmune conditions.
·
Immunocompromised individuals.
·
No data on transmission of COVID.
·
No data on preventing mortality from COVID.
·
No data on duration of protection from COVID.
In case you think I’m making this up, or want to see the actual
documents sent to the FDA by Pfizer and Moderna for their Emergency Use
Authorization, you can check out this, or this respectively. The data gaps can be found
starting with page 46 and 48 respectively.
For now
let’s turn our eyes to the raw data the vaccine makers used to submit for
emergency use authorization …
5. No access to raw data from trials
Would you like to see
the raw data that produced the “90% and 95% effective”
claims touted in the news?
Me too. But the companies won’t let us
see that data.
As pointed out in the BMJ, something
about the Pfizer and Moderna efficacy claims smells really funny. There were “3,410 total cases of
suspected, but unconfirmed COVID-19 in the overall study population, 1,594
occurred in the vaccine group vs. 1,816 in the placebo group.”
Wait …
what? Did they fail to do science in their scientific study by not verifying a
major variable?
Could they not test those “suspected but unconfirmed” cases to
find out if they had COVID? Why not test all 3,410 participants for
the sake of accuracy?
Can we only guess they didn’t test
because it would mess up their “90-95% effective” claims?
Would it not
be prudent for the FDA to expect (demand) the vaccine makers test people who
have “COVID-like symptoms,” and release their raw data so independent third
parties could examine how the manufacturers justified the numbers?
It’s only
every citizen of the world we’re trying to get to take these experimental
products — why did the FDA not require that? Isn’t that the entire purpose of
the FDA anyway?
Good
question. Foxes guarding the hen house? No liability. No trust.
6. No long-term safety testing
With products that have been on the
market only a few months, we have no long-term safety data.
In other
words, we have no idea
what this product will do in the body months or years from now — for any
population.
Given all the risks above (risks that all pharmaceutical products have), would it not be
prudent to wait to see if the worst-case scenarios have indeed been avoided?
Would it
not make sense to want to fill those pesky “data gaps” before we try to give
this to every man, woman and child on the planet?
That
would make sense. But to have that data, they need to test it on people, which
leads me to my next point …
7. No informed consent
What most
who are taking the vaccine don’t know is that because these products are still in clinical trials,
anyone who gets the shot is now part of the clinical trial — part of the
experiment.
Those
(like me) who do not take it, are part of the control group. Time will tell how
this experiment works out.
But, you may be asking, if the vaccines are causing harm, wouldn’t
we be seeing that all over the news? Surely the FDA would step in and pause the
distribution? (Editor’s note: federal health officials on Tuesday paused the Johnsons & Johnson vaccine over
concerns related to blood clots).
If the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) —
the government-run system for reporting deaths and injuries after vaccines —
worked, maybe things would be different, but …
8. Under-reporting of adverse reactions and deaths
According to a Harvard study (commissioned
by our own government), less than 1% of all adverse reactions to vaccines are
actually submitted to VAERS.
While the problems with VAERS have not been fixed (as you
can read about in this letter to the CDC),
at the time of this
writing, VAERS reports over 2,200 deaths from the current COVID vaccines, as
well as close to 60,000 adverse reactions.
If those numbers represent
only 1% of the total adverse reactions (or .8% to 2% of
what this study published
recently in the JAMA found), you can do the math — but that equates to somewhere around 110,000 to
220,000 deaths from the vaccines to date, and a ridiculous number of adverse
reactions.
Bet you
didn’t see that on the news.
That
death number would currently still be lower than the 424,000 deaths from
medical errors that happen every year (which you probably also don’t hear
about), but we are not even six months into the rollout of these vaccines yet.
If you want a deeper dive into the problems with the VAERS
reporting system, you can check out this or this.
But then there’s my next point, which could be argued makes these COVID vaccines seem pointless.
9. The
vaccines don’t stop transmission or infection
Aren’t
these vaccines supposed to be what we’ve been waiting for to “go back to
normal”? Nope.
Why do you think we’re getting all these conflicting messages about
needing to practice social distancing and wear masks after we get a vaccine? The reason is because these
vaccines were never designed to stop transmission or infection.
If you
don’t believe me, I refer you again to the papers submitted to the FDA I linked
to above which show that the primary endpoint (what the vaccines are meant to
accomplish) is to lower your symptoms.
Sounds like
just about every other drug on the market right? That’s it … lowering your
symptoms is the big payoff we’ve been waiting for. Does that seem completely
pointless to anyone but me?
·
It can’t stop us from spreading the virus.
·
It can’t stop the virus from infecting us once we have it.
·
To get the vaccine is to accept all the risk of these experimental products and
the best it might do is lower symptoms?
There are plenty of other things I can
do to lower my symptoms that don’t involve taking what appears to be a really
risky product.
Now for
the next logical question: If we’re worried about asymptomatic spreaders, would
the vaccine not make it more likely that we are creating asymptomatic spread?
If it
indeed reduces symptoms, anyone who gets it might not even know they are sick
and thus they are more likely to spread the virus, right?
For what
it’s worth, I’ve heard many people say the side effects of the vaccine
(especially the second dose) are worse than catching COVID.
I can’t
make sense of that either.
Take the risk. Get no protection.
Suffer through the vaccine side effects. Keep wearing your mask and social
distancing … and continue to be able to spread the virus.
It gets
worse …
10. People are catching
COVID after being fully vaccinated
Talk
about a bummer. You get vaccinated and you still catch COVID.
·
It’s happening in Washington State.
·
It’s happening in New York.
·
It’s happening in Michigan.
·
It’s happening in Hawaii.
·
It’s happening in several other states too.
·
It happened to 80% of 35 nuns who got
the vaccine in Kentucky. Two of them died by the way. (Watchman comment, a convent on
the Ohio River in northern KY.)
In
reality, this phenomenon is probably happening everywhere, but those are the
ones making the news now.
Given the
reasons above (and what’s below), maybe this doesn’t surprise you, but bummer
if you thought the vaccine was a shield to keep you safe.
It’s not.
That was never the point.
If 66% of healthcare workers in
L.A. are going to delay or skip the vaccine … maybe they aren’t wowed by the
rushed science either.
Maybe
they are watching the shady way deaths and cases are being reported …
11. Overall death rate from COVID
According to the CDC’s own
numbers, COVID has a 99.74% survival rate.
Why would I take a risk on a product,
that doesn’t stop infection or transmission, to help me overcome a cold that
has a .26% chance of killing me — which actually in my age range is has about a
.1% chance of killing me (and .01% chance of killing my kids).
With a
bar (death rate) that low, we will be in lockdown every year … i.e., forever.
But wait,
what about the 500,000-plus deaths, that’s alarming right? I’m glad you asked
12. Bloated COVID death numbers
Something
smells really funny about this one. Never before in the history of death certificates has our own
government changed how deaths are reported.
Why now,
are we reporting everyone who dies with COVID in their body, as having died of
COVID, rather than the co-morbidities that actually took their life?
Until COVID, all coronaviruses (common
colds) were never listed as the primary cause of death when someone died of
heart disease, cancer, diabetes, auto-immune conditions or any other major comorbidity.
The
disease was listed as the cause of death, and a confounding factor like flu or
pneumonia was listed on a separate line.
To bloat the number even
more, the World Health Organization and the CDC changed their guidelines such
that those who are suspected or probable (but
were never confirmed) of having died of COVID, are also included in the death
numbers.
If we are
going to do that then should we not go back and change the numbers of all past
cold and flu seasons so we can compare apples to apples when it comes to death
rates?
According to the CDCs own numbers, (scroll down to the section
“comorbidities and other conditions”), only 6% of the deaths being attributed to COVID are
instances where COVID seems to be the only issue at hand.
In other words, reduce the death numbers
you see on the news by 94% and you have what is likely the real numbers of
deaths from just COVID.
Even if the former CDC director is
correct and COVID-19 was a lab-enhanced virus (see Reason #14 below), a .26% death rate is still in
line with the viral death rate that circles the planet every year.
Then there’s this Fauci guy. I’d really love to trust him, but besides
the fact that he hasn’t treated one COVID patient, you should probably know …
13. Fauci and
others at NIAID own patents on the Moderna vaccine
Thanks to the Bayh-Dole Act,
government workers are allowed to file patents on any research they do using
taxpayer funding.
Tony Fauci owns more than
1,000 patents (see this video for more details), including patents being
used on the Moderna vaccine … for which he approved government funding.
In fact, the
National Institutes of Health (NIH) — which oversees the National Institute of
Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), of which Fauci is the director — claims joint ownership of
Moderna’s vaccine.
Does
anyone else see this as a major conflict of interest, or criminal even?
I say
criminal because there’s also this pesky problem that makes me even more
distrustful of Fauci, NIAD, and the NIH in general …
14. Fauci is
on the hot seat for illegal gain-of-function research
What is “gain-of-function”
research? It’s where scientists attempt to make viruses gain functions — i.e.
make them more transmissible and deadlier.
Sounds at
least a touch unethical, right? How could that possibly be helpful?
Our government agreed, and
2014, banned the practice.
So what did the Fauci-led
NIAID do? They pivoted and outsourced the gain-of-function
research (in coronaviruses no less) to China — to the tune of a
$600K grant.
Mr.
Fauci, you have some explaining to do … and I hope the cameras are recording
when you have to defend your actions.
For now,
let’s turn our attention back to the virus …
15. The virus
continues to mutate
Not only does the virus
(like all viruses) continue to mutate, but according to world-renowned vaccine
developer Geert Vanden Bossche (whom you’ll meet below if
you don’t know him) it’s mutating about every 10 hours.
How in the world are we going to keep
creating vaccines to keep up with that level of mutation? We’re not.
Might that also explain why fully vaccinated people are continuing to catch COVID?
Why,
given that natural
immunity has never ultimately failed humanity, do we suddenly not trust it?
Why, if I ask questions like the above, or post links like what
you find above, will my thoughts be deleted from
all major social media platforms?
That
brings me to the next troubling problem I have with these vaccines …
16. Censorship
and the complete absence of scientific debate
I can’t
help but get snarky here, so humor me.
How did
you enjoy all those nationally and globally televised, robust debates put on by
public health officials, and broadcast simultaneously on every major news
station?
Wasn’t it
great hearing from the best minds in medicine, virology, epidemiology,
economics and vaccinology, from all over the world. as they vigoro usly and
respectfully debated things like:
·
Lockdowns
·
Mask wearing
·
Social-distancing
·
Vaccine efficacy and safety trials
·
How to screen for susceptibility to vaccine injury
·
Therapeutics, (i.e. non-vaccine treatment options)
Wasn’t it
great seeing public health officials (who never treated anyone with COVID) have
their “science” questioned?
Wasn’t it
great seeing the FDA panel publicly grill the vaccine makers in prime time as
they stood in the hot-seat of tough questions about products of which they have
no liability?
Oh, wait … you didn’t see those debates? No, you didn’t. Because they
never happened.
What
happened instead was heavy-handed
censorship of all but one narrative.
Mark Zuckerberg can question
vaccine safety, but I can’t? When did the First Amendment become
a suggestion?
It’s the
FIRST Amendment, Mark — the one our founders thought was most important.
With so
much at stake, why are we fed only one narrative. Shouldn’t many perspectives
be heard and professionally debated?
What has
happened to science?
What has
happened to the scientific method of always challenging our assumptions?
What
happened to lively debate in this country, or at least in Western society?
Why did
anyone who disagrees with WHO, or the CDC get censored so heavily?
Is the
science of public health a religion now — or is science supposed to be about
debate?
If someone says “the science is
settled” that’s how I know I’m dealing with someone who is closed minded. By
definition science (especially biological science) is never settled.
If it
was, it would be dogma, not science.
I want to
be a good citizen. I really do.
If
lockdowns work, I want to do my part and stay home.
If masks
work, I want to wear them.
If social
distancing is effective, I want to comply.
But, if there is evidence they don’t (masks for example),
I want to hear that evidence, too.
If highly
credentialed scientists have different opinions, I want to know what they
think. I want a chance to hear their arguments and make up my own mind.
I don’t
think I’m the smartest person in the world, but I think I can think. Maybe I’m
weird, but if someone is censored, then I really want to hear what they think.
Don’t you?
To all my
friends who don’t have a problem with censorship, will you have the same
opinion when what you think is censored?
Is
censorship not the technique of dictators, tyrants and greedy, power-hungry
people?
Is it not
a sign that those who are doing the censoring know it’s the only way they can
win?
What if a
man who spent his entire life developing vaccines was willing to put his entire
reputation on the line and call on all global leaders to immediately stop the
COVID vaccines because of problems with the science?
What if
he pleaded for an open-scientific debate on a global stage?
Would you
want to hear what he has to say? Would you want to see the debate he’s asking
for?
17. World’s leading
vaccinologist is sounding the alarm
Here is
what may be the biggest reason this COVID vaccine doesn’t make sense to me.
When
someone who is very pro-vaccine, who has spent his entire professional career
overseeing the development of vaccines, is shouting from the mountaintops that
we have a major problem, I think the man should be heard.
In case you missed it, and
in case you care to watch it, here is Geert Vanden Bossche,
explaining:
·
Why the COVID vaccine may be putting so much pressure on the virus
that we are accelerating its ability to mutate and become more deadly.
·
Why the COVID vaccines may be creating vaccine-resistant viruses
(similar to antibiotic resistant bacteria).
·
Why, because of previous problems with antibody dependent
enhancement, we may be looking at a mass casualty event in the next few
months/years.
If you want to see/read about a second, and longer, interview with
Vanden Bossche, where he was asked some tough questions, you can check this out.
If half
of what he says comes true, these vaccines could be the worst invention of all
time.
If you
don’t like his science, take it up with him.
I’m just
the messenger.
But I can
also speak to COVID personally …
18. I already had COVID
I didn’t
enjoy it. It was a nasty cold for two days:
·
Unrelenting butt/low-back aches
·
Very low energy
·
Low-grade fever
It was
weird not being able to smell anything for a couple days. A week later, coffee
still tasted a little “off.”
But I
survived.
Now it appears (as it always has) that I have beautiful, natural, life-long immunity — not
something likely to wear off in a few months if I get the vaccine. In my body,
and my household, COVID is over.
In fact, now that I’ve had it, there is evidence the COVID
vaccine might actually be more dangerous for me.
That is
not a risk I’m willing to take.
In summary
The above
are just my reasons for not wanting the vaccine. Maybe my reasons make sense to
you, maybe they don’t.
Whatever
does makes sense to you, hopefully we can still be friends.
I for one
think there’s a lot more that we have in common than what separates us.
·
We all want to live in a world of freedom.
·
We all want to do our part to help others and to live well.
·
We all want the right to express our opinions without fearing
we’ll be censored or viciously attacked.
·
We all deserve to have access to all the facts so we can make
informed decisions.
Agree or
disagree with me, I’ll treat you no differently.
You’re a
human just as worthy of love and respect as anyone else. For that I salute you,
and I truly wish you all the best.
I hope
you found this helpful. If so, feel free to share.
If not,
feel free to (kindly) let me know, in the comments below, what didn’t make
sense to you.
Originally published by TRUE
Whole Human.
No comments:
Post a Comment