While recent attention has been brought to the memory-holing of claims made about the mRNA platform, a vastly more brazen falsehood was peddled by the CDC about the viral vector vaccines (e.g. J&J)
“ The pharmaceutical industrial complex tried to whitewash the lack of long-term testing of these drugs by selling the public on the idea that the decades during which the products were routinely too dangerous to test on humans (Fortune Magazine in 2015; “[Moderna] still does not have a single drug candidate in human clinical trials” https://fortune.com/2015/01/08/the-3-billion-startup-that-wants-to-help-you-to-make-medicines-in-your-own-cells/) made them “well-researched”, thereby taking the time period during which the drugs were too dangerous for long-term testing and absurdly using it as a promotive substitute for it. This was just about the most profoundly unscientific spin imaginable.”
YES!!!!
If I read once, I read far too many times, and from people and organizations that I have trusted for many years and who have taken unpopular stands on other medical ethics issues, that “this technology has been well researched.” “This is not new technology.”
And then they cited diseases for which we actually do not yet have a safe and effective vaccine, like RSV. It was mind-blowing.
Nice to finally hear someone else affirm this as the doublespeak that it was and is.
[Intracellular Reverse Transcription of Pfizer BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 In Vitro in Human Liver Cell Line](https://www.mdpi.com/1467-3045/44/3/73)
Igor's citation and your third reference are that same Swedish study I cited in the footnotes. I agree with your overall sentiment; it's basically worst-case scenario we're looking at at this point. The Jaenisch study ("SARS-CoV-2 RNA reverse-transcribed and integrated into the human genome") you cited is actually the first of two by him; it was, of course, hugely controversial because big name scientists were purportedly playing into vaccine hesitancy. Jaenisch’s second paper (https://www.pnas.org/content/118/21/e2105968118) repudiated the arguments levied at the first and the piece and was grudgingly accepted on the condition that nobody acknowledge what it could mean in the vein of vaccination.
In the footnotes of my article, I only included the more recent Swedish study because it was largely a follow-up on the two Jaenisch studies (a follow-up which should have been undertaken much earlier), and is in my opinion the most poignant of the three.
I found this in James Roguski stack
Your work is one of the clearest deconstruction of the scamdemic viruganda I have seen.
Of course we of Sanity knew the brainwash machine was on a heavy load when disCog 1 hit 3-11-2020
I never cease to be amazed by how fascist the demonicans have proven to be
Nazie Pelosie funds nUkraine and circus leads Taiwan for some Chinese votes in Killafornia
Gravel nuisance sells the souls of the kids in Killafornia for pennies and needlerape
What a great country.
Can me make great America to be a little less great ?
Tis the greatest show on dearth
Excellent article. I will be briefly featuring it on tomorrow's episode of Rounding the News, as suggested!
I got here from Rounding the News :)
Wow this is a brilliant piece
Thank you!!
Oh wow. That's an honor Liam. Thank you!!
“ The pharmaceutical industrial complex tried to whitewash the lack of long-term testing of these drugs by selling the public on the idea that the decades during which the products were routinely too dangerous to test on humans (Fortune Magazine in 2015; “[Moderna] still does not have a single drug candidate in human clinical trials” https://fortune.com/2015/01/08/the-3-billion-startup-that-wants-to-help-you-to-make-medicines-in-your-own-cells/) made them “well-researched”, thereby taking the time period during which the drugs were too dangerous for long-term testing and absurdly using it as a promotive substitute for it. This was just about the most profoundly unscientific spin imaginable.”
YES!!!!
If I read once, I read far too many times, and from people and organizations that I have trusted for many years and who have taken unpopular stands on other medical ethics issues, that “this technology has been well researched.” “This is not new technology.”
And then they cited diseases for which we actually do not yet have a safe and effective vaccine, like RSV. It was mind-blowing.
Nice to finally hear someone else affirm this as the doublespeak that it was and is.
Thank you for this post
Thanks for reading!!
it's even worse than that:
[Worst Fears Realized: Pfizer mRNA Integrates into your DNA](https://igorchudov.substack.com/p/worst-fears-realized-pfizer-mrna)
[SARS-CoV-2 RNA reverse-transcribed and integrated into the human genome](https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.12.12.422516v1)
[Intracellular Reverse Transcription of Pfizer BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 In Vitro in Human Liver Cell Line](https://www.mdpi.com/1467-3045/44/3/73)
Igor's citation and your third reference are that same Swedish study I cited in the footnotes. I agree with your overall sentiment; it's basically worst-case scenario we're looking at at this point. The Jaenisch study ("SARS-CoV-2 RNA reverse-transcribed and integrated into the human genome") you cited is actually the first of two by him; it was, of course, hugely controversial because big name scientists were purportedly playing into vaccine hesitancy. Jaenisch’s second paper (https://www.pnas.org/content/118/21/e2105968118) repudiated the arguments levied at the first and the piece and was grudgingly accepted on the condition that nobody acknowledge what it could mean in the vein of vaccination.
In the footnotes of my article, I only included the more recent Swedish study because it was largely a follow-up on the two Jaenisch studies (a follow-up which should have been undertaken much earlier), and is in my opinion the most poignant of the three.