Smoking Gun: Vascular And Organ Damage Induced By mRNA Vaccines: Irrefutable Proof Of Causality

originally posted by: darkbake
So according to this evidence, wouldn't catching COVID have the same side-effects?

No because with Covid you get the entire virus. Most people will fight if off successfully, and if the virus is gone, the spike protein is gone. SOME people get long covid, which is a direct result of the spike protein. But vaccinees have had ONLY the spike protein injected into them. Huge difference.

originally posted by: nugget1
a reply to: v1rtu0s0

There doesn't seem to be any blurring of the lines left. You either think the vaccine was the greatest invention since the wheel or are convinced it comes with inherent dangers.

I remember when all the pro-vaxers believed it would prevent catching C19 100%, and were shaming everybody who wasn't rushing out to get the jab. Then it quietly morphed into 'you'll still get it but you won't get as sick'.

It's been interesting to watch things evolve and the talking heads scramble to keep covid relevant.

Very true. The interesting this is that before the vaccine even came out, all you had to do was read Phizr's and Moderna's trial studies to know it was not going to prevent covid. I told everyone this at the time and was called an idiot.

Biden, Trudeau, others, the media TOLD us it would stop infection - and in fact, the FDA's emergency use authorization was and still IS specifically there because it's supposed to "prevent infection."

First we had "rare breakthrough infections." Then "breakthrough infections," and then they stopped counting them. And THEN all my friends are like, "It was never supposed to stop infection, just make you have a mild case." But this is NOT what they were told and NOT what they parroted 1.5 years ago. And they don't eve REMEMBER. Amazing.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Randyvine2

Your lack of suspicion of a study that claims to be "irrefutable proof" that is based on only 15 subjects is highly suspect.

As for findings of "top experts in their fields", hardly.

And one of them has been rebuked for lying about his qualifications.

Does this not make you suspicious?

Not when there are hundreds of other instances where other small independent teams are finding the exact same thing.

A few questions / points to ponder...

(1) Why are so many of the so called anti-vaxxer experts frauds or dishonest people ? Why does that stance attract these types of people if they are indeed "truth seekers " . And why are they unaware that mRNA Tech is NOT new. Just news to the masses.

(2) I tried to find out what mortuary he was using for these private autopsies and no-one has heard of him. Prof. Burkhardt or Prof. Walter Lang. No Pathologists in Germany. Plus not a single clue from the Funeral Directors who are part of our extended group. ( they would 100% know as their embalmers would have to embalm the cases after the PM is done )

Families demanding autopsies is unusual and that kind of information would travel very quickly. Impossible to keep a secret.

(3) Most of the damage that is presented as evidence was seen in 2020, before any vaccines were available. Even on those who had very light symptoms, seemed to have gotten over it, but died soon after.

(4) After 40 years of mortuary work I have never seen that kind of widespread damage. Basically every organ was damaged in some way. That kind of collected damage can manifest itself in surprisingly deadly outcomes.

(5) Something to really ponder IF you are an honest truth seeker. As some of you claim.

Covid 19 stood out from other Pathogens like the general Flu as it took multiple family members. Even to the most uneducated person , that should speak volumes of how serious it was.

But since the vaccine came out, that phenomenon stopped ( apart from families and groups who refused the vaccination for whatever reason )

If the vaccine was so deadly, would that scenario not be MORE common.

Ask yourself how many Funerals like that you been to lately ?..., because according to these scammers it should be every week by now. Or is it one of those massive holes in their story you pretending is not there ?

Please note: Yes there has been vaccine induced deaths. I have done a few in my time. Not just this vaccine.

a reply to: v1rtu0s0


" the epidemic of "SADS" which is the leading cause of death in some places now, "

And where are these places ?

I am in a group of 33,000 Morticians who communicate on all kinds of issues globally ( not just one country like some myopic groups) . I have yet to hear of this, so can you please give me the names of these places so I can help confirm it for the readers.

Its kind of #ed isnt it.

They say its going to help us, but its actually harming us.

originally posted by: nugget1
But wait, there's more!

Since late last year, messenger RNA for Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccines, including its recently reformulated Omicron booster, has been exclusively manufactured by a little known company with significant ties to US intelligence.
....
the reformulated vaccine combines the previously approved COVID-19 vaccine with a “vaccine candidate” targeting the Omicron variant BA.1. That vaccine candidate has never been previously approved and has not been the subject of independent study. The MHRA approved the vaccine based on a single, incomplete human trial currently being conducted by Moderna. The company promoted incomplete data from that trial in company press releases in June and July. The study has yet to be published in a medical journal or peer reviewed.
Moderna has also noted that approval for its Omicron booster vaccine are pending in the US, EU, Australia and Canada – all of which are also planning fall vaccination campaigns focused on COVID-19. The company’s CEO, Stéphane Bancel, has called the reformulated vaccine “our lead candidate for a Fall 2022 booster.”
National Resilience was founded relatively recently, in November 2020, and describes itself as “a manufacturing and technology company dedicated to broadening access to complex medicines and protecting biopharmaceutical supply chains against disruption.” It has since been building “a sustainable network of high-tech, end-to-end manufacturing solutions with the aim to ensure the medicines of today and tomorrow can be made quickly, safely, and at scale.” It furtherplans to “reinvent biomanufacturing” and “democratize access to medicines,” namely gene therapies, experimental vaccines and other “medicines of tomorrow.”

Just a little something more to chew on.

[unlimitedhangout.com...]

Well, let’s see if National Resilience turns out to be a blessing or a curse. ‘Democratising access to medicines’ sounds utopian. But is that shorthand for testing dodgy crap out on the public? Probably!

The problem with this debate (and not just this debate) is that we have unreliable narrators on both sides.

So called ‘quacks’ and counter-narrative commentators on one side (well of course they’d say that).

Reuters, the bbc and other establishment controlled editorials and commentators on the other side (well of course that’d say that).

And around in circles we go. Only time will tell the truths, fact checked by bitter experience.

Those citing Reuters as gospel and living accordingly place their faith in folk they don’t know and have no real reason to trust. It’s simply an act of faith, which supports the reality they hope they’re living in.

Those citing the anti-vax voices are doing exactly the same.

None of us suckers really know the agendas, anti or pro, honest or otherwise of these remote voices we put our faith in.

In that kind of unreliable scenario sure the smart move is to exercise pragmatism and hedge your bets. Ppragmatism dictates that risk is the determining factor. If you see yourself at high risk of serious pathology if catching covid - elderly, infirm, co-morbid etc - then who can blame you for betting on the vaccine?

If you’re in good health, or very young, or post viral covid infectied and survived, then who can blame you for betting against the vaccine.

It’s those that bet against their own personal history and situation whom are surely very brave, or very stupid, or have inside Intel the rest of us do not.

The only opinion piece editorial I’ll contribute to this pointless debate is in a field of unreliable narration in which none of us suckers really know the bottom line, any of us that calls for children to receive this gambit at the end of a needle because they believe it’s harmless has a special place in hell awaiting them.

Here we go referencing a state funded propaganda mouthpiece like it’s an actual legitimate source …again. It’s tiresome. a reply to: Oldcarpy2

“I have yet to hear of this” Lol, what? Is your practice in Siberia? a reply to: thedeadtruth

originally posted by: McGinty


Those citing Reuters as gospel and living accordingly place their faith in folk they don’t know and have no real reason to trust. It’s simply an act of faith, which supports the reality they hope they’re living in.

Those citing the anti-vax voices are doing exactly the same.

.

No, I would disagree with that. I mean I agree to an extent that anti-vaxxer info can be just as unreliable.... SOMETIMES. I certainly see a lot of "conspiracy" folk jumping to conclusions they have no way of reasonably concluding.

On the other hand, there are TONS and TONS of articles, studies, anecdotal experiences that are VERY GOOD reasons to conclude all sorts of things, but these things are dismissed by others because they're not on CNN or the TV.

Fact is, those who want to assume these vaxxes are "safe and effective" will dismiss anything they need to.

originally posted by: thebtheb
On the other hand, there are TONS and TONS of articles, studies, anecdotal experiences that are VERY GOOD reasons to conclude all sorts of things...

To my mind there are tons and tons of articles, studies, anecdotal experiences that are very good reasons to suspect all sorts of things. It's too soon to make conclusions imho. Maybe in 10 years time we can conclude. In the meantime we make out best guess based upon the what we're shown, what we're allowed to discover when searching and what all the contradictory voices are selling us.

I've had a bad feeling about the whole thing coming at a time of rising panic over resources and the climate. And hey presto, here's a convenient population reducer just when the planet needed it. But i don't bet the farm on a bad feeling... ok, maybe i bet my farm on it, but i'm not about to tell anyone else to bet their farm on my bad feeling, no matter how many remote voices try to sell me the idea.

I'm steering clear of the mrna, but don't think anyone should be telling anyone else to do the same because they're right.

a reply to: v1rtu0s0

Well we said the vaccines were dangerous and not to get them, dopeys. We also said the election was stolen but they wouldn't believe that, either.

"One of Sunak’s big concerns was about the fear messaging, which his Treasury team worried could have long-lasting effects. ‘In every brief, we tried to say: let’s stop the “fear” narrative. It was always wrong from the beginning. I constantly said it was wrong.’ The posters showing Covid patients on ventilators, he said, were the worst. ‘It was wrong to scare people like that."

From interview below.

They knew lockdown / masks / live events would do nowt... but they followed the model... the science.

They knew the side effects
This will come out also.... it's too big with too many people from too many countries for all to stay schtum

Trouble with following the science is... science follows the money.

www.spectator.co.uk...

www.conservativewoman.co.uk...

a reply to: truetrigger

The only reason Sunak was against the fear mongering was its negative effect on GDP.

If Sunak had money in the tobacco industry he’d be against putting the scary images of cancers on cigarette packets.

The only reason he insists that under his leadership schools would never close is not to preserve the children’s education, but instead to ensure their parents continue working and adding to treasury coffers, rather than staying at home to childcare.

It seems blatant that for Sunak £ > health.

I’m not saying that there wasn’t mongering, but Sunak’s statements proves only his own twisted priorities.

a reply to: McGinty

This means governance must be purged of self-interest if it wants to be called good governance. But unfortunately with a patient this sick, it might be too late.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Rage away.....

You seem the one enraged here. Here's an excerpt from your link:

Professor Neil Mabbott, personal chair in immunopathology at the University of Edinburgh, told Reuters he would be “very surprised” if the preprint passes credible review.

He warned that “many non-specialist readers won’t necessarily be aware of the distinction” between a preprint – a version of a scientific manuscript posted on a public server prior to formal peer review (here) – and a peer-reviewed study published in a scientific journal “as so much important coronavirus related data has been released as preprints”.

Well, I'm sure to the dismay of Prof. Mabbott, I do understand how a study gets "peer-reviewed"... apparently better than he does.

Every study starts off the same way: unreviewed. A scientist can elect to publish said study in any number of ways, one of which is on an Internet website. At that point, it is printed and is no longer a pre-print... a pre-print is something the scientist only shares with selected individuals for feedback, proofreading, etc. However, it is not reviewed.

The purpose of printing a study is to invite peer review, which is exactly what it sounds like: a review of the work by one's peers (aka other scientists in that discipline). That's how science works: works by one scientist are reviewed by other scientists, be that review an examination of the assumptions, a verification of the methodology used, or a repeat study using either the same dataset or a new dataset obtained in the same manner.

Prof. Mabbott seems to have confused "peer review" with "editorial review." Editorial review is what happens when a scientific journal decides to publish or not publish a paper. Peer review happens after the paper is published; that's literally why a paper is published in a journal. Scientific journals are not run by scientists; they are run by journalists with (hopefully) a scientific background. There is a difference.

Professor Kevin McConway, emeritus professor of applied statistics at The Open University, raised concerns over the number of cases analysed – and said the Substack headline that 93% of deaths are caused by vaccines was also unfounded.

He told Reuters: “What is definitely not true is what is said in the headline to the Steve Kirsch article. Bhakdi and Burkhardt did not look at all the people who died after being vaccinated – that’s clearly not possible because a lot of people will die after being vaccinated for reasons that have nothing to with the vaccine.”

Prof. McConway got it closer... while Prof. Mabbott did absolutely no peer review and simply disagreed with the venue, at least Prof. McConway did offer a surface review suggesting there may be an error in the assumptions. That's still not peer review, because the review itself was superficial only.

And even if a paper is not peer-reviewed, it still does not follow that the paper is flawed or incorrect. It only means it is one scientist's findings and is subject to review. That goes for whether it is published in a journal or there are copies pasted all around the New York subway system.

The fact that such a glaring mis-characterization of such a simple concept integral to scientific progress appears in a "fact-check" article is itself a matter of concern for me. I have watched this trend develop; most people (including you apparently) do not know what "peer review" means or how it works. That has been regularly exploited for years now to try and discredit studies without actually taking the time to review them. That gives me great concern every time someone publishes one of these "fact check" articles. They are written by journalists in the first place (and usually journalists who have only a passing familiarity with scientific principles), and they simply do not understand the process they claim to represent.

So you can skip posting these "fact check" ruses... they mean absolutely nothing. If I wanted, I could "fact check" the idea that the planet is a sphere and find enough "evidence" to shoot it down... doesn't change the fact the planet is spherical.

What you can do is explain to me why the spike proteins are clearly still existent in the body after several months, when the very process itself states that they should all be gone long before that? The OP's source clearly specifies the existence of spike proteins in the human body after longer-than-expected time intervals, verified to be the result of vaccination and not the virus itself. How about telling me why this is so? Or perhaps you can explain how these false positives occurred showing a protein that is not native to the human body?

Try doing something along those lines, and you just might come across as less frantic and more informed. To be perfectly honest, your posts remind me of some dirty fellow wearing rags with three months of unkempt hair growth standing on a street corner holding a sign proclaiming "The End is NEAR!" while screaming unintelligibly about the end of the world.

TheRedneck

a reply to: thedeadtruth

Families demanding autopsies is unusual and that kind of information would travel very quickly. Impossible to keep a secret.

You know what else used to be unusual?

A coroner not being able to find a COD.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

"Bhakdi describes himself as a professor emeritus of medical microbiology and immunology at the Johannes Gutenberg University (JGU) of Mainz on the group’s website.

However, in October 2020, the university issued a statement clarifying that it has not granted emeritus positions since 1978. The statement went on to say Bhakdi “is a retired professor and was not granted membership rights to the JGU and its University Medical School upon his retirement.”

That statement comes from a journalistic organization that calls itself "annie lab" and was posted August 5, 2021... about a year ago. Since then, several message boards and other "fact check" websites have picked it up.

That said, it appears to be true that JGU has not officially bestowed the title of "Professor Emeritus" on Prof. Bhakdi. That site links to the official announcement site of JGU and the statement from the university is accurately represented. However, not recognizing a status officially is not the same as not achieving that status. "Professor Emeritus" is a term that is typically applied to a tenured professor who continues to teach (usually on a part-time basis as an adjunct) after reaching retirement. At retirement, a tenured professor loses their tenure and can be dismissed for any reason; if they are allowed to continue teaching that is seen as an indication from the university that their services as a professor are highly valued.

Most universities will recognize such a status by bestowing an official title of "Professor Emeritus" on the professors who meet that qualification. Such actually works to the benefit of both the professor and the university: the professor receives the honor of wearing that coveted title, and the university advertises the quality of its professors. However, for some unknown reason, JGU does not bestow the honorary title officially... this makes me question those in control of JGU, as it seems to be a direct slur on their own professors.

However, it does seem that Prof. Bhakdi did teach at JGU as a tenured professor, and that he did continue as an adjunct after reaching retirement age... which make him "Professor Emeritus" whether his university wishes to officially bestow the title or not. He met the qualifications, and the title is not dependent on nor defined by JGU. All JGU can do is recognize his achievement officially or not; JGU has already verified his qualifications for "Professor Emeritus" by continuing to keep a tenured professor on staff after his official retirement.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Excellent work

However, it does seem that Prof. Bhakdi did teach at JGU as a tenured professor, and that he did continue as an adjunct after reaching retirement age... which make him "Professor Emeritus" whether his university wishes to officially bestow the title or not. He met the qualifications, and the title is not dependent on nor defined by JGU. All JGU can do is recognize his achievement officially or not; JGU has already verified his qualifications for "Professor Emeritus" by continuing to keep a tenured professor on staff after his official retirement.

I could tell just by his sincerety I could place Bahkdi in good faith.

I been following the PROFESSOR EMERITUS BAHKDI for months.