MRNA from corona vaccines found in breast milk.

Dutch article

Research paper

Translates from dutch.

Scientists have found the mRNA from corona vaccines in breast milk. The milk of five of the 11 women examined was found to contain mRNA. The research was published in the journal JAMA Pediatrics.

The scientists point out that several vulnerable groups, including young children and breastfeeding mothers, were excluded from the vaccine trials.

The CDC, the American RIVM, advises nursing women to take the corona vaccine, although it has not been studied whether mRNA can be passed on to babies under six months through breastfeeding.

Not only is this a disaster for babies, but more evidence that the mRNA and lipid nanoparticles in the pricks are coming into contact with virtually every cell in the body, former New York Times reporter Alex Berenson said.

"Not only worrisome for babies, but even more evidence that the mRNA spreads throughout the body, which is often denied," says FVD leader Thierry Baudet.

Last year, the media claimed that "no trace" of the mRNA vaccine had been found in breast milk.

This MRNA in the vaccines seems to persist for a longer time as expected. They never studied this phenomenon, but still they insist pregnant woman to get vaccinated.

It's outrageous, the culprits need to hang from the highest tree we can find.

a reply to: Sander1976

Ugh, the study is behind a paywall and doesn't share any conclusions or discussion in the abstract.

My concern would mirror your own and the articles if it turns out that there was transfer of the vaccine via breast milk to infants. Unfortunately, we cant see the actual results unless someone finds a copy.

I am also thinking that from the moment of birth, newborns are exposed to bacteria and virus' that their primed immune systems should immediately start battling and building defenses against. Thus, the vaccine would complement this process. That being said, I would have a concern about the unintended transference of the vaccine and of recruiting the infants own body to produce, albeit temporally, the spike proteins for its body to identify and destroy. That seems like an unnecessary use of bodily resources during a critical stage of early development.

Also in a study with mice they found that their offspring inherited antigenic responses..... meaning....you could just be passing on the antibody dependent enhancement into your offspring.......

Of course it will always be looked at through a positive lens rather than ....the dangers..... And really if you wanna find out how good something is, you have to find how bad it is .....not how good it is..... cause if it causes very bad things....how can that possibly be good?

You know....like ANTIBIOTIC RESISTANCE which can lead to the mutation of new bacteria that evades ALL antibiotics and then kills....ANYONE....not just ...unhealthy diseased people. And in 2019, 1.9 MILLION people died from antibiotic resistance related issues....thats basically the same as how many died from covid in 2020...did we shut the world down??? Did we stop over using antibiotics for every thing??? Did we stop pumping animals with insane levels of antibiotics which will then cause lots of diseases in animals eventually........ and bacterial mutation....viral mutation...... oh but its too complicated to think about ALL this right???

we just wanna save a couple of people who are gonna die anyway......

The new study suggests that mice’s experiences in life can change the epigenetic immunity of their offspring Spotted: A new study in the Journal of Nature Immunology has revealed that mice infected with pathogens could pass on a turbo-boosted immune system to their offspring, with no change to their DNA sequences.

The process is believed to take place through epigenetic changes, where genes are turned on or off in the mice’s sperm. For the study, the team exposed mice to infectious elements like fungi or yeast particles to simulate an infection. After they had recovered, the mice were mated with healthy mice.

When the resultant pups were exposed to potential pathogens, they showed a much stronger immune reaction compared to mice with uninfected parents. Moreover, the boosted immunity was also carried forward to the second generation of pups.

These findings challenge accepted theories about genetic inheritance. Under standard thinking, random genetic mutations give some individuals better adaptability to the environment.

These advantages are then passed on to the individual’s offspring through their DNA. Over the long term, the species becomes stronger through the natural selection of the individuals who have inherited the most beneficial mutations. These findings, however, suggest that there is a much faster route through which species can become better suited to their environment.

link

The way they're saying "it doesnt change dna" is in a totally lamens view, genes switching on and off lead to mutations, changes in antibody production, immune memory imprinting eventually lead to dna changes.

This is the goal, so looks like it's working.

a reply to: Sander1976


When I read "breastfeeding mother's"...

I thought "aren't the mothers a little old to be drinking breast milk?"

The study is buried behind a paywall and doesn't share any conclusions or discussion of the document.

a reply to: Sander1976

Are these the little "calamari" things that cause horrific medical conditions to occur in people vaccinated against Covid?

a reply to: Sander1976

So no baby formula...and toxic breast milk.

Winning combo for the folks who vote for killing babies.

So instead of a milkshake it turns to a spike protein shake....for the babies....and who is at fault in this scenario?

The baby's mother....for taking an experiment drug...


a reply to: Sander1976

a reply to: DeathSlayer

the babies mother after having been manipulated with the biggest scale of propaganda ever for 2 years straight, encouraged and possibly even effectively forced by law to get it or lose their livelihood..... billions of dollars involved.

I mean, its a very tricky thing on one hand it seems completely obvious but on the other, things arent so obvious when the entire group around you is going in one direction or seemingly in one direction. A 100, a 1000 people saying something could seem like "everyone" to you. Its called manipulation.

In psychology, the Asch conformity experiments or the Asch paradigm were a series of studies directed by Solomon Asch studying if and how individuals yielded to or defied a majority group and the effect of such influences on beliefs and opinions.[1][2][3][4] Developed in the 1950s, the methodology remains in use by many researchers. Uses include the study of conformity effects of task importance,[5] age,[6] sex,[7][8][9][10] and culture.[5][10]

Many early studies in social psychology were adaptations of earlier work on "suggestibility" whereby researchers such as Edward L. Thorndyke were able to shift the preferences of adult subjects towards majority or expert opinion.[3]

Still the question remained as to whether subject opinions were actually able to be changed, or if such experiments were simply documenting a Hawthorne effect in which participants simply gave researchers the answers they wanted to hear.

Solomon Asch's experiments on group conformity mark a departure from these earlier studies by removing investigator influence from experimental conditions. In 1951, Asch conducted his first conformity laboratory experiments at Swarthmore College, laying the foundation for his remaining conformity studies. The experiment was published on two occasions.[1][11]

In the control group, with no pressure to conform to actors, the error rate on the critical stimuli was less than 1%.[1] In the actor condition also, the majority of participants' responses remained correct (63.2%), but a sizable minority of responses conformed to the actors' (incorrect) answer (36.8 percent). The responses revealed strong individual differences:

Only 5 percent of participants were always swayed by the crowd. 25 percent of the sample consistently defied majority opinion, with the rest conforming on some trials. An examination of all critical trials in the experimental group revealed that one-third of all responses were incorrect. These incorrect responses often matched the incorrect response of the majority group (i.e., actors).

Overall, 75% of participants gave at least one incorrect answer out of the 12 critical trials.[1] In his opinion regarding the study results, Asch put it this way: "That intelligent, well-meaning, young people are willing to call white black is a matter of concern."

The Milgram experiment(s) on obedience to authority figures were a series of social psychology experiments conducted by Yale University psychologist Stanley Milgram. They measured the willingness of study participants, men in the age range of 20 to 50 from a diverse range of occupations with varying levels of education, to obey an authority figure who instructed them to perform acts conflicting with their personal conscience.

Participants were led to believe that they were assisting an unrelated experiment, in which they had to administer electric shocks to a "learner".

These fake electric shocks gradually increased to levels that would have been fatal had they been real.[2] The experiment found, unexpectedly, that a very high proportion of subjects would fully obey the instructions, albeit reluctantly. Milgram first described his research in a 1963 article in the Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology[1] and later discussed his findings in greater depth in his 1974 book, Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View.[3]

Psychological manipulation was absolutely used. Psychologists from within the uk government have admitted it and "apologised".......

The Government’s “grossly unethical” uses of its “nudge" tactics inflated fear among the public during the Covid pandemic, psychologists have said - prompting MPs to launch an investigation into scare adverts.

A group of psychologists have written to Parliament’s Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, warning that civil servants and Government scientists used frightening imagery to change public behaviour during the pandemic, in a way they say was unaccountable and unethical.

The letter’s 40 professional signatories - led by Dr Gary Sidley, a retired clinical psychologist - said they opposed the use of dramatic adverts, which included slogans such as: “If you go out you can spread it, people will die.”

They also condemned the use of “images of the acutely unwell in intensive care units” on billboard and television adverts, as well as the “macabre mono focus on showing the number of Covid-19 deaths without mention of mortality from other causes or the fact that, under normal circumstances, around 1,600 people die each day in the UK”.

William Wragg, the committee’s chairman, said: “I think the central issue is how ‘nudge’ sits within parliamentary democracy and ministerial accountability. “Normally, it's quite straightforward to know where lines of accountability are between the law, parliamentarians scrutinising the law and the public following it.

“And this is a wider question of how much, in a parliamentary democracy, sits outside of that approach.” The psychologists also warned that “scare ads” have had unintended consequences.

“Shaming and scapegoating have emboldened some people to harass those unable or unwilling to wear a face covering,” they wrote.

“More disturbingly, the inflated fear levels will have significantly contributed to the many thousands of excess non-Covid deaths that have occurred in people’s homes, the strategically-increased anxieties discouraging many from seeking help for other illnesses.”

link

So, you're saying Mothers Milk is tainted???

a reply to: Overseeall
This link opens the full research letter.
Detection of Messenger RNA COVID-19 Vaccines in Human Breast Milk

No wonder there's a formula shortage !!!! 😀

originally posted by: Kurokage
The study is buried behind a paywall and doesn't share any conclusions or discussion of the document.

Wow. I figured a bot could get past a paywall easily.

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0
This is the goal, so looks like it's working.

It is indeed working! Imagine how tainted breast milk side effects will affect these newborns when they are growing up?

My goodness.

Unvaccinated women breast milk price goes through the roof

So my wife was vaccinated a month or two before sh became pregnant. Our boy is now 2 months old, and hes massive. My wife is nursing and we do not notice any issues. The boy is healthy. My wife is healthy, I am healthy.

I've had my heart tested(ECG + Haltor), blood tested, blood pressure tested because I was worried of the potential side effects I seem to keep reading about on here. Everything seems fine and no issues.

Makes me wonder if this big conspiracy of trying to control the population is not true and that humans are very good at making it happen naturally - just look at the world right now, we're almost at another world war, that's a better population control tool than anything else.

I also wonder, with how healthy my wife and I are, that maybe this vaccine only targets certain types of people with genetic markers?! Because I do not know anyone who has died or become sick from the vaccine. Everyone I know is vaccinated.

a reply to: Sander1976

a reply to: Sander1976

Of course it would. Common sense. If a pregnant woman ingested alcohol or drugs it would also be found in a newborn. How is this a surprise? Ever heard the term Crack baby. Newborns of alcoholics have fetal alchohol syndrome.

They tell mothers not to take everything when pregnant or breastfeeding. When they said go ahead and even encouraged it I knew this came from a place of pure evil. They are risking babies with an experimental drug to further a cause.

Evil. And if you support it you are evil.

The lines are clearly drawn.

a reply to: JBHemi

If i was in charge of a bioweapon program being released through mass vaccination i very much doubt i would release every batch as a "hot" one. You can't have everyone dying straight away from the shots or no-one would take them. I'd probably try and milk the profits and introduce a slow kill weapon which can be triggered.

That's not to say that's what's happening here, just the strategy i would employ.

originally posted by: Overseeall
a reply to: Sander1976

I am also thinking that from the moment of birth, newborns are exposed to bacteria and virus' that their primed immune systems should immediately start battling and building defenses against. Thus, the vaccine would complement this process.

If... IF... it was an actual vaccine, instead of an mRNA gene-jab, then maybe... MAYBE. Personally, I still question the validity of the entire concept of the vaccine experiments over the last 100 years.