Bombshell publication: The mRNA vaccines are neither safe nor effective but outright dangerous

This is a bombshell peer reviewed publication published in the Journal of Clinical and Experimental Immunology with title:

COVID-19 vaccines – an Australian review

Turni, Conny and Lefringhausen, Astrid (2022). COVID-19 vaccines – an Australian review. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Immunology 7 (3) 491-508.

espace.library.uq.edu.au...:321d96a

The publication is rather long and there are several parts for discussion but the authors make a great effort and cover pretty much most aspects of the Covid blunders and particularly how safe and effective these mRNA products are.

If the link doesn't work or it is timed out then copy paste the address and make a new search.

Parts from the paper

COVID-19 vaccines cause more side effects than any other vaccine, a fact that is attributed to its interactions with the immune system. Not only does spike protein produces unwanted side effects, but mRNA and nanoparticles do as well. Seneff et al [15] enumerated Covid-19 vaccine effects on the innate immune system, importantly a decrease of type I interferon signalling, as well as disturbances in the regulation of protein synthesis affecting
the formation of immune cells and the apoptosis of tumor cells. These are major disturbances that in turn can lead to a multitude of disorders such as those listed in Table 1. The suppression of the interferon response by the mRNA vaccines alone can lead to a wide variety of disorders, such as reactivation of viral infections and reduce the immune system’s ability to not only fight disease
but to keep tumors and autoimmune reactions suppressed [73]. A case report by Glas et al from [74] illustrates the effects of a disseminated viral infection on an immune-suppressed patient: In
this instance fatal multiorgan failure associated with disseminated Herpes simplex virus-1 infection. Considering that reactivation and spread of dormant viral infections including Herpes simplex
and Herpes zoster are listed as side effects from both mRNA injections as well as the Astra Zeneca vaccine, it is maybe not surprising that pathology reports by Dr Sucharit and Dr Burkhardt (2021) show multiorgan failure as cause of death in several cases of post-vaccine deaths.

Pfizer’s documents show lipid nanoparticles with their mRNA cargo being distributed throughout the entire body and passing through the blood brain, placental and foetal blood brain barriers and concentrate in the ovaries. From US life insurance reports we know that the all-cause death rates were up 40% in ages 18-64 years by the end of Q3 2021, and according to life insurance companies there are 100,000 excess deaths per month in the US in all age groups, which cannot be attributed to COVID-19 alone [46]

A worldwide Bayesian causal Impact analysis suggests that COVID-19 gene therapy (mRNA vaccine) causes more COVID-19 cases per million and more non-Covid deaths per million than are associated with COVID-19 [43].

An abundance of studies has shown that the mRNA vaccines are neither safe nor effective, but outright dangerous.

Conclusion

Never in Vaccine history have 57 leading scientists and policy experts released a report questioning the safety and efficacy of a vaccine [93]. They not only questioned the safety of the current Covid-19 injections, but were calling for an immediate end to all vaccination. Many doctors and scientists around the world have voiced similar misgivings and warned of consequences due to long-term side effects. Yet there is no discussion or even mention
of studies that do not follow the narrative on safety and efficacy of Covid-19 vaccination.

In the USA, as Blaylock [94] states it very nicely, federal bureaucrats have forced the acceptance of special forms of care and prevention, which includes experimental mRNA vaccines [93]. Medical experts that have questioned the safety of these vaccines have been attacked and demonised, called conspiracy theorists and have been threatened to be de-registered if they go against the narrative. Alternative treatments were prohibited and people
who never practised medicine are telling experienced doctors how to do their job. AHPRA is doing the same here in Australia to the detriment and in ignorance of science. When Adjunct Professor John Skerritt, who is currently the Deputy Secretary and directly responsibility for both the Therapeutic Goods Administration and the Office of Drug Control, was asked why the registration process for vaccines was shortened he wrote: “It is nonsense to assert that vaccines typically take 10 years to licence. The standard regulatory process for vaccines is about 10-12 calendar months and in the case of COVID-19 vaccines this period was
shortened by accepting data on a rolling basis, teams reviewing different parts of the dossier in parallel, working collaboratively with international regulators, and by many members of the teams
working long hours. One has to wonder how they propose to assess long-term side effects. Can
we really trust any pharmaceutical drug approval by the TGA after this statement?

Pfizer never planned to reveal its clinical trial data and had to be ordered by a judge in the USA to release the data to the public. Even then they and the CDC tried to limit the number of pages
published per month which would have made the full study data public knowledge sometime in the 2070ies. The reason given was that some proprietary information had to be blacked out before release to the public. Again, it is inconceivable why it would be impossible to go through the study data in a few months, when it
took the CDC less than 4 weeks to give the injections emergency use authorization - unless you want to entertain the idea that the study data were never actually read and scrutinised, a frightening
perspective.

As scientists we put up hypotheses and test them using experiments. If a hypothesis is proven to be true according to current knowledge it might still change over time when new evidence comes to light. Hence, sharing and accumulating knowledge is the most important part of science. The question arises when and why this process of science has been changed. No discussion of new knowledge
disputing the safety of the COVID-19 vaccines is allowed. Who gave bureaucrats the means to destroy the fundaments of science and tell scientists not to argue the science?

There are several parts in this paper and I only linked a few paragraphs and the conclusions It is worth mentioning that this review is based on 94 other research publications.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

It will take me a while read the entire report, but having been in the field for a number of years, the idea of any vaccine being created at warp speed, especially for what was being labeled a novel disease of which they supposedly had little knowledge, had me running for the exit.

The fact they were pushing it with so little info of disease or vaccine, was highly suspicious to me so I opted out.

I didn't get as much blow back as many, because luck and the Holy Spirit was with me.

I live in Florida, and I had amazing coworkers. Most of them took the vaccine, but they supported my decision not to take it, and not just stood beside me, they fought for me.

So I am not at all surprised there are issues with the vaccine.

From the paper

Prion Disease

The potential risk factors of the mRNA or vector DNA vaccine are protein sequences that can induce TDP-43 and FUS to aggregate into prion configuration, which might lead to neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimers [85]. The spike protein encoded by the mRNA binds to the ACE2 receptor which releases
zinc molecules.

Zinc also causes TDP-43 to transform into a
pathological prion [81]. The link with neurodegenerative disease is the ability of the spike protein to interact with the heparin binding
amyloid forming proteins. A study indicated that the S1 protein forms a stable bond with the aggregation-prone proteins, which might initiate aggregation of brain proteins and thereby accelerate neurodegeneration [82]. Finisterer and Scorza [86] further stated that SARS-CoV-2 vaccines trigger neurological adverse reactions
and both mild and severe neurological side effects have been occasionally reported. Studies support the theory that the onset and progression of neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer and
Parkinson disease, including TDP-43 proteinopathy, are associated with propagation of protein aggregates between neuronal cells. These speculations are supported by a case report of prion disease due to vaccination from Turkey [87, 88].

originally posted by: NightSkyeB4Dawn
a reply to: Asmodeus3

It will take me a while read the entire report, but having been in the field for a number of years, the idea of any vaccine being created at warp speed, especially for what was being labeled a novel disease of which they supposedly had little knowledge, had me running for the exit.

The fact they were pushing it with so little info of disease or vaccine, was highly suspicious to me so I opted out.

I didn't get as much blow back as many, because luck and the Holy Spirit was with me.

I live in Florida, and I had amazing coworkers. Most of them took the vaccine, but they supported my decision not to take it, and not just stood beside me, they fought for me.

So I am not at all surprised there are issues with the vaccine.

I have made a thread about the way things go in Florida as they have issued a major health warning against the mRNA products and as it seems they are trying to ban them. Idaho is trying to criminalize their administration and so on. The UK too is no longer offering them for anyone under the age of 50. Something is very wrong here. As the matter of fact everything is wrong from the beginning of this story.

No need to walk out. Just find, if you can, a more decent employer and place of work.

Again from the paper

Natural immunity ignored


It is an amazing fact that natural immunity is completely disregarded
by health authorities around the world. We know from SARS-
CoV-1 that natural immunity is durable and persists for at least
12-17 years [17]. Immunologists have suggested that immunity
to SARS-Cov-2 is no different.

The human population has
encountered and co-existed with a great number of coronaviruses
throughout evolution. Most of us have cross-reacting T-cells, B
cells and antibodies derived from encounters with common cold
coronaviruses that can recognise SARS-CoV-2 [18-20]. A survey
of more than 100 immunologists, infectious-disease researchers
and virologists working on the coronavirus, who were asked
whether the virus could be eradicated, showed that almost 90%
of respondents believe that the coronavirus will become endemic
[21]. The four human coronaviruses that cause common colds
are also endemic, without there ever having been a vaccine for
any of them.

The existence of related viruses might explain
that approximately 40% to 45% of COVID infected people are
asymptomatic and about 80% of COVID cases are mild infections.
In some cohorts, the asymptomatic infection figure jumps as high
as 96% depending on the age and cross-immunity imparted by
other viruses such as beta coronaviruses HCoV-OC43 and HCoV-
HKU1, which have been proposed as a mitigating factor in the
spread of SARS-CoV-2 [22-23].

a reply to: Asmodeus3

I would never walk out. They would have to fire me.
But I have no issues with my job. My job and my co-workers, even the lawyers fought for me.

The problem I had was with the vendors, but they came around soon enough.

In terms of natural immunity the establishment thought that everyone must be completely irrelevant and to be it bluntly scientifically illiterate when they were arguing that natural immunity isn't a 'thing' and you need to get vaccinated continuously with the junk.

When they realised they were not very convincing they tried to create the hybrid immunity which is a pseudo-scientific term created to obscure how strong and robust natural immunity is. You only need to get vaccinated after having been infected and have dealt with primary infection i.e acquired natural immunity. If you make the mistake of getting vaccinated then all the credit in terms of protection goes to vaccination(!) when in reality it is natural immunity that has saved you and when you were unvaccinated at the point of infection. They now skew the statistics by presenting you as vaccinated(!)

And of course there is no scientific basis for which one will choose to get vaccinated after having been infected and dealt successfully with the infection.

Yep, this is the final nails in the coffin of the mRNA injections. They are all risk, and not safe. It's basically like injecting poison, except it's a more sophisticated poison that could kill you much later on.

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0
Yep, this is the final nails in the coffin of the mRNA injections. They are all risk, and not safe. It's basically like injecting poison, except it's a more sophisticated poison that could kill you much later on.

When they have the time read the various points made as the paper is long. But also take a look at the references which are 94 in total and there is plenty of information there.

It is reassuring to see some in the medical community take a real hard look at just what exactly is going on. A lot of the main journals have been reluctant to question government policy with a lot of scientists trapped by the funding.

As more speak out and show the evidence they have it does help others find which way to go with this mess.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

Great find, but I cannot seem to access it.

A log-in is required but there's no sign up option from the link you have provided as far as I could see.

When you speed something like this along, you have to be sure the risk is worth the potential reward.

COVID was never risky enough, IMO. I stepped up to the plate to be a volunteer test subject, and I knew that I was risking it. But I wanted life to go back to normal and reasoned someone would have to take the risk in order to have the chance of moving the process along.

I stopped being a willing participant when things stopped being voluntary.

At that point and sooner, things never fully added up. There was too much that never made sense - stuff they had to not be telling us one way or the other.

a reply to: 19Bones79

I don't have access either and I've tried a few logins. Admin / Admin. Someone will break into this now, should be interesting!

originally posted by: 19Bones79
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Great find, but I cannot seem to access it.

A log-in is required but there's no sign up option from the link you have provided as far as I could see.

Either write the title of the paper and make a Google search or copy paste the address and make a new search. And you will be able to see the study and download the PDF File.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

fixed links:

espace.library.uq.edu.au
doi.org

originally posted by: ketsuko
When you speed something like this along, you have to be sure the risk is worth the potential reward.

COVID was never risky enough, IMO. I stepped up to the plate to be a volunteer test subject, and I knew that I was risking it. But I wanted life to go back to normal and reasoned someone would have to take the risk in order to have the chance of moving the process along.

I stopped being a willing participant when things stopped being voluntary.

At that point and sooner, things never fully added up. There was too much that never made sense - stuff they had to not be telling us one way or the other.

As Dr Anastasia Loupis has said in one of her posts for which I made a thread not that long time ago, this is the biggest scandal in medical history.

Let’s look at a benign genetic trait: eye color. We all see about the same, so eye color is more cosmetic than functional. But you can’t say that my genetic code with green eyes is the same as someone with brown eyes. So playing with my genetic coding is not going to be the same as playing with someone else’s.

Now let look at more important genetic make up such as blood type or Rh Factor. Really don’t want to play games there do you? What of other bits of code? Shingles or HPV present but asymptomatic? The Johnson & Johnson shot was pulled because some women died, but they never explained why and that wasn’t mRNA. But they did say not to mix the shots then later it was “okay” but that was when clotting started being reported (and suppressed by Social Media).

I’m not in a lab doing the research to say it is bad. But basic thoughts and experience says what is okay for you might not be okay for me. Especially when dealing with genetic coding. I mean I never liked the taste of beer, but had considerable tolerance for hard liquors so a drinking contest would depend on the drinks. Not so much today, though as I have become a flyweight.

a reply to: jedi_hamster

Much appreciated

a reply to: Asmodeus3


Omg guys I really don't know how not a single person here has figured this out.
It is literally staring you in the face man.
From like freaking day 1 of warp speed it was right TF there.

a reply to: Ahabstar


Kinda going into quantum realm there dude.