UPDATE 02. January 2022: How Elsevier manipulates peer-reviewed science to match the narrative - now sued for manipulating science.
UPDATE 01. January 2022 - Bragging New York Times editor dies from booster
UPDATE 30. December 2021: THIS IS THE REASON why they are forcing the COVID-vaccine on children!
UPDATE 26. December 2021: On “Science” and Controversy - Infectious disease outbreaks require constant re-evaluation of accepted truth + NANOTECHNOLOGY IN VACCINES-COMPOSITION AND PURPOSE - LA QUINTA COLUMNA ENG - PROJECT HUMAN 2.0 -
UPDATE 21. December 2021: Long-term persistence of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein: evidence and implications
ICYMI: On COVID vaccines: why they cannot work, and irrefutable evidence of their causative role in deaths after vaccination + VIDEO: PROOF IS IN: VACCINATION DESTROYS IMMUNE SYSTEM - DIRE WARNING: Cancer, Tuberculosis, Toxoplasmosis, EBV, CBV, Herpes and other sleeping horrors will soar, if the 'vaccination'-craze is not stopped immediately.
* Important information on Prevention and Treatment of disease
PROLOGUE: SAVE THE BRAINS - There are very few scientific studies on the decline of the brain functions and capacities in humans, who fell sick with COVID-19. But even fewer studies investigate the sometimes dramatically decreased mental and intellectual capabilities in people, who received the COVID-19 jabs, as found already by empiric studies and experienced by many in their daily lives - sufferers as well as observers. Since this phenomenon certainly and obviously also affects politicians, civilian as well as military leaders and decision makers, this phenomenon must receive immediate attention, since it has significant and worldwide political, economic and social implications. For holders of public office with a high level of executive power regular checks to proof their mental stability and unaffected brain capabilities have become now necessary.
How Bad is My Jab?
UK Scientist Reveals Bombshell Data Analysis: Tracks Batches Of Pfizer, Moderna and Janssen, Finds "... Some Batches Are 50 Times Worse Than Others"
App "How Bad Is My Batch?" Allows People To Input Batch Code And See How Many Deaths, Disabilities and Illnesses Associated With That Batch " 1 in 200 Lots Contain Deadly Ingredients"
By Celia Farber - 18. December 2021
I was told about the work of Craig Paardekooper by my friend of many years, PhD bio-chemist Dr. Dave Rasnick a few days ago; Today came this email from Dave, clarifying his shocking findings:
(see also: https://ecoterra.info/index.php/en/3239-the-vaccine-conundrum-xx )
“ I’m following the very important work of Craig Paardekooper at Kingston University London. Recently, I introduced Craig’s work to our email group.
Three of his conclusions:
The companies purposely manufactured non-uniform formulations of their vaccines while representing to the public that all COVID-19 vaccines from a given manufacturer were uniform in their formulation.
Over 20,000 different batches (lots) of Pfizer, Moderna, J & J injections total.
1 in 200 lots contain deadly ingredients. He urged me to watch a series of videos, in which he lays out the unthinkable. One video here:
Another, “Death By Alphabet: Moderna Batch Codes And Associated Deaths:” here
“Please share with those you know, and also with doctors, nurses and teachers - who may soon be pushing the vax onto children. Doctors and nurses need to see that some batches are 50 x worse than others - before they prescribe them.”
—Craig Paardekooper, Telegram
“Moderna Used the Alphabet to Label Different Toxicities of Vaccine
Moderna batches belong to two main groups - 20A or 21A - the 20A group is much more toxic. In fact all of the batches producing more than 1780 adverse reaction reports - all of those batches have batch codes ending in 20A.”
“I ranked all the Moderna vaccine batches in order of the number of deaths caused, and used the data from the highest 180 batches as my data set.
As shown in my previous videos, Moderna batches have an alphabet letter in the centre of their batch codes…”
I called Dave Rasnick, just now.
How did you find this guy? I asked.
”I just stumbled upon it,” he said. “Every morning I spend an hour or two going to the usual places, I go to, to find information. Last week or something I came across one of his talks. Odyssey or something. And then found his website. He had done a series of videos. These analyses are of the US VAERS data. That’s available to anybody. There are huge number of reports in VAERS. What he has done is that …the guy must have a lot of time on his hands because VAERS is a pain in the ass to use normally. There’s almost a million reports now on the Covid injections….from this guy I learned there are 20,200 batches. That includes all 3— Pfizer, Moderna, and Janssen. He has done an analysis by batch number. One batch has about 20,000 jabs. There are 20,200 lots numbers. We know there are billions of these already ordered and shipped. The important thing is that it’s a huge data base. He has correlated over time the reports of the severity of the jabs over almost a year now.”
Dr. Rasnick described how Paardekooper charted a roller coaster of adverse events patterns, not random, but highly variable. They went up and down, forming patterns. “He was able to show that they had done a dosing regimen where the earliest ones had highest toxicity, some a lot less toxic…This is exactly what any scientist wants to see, this volume of data. These companies are working in concert so they did not interfere with each other’s results. The toxicities are very specific, and they come sequentially.”
”All of that non-randomness was the key. As soon as you see that… if I was on a jury I wold convict those people of grievous bodily harm and willful homicide.”
I asked what he knew about Paardekooper.
“He’s not a PhD yet,” Dr. Rasnick said. “He’s at Kingston University, in London. We’ve had exchanges, he answers my emails promptly. He reminds me of….well, he’s not beholden to anybody. I knew something like that could be done if somebody had all that data. It’s a huge, extraordinary effort. If it was only a few thousand data points that would be one thing, anybody could do that, but this is about a million data points. Batch codes and toxicity. The December 4th video, that’s the one that shows coordination.”
Celia Farber - Investigative historian of deep fake virus agendas, from "HIV" to "Covid-19," anti-tyranny in all forms, contributor to The Epoch Times, UnCoverDC.
[N.B.: The App works easy for everyone, but the FactCheckers need computers with 16GB RAM).
You need a fairly hefty PC to do the steps Craig outlines - specifically to create the relationship between the two sets of tables. I tried on two PCs but it didn't work, both have only 8G of RAM. If anyone has 16G of RAM, you could probably do it. As far as I got, it looked exactly as he showed it. Again, not that I doubt him but I had to try it myself - my day job is software and data analysis to detect manufacturing Quality Control issues, the idea these patterns haven't been spotted by the manufacturers is too ridiculous to even consider.
It is my job to monitor quality control on a production line - patterns like this are sought out routinely, and these patterns of defective batches would - in normal circumstances - be flagged as such and recalled, and efforts would be made to contact the recipients etc. None of this is happening and it proves beyond any doubt that no'one cares who dies or is injured from these shots.
Dr Mike Yeadon
I’m in touch with all the big figures. I’ve worked hard to link Craig with three other, top flight independent scientists / physicians / lawyers. The huge variability batch to batch is confirmed, as is the impossibility of it being accidental.
Whatever else you might think of JNJ & Pfizer, there’s no doubting their competence as mass manufacturers.
This is going public & it’s going to law.
I’m excited because it meets my tests as potentially useful & not expected by the perpetrators.
There may be an aditional explanation per Andreas Oehler (Live to Fight Another Day): it may be also that the CDC/FDA started censoring the VAERS database. (N.B.: ... as earlier confirmed by a whistleblower on whose testimony attorney Tom Renz launched a lawsuit).
Article from 08. November 2021:
Check out your batch code:
- earlier info see: THE VACCINE CONUNDRUM & THE VACCINE CONUNDRUM II & THE VACCINE CONUNDRUM III & THE VACCINE CONUNDRUM IV & THE VACCINE CONUNDRUM V & THE VACCINE CONUNDRUM VI & THE VACCINE CONUNDRUM VII & THE VACCINE CONUNDRUM VIII & THE VACCINE CONUNDRUM IX & THE VACCINE CONUNDRUM X & THE VACCINE CONUNDRUM XI & THE VACCINE CONUNDRUM XII & THE VACCINE CONUNDRUM XIII & THE VACCINE CONUNDRUM XIV & THE VACCINE CONUNDRUM XV & THE VACCINE CONUNDRUM XVI & THE VACCINE CONUNDRUM XVII & THE VACCINE CONUNDRUM XVIII & THE VACCINE CONUNDRUM IXX & THE VACCINE CONUNDRUM XX + Covid-19 is Social Murder - Hold Governance Accountable + MUST READ AND DISTRIBUTE: SAVE YOUR LOVED ONES
Important information on Prevention and Treatment of disease:
Luckily the novel disease itself can be treated early very well using long-known medicines, and some of the adverse events following ‘vaccination’ can also be treated, as a type-1 allergic reaction, as Dr. Shankara Chetty from South-Afrika reports from his own experience and medical practice (see links below).
World Council for Health doctors and specialists are very well informed and independent of Big Pharma, or Big Tech, or Big Money, or government funding: https://worldcouncilforhealth.org/
Early Covid-19 treatment guidelines: A practical approach to home-based care for healthy families: https://worldcouncilforhealth.org/resources/early-covid-19-treatment-guidelines-a-practical-approach-to-home-based-care-for-healthy-families/
Panic and fear over this novel virus or disease are very much exaggerated, because in reality:
- not everybody gets infected
- most people had already some form of background-immunity or cross-immunity before the start of the epidemic
- children have little to no problems with this not-entirely-novel virus and don’t play an important role in the epidemic
- ‘asymptomatic infections’ do not play a significant role
- according to Prof. Ioannidis, the average global Infection Fatality Rate is only 0,15% and that is roughly equivalent to influenza flu or the yearly flu waves.
- this means, on average 99,85% of people that do get infected would survive and those who sadly would pass would be indeed the very old, very frail and very sick, just like with influenza and other respiratory flu viruses, that play their role in the yearly flu waves.
- this means, that in the end a healthy immune system is what is keeping us alive. This fact is completely ignored by policy makers.
- also, the rt-PCR test for this particular virus is most unreliable, poorly designed, badly executed (far too many ct-cycles of multiplication in the laboratories, so that the test results become meaningless). This test is creating false statistics, which can easily be proven comparing the test data with all-cause mortality and hospitalisations, as Ivor Cummins has been doing extensively, using only official government data: https://thefatemperor.com/
- Moreover, Nobel-prize winning inventor of the PCR-test method Kary Mullis warned that his test, on its own, is not at all suitable for medical diagnosis, as it cannot detect infections. Indeed medical diagnoses have traditionally always been based on assessment of clinical symptoms by experienced physicians.
- if treated early, progression of disease into the second stage or ‘type 1 allergic reaction’ as Dr. Shankara Chetty diagnoses it, can be very well prevented, and this reaction can also be treated effectively.
- Since ‘Big Pharma’ is obviously pushing new genetic technologies and nano-technologies onto the markets world-wide, one can clearly see the reason why they have been actively suppressing safe and effective treatments for Covid disease over the last years. Because ONLY when there were no treatments available, they could evade and dodge all safety regulations and get so-called ‘emergency authorisation’ for their experimental, gene-therapy and nano-technology based injections.
- The ‘lockdown’ measures, ‘social distancing’, ‘mask-wearing’ etc. are novel inventions that are not based in traditional Western Science and Medicine. These measures do not appear in the October 2019 ‘Pandemic Guidelines’ of the WHO and prove to be utterly ineffective in relation to mitigation of an epidemic: https://thefatemperor.com/
- Thus, in hindsight, these novel ‘lockdown’ measures etc. can only be understood as part of the aggressive marketing-strategy for experimental gene-therapy and nano-technology based injections, digital identity passports with QR codes, a Chinese-style Social Credit system and Central Bank Digital Currencies that are planned to be implemented and are thought to replace our current Monetary system, that has been misused and abused, over-inflated and is currently on the brink of implosion.
World Council for Health (https://worldcouncilforhealth.org/)
Ethical healthcare leadership and resources from our worldwide coalition of independent doctors, nurses, science and medicine journalists, and international civil society groups.
Focus on Science
Aseptic meningitis after BNT-162b2 COVID-19 vaccination.
(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S266635462100209X). 2022 Feb;19:100406. doi: 10.1016/j.bbih.2021.100406. Epub 2021 Dec 13. PMID: 34927105; PMCID: PMC8667462.
“The mRNA vaccines currently in use are known to be reactogenic with a range of inflammatory adverse events which have not been completely explained, such as myocarditis (https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/neuroscience/myocarditis) in young men. Aseptic meningitis (https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/neuroscience/aseptic-meningitis) might be another complication that clinicians need to be alerted to, although larger surveillance studies are needed…
- Concern has emerged due to sporadic reports of vaccine related immune-mediated adverse effects, including myocarditis in young men.
- We report a case series of 2patients who developed aseptic meningitis after BNT-162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) COVID-19 vaccination.
- Aseptic meningitis might be another manifestation that clinicians need to be alerted to.
How Elsevier manipulates peer-reviewed science to match the narrative
A published paper was withdrawn by the publisher for no reason without the consent of the journal editor or the authors. Elsevier is being sued for manipulating science.
By Steve Kirsch - 02. January 2022
Jessica Rose and Peter McCullough wrote a paper on myocarditis rates caused by the vaccine. It was published in the journal “Current Problems in Cardiology.”
And then, for no reason at all, the publisher of the Journal, Elsevier, caused it to just “disappear” for no reason.
Here is the PubMed link.
Here’s the paper in the journal which makes it look like it was never published. It was. It was unethically removed by the publisher.
Is the scientific community complaining about this? Sure, a few of the good guys and a bunch of us on the outside like myself, Mathew Crawford, and others. There are a few good guys left.
This paper is a litmus test for scientific integrity.
Jessica wrote about the withdrawal on her substack. She is still clueless why her paper was removed. Not her fault. No reason was given.
One of the commenters wrote:
And those criminals with their foot on the gas headed for the wall are terrified of non-purchased, intelligent researchers like you pulling back the curtain and opening their kimono.
This is not science
We are living in a world where scientific integrity is quickly disappearing along with our freedoms (like to not be injected).
You can find the full paper on Jessica’s substack.
It basically says that myocarditis is caused by the vaccines, it isn’t rare, and it doesn’t just affect kids.
But they don’t want anyone to know any of this.
The paper on Jessica’s substack has only 37 likes so far.
Good job Elsevier. You have successfully censored peer-reviewed science that doesn’t match your belief system.
Bragging New York Times editor dies from booster
By jimstone.is - 01. January 2021
This is actually old news which I ignored at first because I did not realize this guy made such an assinine video and then immediately died.
For that reason this is news, lots and lots of people like him are dying and this is only news because of his over the top jerky attitude.
He obviously believed his own B.S. and got the booster on the 17th. As he walked out afterward he made this ridiculous video. Then died that night. His wife's post is from the next day.
First published at on BITCHUTE January 1st, 2022.
Carlos Tejada, deputy Asia editor for The New York Times, reportedly died from a heart attack one day after receiving the Moderna booster shot.
According to his social media account, Tejada previously received two Johnson & Johnson COVID vaccine shots.
On Dec. 16, in Seoul, South Korea, [Tejada] received a Moderna mRNA/LNP ‘booster.’ No clinical trials have ever been conducted to examine the safety or efficacy of mixing various types of these vaccines, and Carlos did not give informed consent, as the consent form was in Korean, a language he could not read.”
Tejada, a former Wall Street Journal editor who went to work for the Times in 2016, had commemorated his third jab on Instagram: “Double-vaxxed. Janssen-fueled, Moderna-boosted. Hey, Omicron: Hit me with your wet snot.”
THIS IS THE REASON why they are forcing the COVID-vaccine on children!
Children are being used as human shields to protect vaxx makers from liability when their injections get fully "approved".
30. December 2021
On “Science” and Controversy
Infectious disease outbreaks require constant re-evaluation of accepted truth
By Robert W Malone MD, MS - 26. December 2021
Predictive infectious disease outbreak interpretation and management is a wickedly problematic endeavor. Walking along a high wire over quicksand during a howling wind with no safety net starts to approximate the reality. But it is not just your life that is at stake, but those of friends, family, the public and society at large. The only thing that seems constant is change. Having done this for decades now, through far too many outbreaks, one conclusion that I am confident in is that (at a minimum) it requires humility and flexibility.
Bear with me as I set this essay up with an example. As the South African data began to come in on Omicron, one of the fundamental “truths” of SARS-CoV-2 started to shift. Until recently, the data were quite strong that natural immunity
(immunity obtained after infection and recovery) is quite effective in preventing infection, disease and death. As previously reviewed on this substack, the many mutations which characterize the Omicron variant result in a viral genotype with remarkable ability to circumvent both genetic spike protein vaccine-induced immunity AND (apparently to a lesser extent) natural immunity.
Although this preliminary analysis was based on early emerging data, subsequent data sets continue to demonstrate that Omicron reinfection of both the vaccinated and naturally immune are common, and detailed analyses suggest that vaccination may be associated with NEGATIVE vaccine efficacy against Omicron (ie: make it more likely that a vaccinated person becomes infected) as discussed here and here
Now these analyses are not official “peer reviewed” academic journal publications, and real time peer reviewers (of the old school type – fellow scientists and statisticians actually publicly critiquing the work) note that all potential confounding variables such as social behavioral changes in vaccinated vs unvaccinated (for example, the “I am vaccinated and therefore bulletproof” paradox) have not been addressed and in many cases cannot be corrected for. But in outbreaks, we never have perfect data, and it often seems that as soon as we get enough data to perform the necessary corrections the pathogen or some other variable changes and we start all over. One is left with choosing between devil and deep blue sea, imperfect current data or more (historically) accurate but outdated information.
Getting to the point, if you seek to be an honest broker of current truth and reasonably accurate predictor of the future, as one travels along the stream of data and disruptive events which comprise that high wire, there come times when one has to adapt to unexpected changes. To those with the benefit of looking through a retrospectoscope, these adaptations can seem like “flip flops”; inconsistencies or paradoxes. And within a community of fellow travelers all moving along the same data stream, different individuals will set their own criteria for when it becomes necessary to shift and adapt to new data. Which can lead to conflict, misalignment, or public disagreements within the community. Early adopters risk reacting based on preliminary data which later are demonstrated to have been consequent to a million possible artifacts (often due to data biases and undetected confounding variables). Late adopters risk drawing conclusions on data which are outdated and no longer predictive.
But the data are relentless, and somehow must be confronted and accommodated. If policy adjustments are made promptly, then social and financial disruption is minimized. If delayed, the gap between current policy and the data will grow to the point where only a major disruption can reconcile policy which is no longer adapted and aligned with “ground truth” reality.
Selecting from my own rich library of past mistakes to illustrate the point, my personal decision to accept Moderna SARS-CoV-2 vaccination is often raised by detractors and trolls. At the time, when data on the adverse event profile was still emerging, the decision made sense for me. I took my chances and paid the price (Stage 3 hypertension peaking at 230mmHg systolic in my case, among other things). Fortunately, thanks to an astute and skilled cardiologist, I survived. In that case, I would have been better served by delaying that decision until more data were available. Hopefully, this example helps to demonstrate the point. Even the highly informed make mistakes. Fairly frequently. Biology is a complex, harsh and unforgiving professor, and a wise student is always careful to recognize one’s profound ignorance in confronting that underlying complexity. Hence the importance of always maintaining balance on the high wire by recognizing that most “understanding” is best expressed as a working hypothesis.
Based on my experience with infectious disease outbreaks, which is still a few years shy of that of Dr. Anthony Fauci but a bit longer than that of Dr. Rochelle Walensky (to choose two current examples), I prefer to take a bit more risk, and operate out at the front edge of the data. Sometimes this can result in mistakes. Often it results in drawing conclusions and making proactive public statements which derive from a blend of experience, emerging incomplete data and subconscious intuition. Because this idiosyncratic combination of objective and subjective variables feed into a given assessment and conclusion, it is often useful to express inferences as working hypotheses. I have done this so often, for so long, and have had enough of these predictions and inferences validated by past experience, that I have become comfortable with publicly disclosing, discussing and acting on these inferred hypotheses. But sometimes I get it wrong, or the data shift in ways that I did not predict. This is a fundamental characteristic of what happens when an infectious disease pathogen crosses over into a new species (humans, for example) or moves into a new niche (for example a sporadic rural threat agent that gets introduced into a densely populated urban environment). An intellectual journey along a high wire over quicksand during a howling wind with no safety net.
In contrast, in my experience, the position typically taken by most public health leadership is reactive, not proactive. One based on more cautious position which relies on mature data rather than forward looking based on emerging data. The problem with this stance is that the resulting policy is almost always outdated, particularly during an outbreak where “ground truth” is a hazy, fluid, rapidly shifting reality. In other words, the fog of war. This paradox is compounded when the leadership positions and decision making require development of bureaucratic group consensus.
The logical consequence of the interaction of these two strategies is intellectual and scientific conflict and controversy. Those who are out at the front edge of the data will draw conclusions and recommend policy shifts which are inconsistent with the current consensus. Those wedded to reactive positions based on well-established data and group consensus will reject more proactive policy recommendations. Even assuming good faith, professional competence, and absence of conflicts of interest this will always be the case because the two approaches rely on different sets of data, different versions of “truth” and reality. Continuing the warfare metaphor, this is akin to the natural tension between the commander of a forward operating tank battlegroup and a senior general operating well behind battle lines.
This must be the essential dialectic of science (and medicine) as an intellectual endeavor and discipline. Good science (and good public health policy) requires conflict. There is no one “Science”. No single “truth”. Quality science is like a song sung by a choir. A solo scientist is usually better described as a philosopher or priest. Any individual claiming to embody “Science” or scientific truth is (by definition) no longer a practitioner of the intellectual discipline of modern science.
The scientific process requires constant external challenge and criticism to reach a working approximation of truth. Such (typically autocratic, paternalistic) people lose the ability to maintain objectivity and typically transition to functioning as an enforcer of their version of reality. These people often resort to a form of crude binary thought – their version of the truth versus all alternatives. In contrast, the modern scientific practitioner approaches the effort to draw truth out of the unknown as something closer to mathematical calculus, a process of serial approximation which gradually approaches an asymptote hypothesized to be scientific truth.
Enter the trusted news initiative. Here is the official BBC justification for this intrinsically anti-science, pro-censorship insult to the free exchange of ideas, and an alternative interpretation of this Orwellian bureaucracy. This intellectual obscenity purports to be able to discern and enforce scientific “truth” by defining truth as that which established public health bureaucracies (and singularly autocratic public health “leaders”) say it is. The trusted news initiative aggressively employs both globally coordinated media and the tools of modern big technology to censor, demean, de-platform, delegitimize and de-license all others who seek to document, advance or discuss alternative versions of officially endorsed reality. The trusted news initiative has functionally morphed into Orwell’s predicted ministry of truth. Backed by the combined power of national and international governmental structures, massive transnational investment funds the likes of which the world has never seen before, and the commercial assets (Big Pharma, Big Media, Big Tech) over which the funds exert horizontally integrated control through access to investment capital and structural leadership ties.
This is the most intrinsically anti-science global organization ever implemented in the history of modern man. The closest historical approximation to this monstrosity is the Catholic Church during the Spanish inquisition.
When this history of this pandemic is written, the combined effect of the Trusted News Initiative and autocratic national and international public health leaders will be documented as being responsible for massive excess human suffering and loss of life due to suppression of the discussion and dissent which is critical for the modern scientific process to accurately discern evolving truth and inform effective public policy decisions. This must stop, before yet more avoidable, unnecessary suffering and loss of life accrues.
A preprint paper posted 01 Dec 2021 on MedRxiv has quickly analyzed routine surveillance data from South Africa with a focus on SARS-CoV-2 re-infections. While not yet peer-reviewed, this represents the most current available data concerning the ability of different viral strains (including Delta and Omicron) to re-infect previously infected patients, a…
NANOTECHNOLOGY IN VACCINES - COMPOSITION AND PURPOSE -
LA QUINTA COLUMNA ENG - PROJECT HUMAN 2.0 -
Re-published on BITCHUTE December 26th, 2021.
Michael Palmer, MD and Sucharit Bhakdi, MD
Abstract: This paper discusses the recent study by Bansal et al.  on the detection of spike protein in persons vaccinated with the Pfizer mRNA vaccine. The most significant finding is that spike protein is found on exosomes, that is, cell-derived vesicles, for at least four months after the second injection. This surprisingly long persistence raises the prospect of sustained inflammation within and damage to organs which express the spike protein.
1. The picture so far: Spike protein expression occurs early and is of short duration
An earlier study on the expression of spike protein after mRNA vaccination was reported by Ogata et al. . The patients in that study had received the Moderna vaccine, which is similar to the one produced by Pfizer. In particular, both vaccines use mRNA that incorporates pseudouridine instead of uridine, which affects the stability in vivo of the RNA molecules. Moreover, while the two vaccines show some sequence deviation at the RNA level, they encode the very same spike protein sequence. We note, however, that the lipid nanoparticles used with the two vaccines differ in composition, which might influence the distribution of the vaccines in the body and the time course of spike protein expression.
1.1. Plasma levels of spike protein fragment S1 and entire spike protein after mRNA vaccination
S1 is a fragment of the spike protein that is cleaved by proteases already within the cells that express the whole protein, and which can be released into the bloodstream once the cleaved protein molecule appears on the cell surface. The S1 fragment can bind to ACE2 receptors on thrombocytes and other cells; this may contribute to the pathogenesis in COVID-19  and also to the adverse effects of vaccination.
According to , blood plasma levels of the S1 fragment rise quickly and decline again within no more than two weeks. The delayed rise of the whole spike protein is notable, yet expression is still of much shorter duration than apparent in Bansal’s study (see below). This finding, however, may result from interference of the patient’s own antibodies with this measurement (see next slide). In contrast, the analytical method used by Bansal et al.  removes this interference—it will detect spike protein even if already bound to antibodies.
Note that Ogata et al. did not determine whether the S1 or full-length spike protein they found in the plasma was present in free form or bound to exosome particles (see later). Conceivably, the S1 was free, whereas the full-length spike protein may have been bound to exosomes.
1.2. Plasma levels of S1 and full-length spike antibodies
These data, too, are from Ogata’s study. Antibodies to both the S1 fragment and to full length spike protein develop with a delay of 1-2 weeks after the first injection; after the second dose, they rise again and more rapidly. The slight drop from day 0 to day 1 may be due to the rapid expression of spike protein, which would bind pre-existing antibodies and take them out of circulation.
The fairly rapid immune response after the first injection suggests that it is mostly driven by immunological memory, which would be due to cross-immunity. This agrees with a study by Nielsen et al. , who found a similarly rapid response to SARS-CoV-2 infection. As Dr. Bhakdi has pointed out, this widespread cross-immunity means that most people are protected from severe disease due to SARS-CoV-2 even without vaccination .
If we compare this figure to the preceding one, we see that the levels of detectable circulating S1 fragment and full length spike protein drop concomitantly with the rise of antibodies. That is expected, in light of the detection method used by Ogata et al.  (see the following slides).
1.3. Ogata’s assay: spike protein detection using antibodies coupled to magnetic beads
This picture illustrates only the initial steps of the procedure, namely, the capture and separation of the spike protein from the complex mixture of proteins found in the blood plasma. The method employs small magnetic beads that are coated with antibodies against the spike protein. These are mixed into a sample of blood plasma, and some time is allowed for the spike protein or S1 fragment to bind to the beads. Subsequently, the beads can be recovered using a magnet. This separation is followed by further steps that again use antibodies and ultimately generate an optical signal; however, these details need not concern us here.
1.4. Vaccine-induced antibodies interfere with spike protein capture and detection
Once the immune reaction to the vaccine sets in and newly formed spike protein antibodies appear in the bloodstream, they can bind to circulating S1 or full length spike protein molecules and prevent their capture by the antibodies coupled to the magnetic beads. This effect can explain why, in Ogata’s study, the levels of S1 and full-length spike protein detected in the plasma drop off as the amounts of antibody rise. Moreover, the highest levels of full-length spike arrive only after a substantial amount of antibodies is already present; this will likely cause those highest levels to be underestimated, too.
2. On Exosomes
Since the study by Bansal et al.  deals with spike protein on exosomes, we will first talk a little bit about exosomes as such.
2.1. Exosomes are formed by pinching off bits of cell membrane and cytoplasm
Exosomes are little membrane vesicles, formed by pinching off bits of cell membrane from a cell surface, and filled with intracellular fluid and macromolecules. The two distinct pathways illustrated here—intracellular formation with subsequent release in bulk, or formation and release directly at the cell surface—are interesting, but they need not concern us here.
Exosomes carry cellular surface protein molecules (the little black “clubs” in the illustration) and also intracellular macromolecules (proteins and RNA). They may fuse with, or be taken up by, other cells and thus transmit cargo and information between cells.
2.2. Physiological functions subject to regulation by exosomes
- Blood clotting
- Activation or suppression of immune responses
- Tumour growth
This list is not exhaustive. A very good review on the subject is , from which the illustration in Section 2.1 was adapted.
2.3. Viral particles and ‘exosomes’ in Hepatitis B infection
Hepatitis B is a viral disease that is transmitted either by infected blood products or by intimate contact. In many patients, the virus gives rise to a chronic infection which the immune system does not manage to eradicate. In the blood of such patients, one can find not only infectious virus particles, but also non-infectious ones. These consist of host cell membranes, decorated with the viral surface antigen, but they lack the viral nucleic acids and capsid proteins inside.
In this picture, some infectious particles are highlighted with arrows; they are regularly shaped and denser (darker) as well as larger in diameter than most of the other particles, which are non-infectious. The latter may be thought of as exosomes, although they are not usually referred to as such. It has been proposed that such empty particles serve as decoys to deflect the attention of the immune system from the actual infectious particles and/or the infected cells.
Similar non-infectious particles or exosomes are also observed with several other viruses , and given the data reported by Bansal et al.  it appears that we can add SARS-CoV-2 to the list.
2.4. ‘Proper’ exosomes vs. apoptotic vesicles
Another distinction we need to consider is that between regular exosomes, which are released by cells which are healthy or at least not about to die, from vesicles released by cells which are undergoing apoptosis (programmed cell death). The illustration on the left shows regular exosomes, whereas the one on the right shows ‘membrane blebbing’ in an apoptotic umbilical cord cell.
Apoptosis is important in many physiological contexts, including embryonic development, elimination of autoreactive immune cells, and also in the immune response to viral infections: cytotoxic T-lymphocytes recognize cells that express viral proteins and drive them into apoptosis by bombarding them with various cytotoxic agents. Thus, after infection or vaccination, the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein might conceivably occur both on proper exosomes and on apoptotic vesicles.
Apoptotic vesicles are typically somewhat larger than regular exosomes which are produced by live cells. However, if we look at the scale bars in these two pictures, we see that some of the incipient apoptotic vesicles are no more than a few hundred nanometres across; this overlaps with the size distribution of proper exosomes. Figure adapted from .
3. Spike protein on exosomes after vaccination
We now turn to the evidence presented by Bansal et al. .
3.1. Detection of SARS-CoV-2 spike protein on an exosome with immunogold
This picture, adapted from Figure 1 in , shows an exosome or vesicle carrying spike protein, as is evident from the binding of ‘immunogold’, that is, small gold particles that are coated with antibodies. The reason for employing gold to detect specific target molecules in electron microscopy is this element’s very high density; the heavy gold particles stop the electron beam, causing black dots such as those shown in this picture.
Note that the exosome in this picture is the only such particle shown by Bansal et al., and furthermore that it is rather large. Comparison with the preceding slide suggests a possible apoptotic origin, although we cannot be certain of it.
We also note that the decoration with immunogold is rather sparse, suggesting the presence of only a small number of spike protein molecules on this vesicle. However, as with the magnetic bead assay illustrated in Section 1.4, this may be due to interference by the patient’s own antibodies.
3.2. Time course of spike protein on exosomes and of antibodies against it
This figure summarizes the key findings of the study. Spike protein on exosomes was negligible on the day of the first injection (D0) and remained so on day 7; it rose on day 14 after the first injection, peaked on day 14 after the second injection (D14-2), and decreased again but remained detectable at 4 months after the second injection (which is 5 months after the first). Antibodies to spike protein followed a similar time course but were not yet detected on day 14 after the first injection. Based on the apparent delay of the antibody response relative to the appearance of the exosome-associated spike protein, the authors propose that the latter is crucial for triggering the antibody response. We can make the following observations:
- The most remarkable and medically significant finding is the very protracted expression of the spike protein. As long as the spike protein can be detected on cell-derived membrane vesicles, the immune system will be attacking the cells that release these vesicles. This applies regardless of whether the vesicles are ‘proper’ exosomes or apoptotic vesicles, although one straightforward explanation for the surprisingly late rise in the amount of spike protein on vesicles, and particularly also for the greater amount observed after the second injection, would be that these vesicles arise through the apoptosis of cells which are being attacked and destroyed by the immune response.
- The very slow antibody response is at odds with most other studies, such as for example the one by Ogata et al. . The assay employed by Bansal et al. may have lacked sensitivity. We must also keep in mind, though, that the two studies relate to similar but not identical vaccines (see Section 1).
- Bansal et al. looked only for spike protein on exosomes, which were purified from plasma samples using centrifugation and filtration; unlike Ogata et al., they did not measure spike protein not bound to exosomes in whole plasma samples. This could explain why Bansal et al. did not detect the early peak of spike fragment S1 that was observed by Ogata et al.
3.3. Bansal’s detection method for spike protein removes interference by antibodies
We mentioned earlier that Ogata et al.  had also detected a delayed appearance of whole spike protein in plasma (Section 1.1), but that their measurements were likely subject to interference by the mounting antibody response (Section 1.3). It is pertinent to note that Bansal et al.  used SDS-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (SDS-PAGE) instead of magnetic beads to analyze the proteins in their samples. SDS-PAGE, which separates protein species according to molecular weight, will break up any complexes which spike protein may have formed with antibodies present in the blood plasma. It will therefore measure not only the unbound fraction but the total of the spike protein present. In this regard at least, we should prefer the data reported by Bansal et al. to earlier studies.
3.4. Mice can be immunized with exosomes isolated from human vaccinees
We noted above that Bansal et al. inferred from their observations of the time course that exosome-bound spike is necessary for inducing an antibody response. The experiments depicted in this figure were carried out to support that claim: mice were injected with exosomes isolated from vaccinated people and shown to develop antibodies to spike protein.
While the figure caption in the original study is not entirely clear, it seems that ‘Vaccinated’ mice were given conventionally purified spike protein, whereas the ‘CSP’ mice were injected with the exosomes. Antibody concentrations were measured on days 15, 21, and 30 after injection.
In further experiments, the mice were also shown to express increased amounts of the cytokines interferon-γ and of tumor necrosis factor-α. In our view, these findings do not amount to very strong evidence in support of the authors’ hypothesis.
- Long-lasting persistence of spike protein
- Delayed onset of spike protein expression—but observation limited to spike on exosomes
- EMA report on Pfizer also reported relatively slow onset of spike expression; on the other hand, early onset of blood clots etc. suggests early onset of spike expression
While some specific claims made by Bansal et al. can be debated, the very long-lasting persistence of the spike protein in the body is convincingly demonstrated. Whether it is the mRNA encoding the spike protein that persists or rather the spike protein itself remains to be determined. Nevertheless, as long as the spike protein appears on either exosomes or apoptotic vesicles, it must be present on cell membranes; and as long as it is found there, the immune system will attack those cells.
Protracted inflammation and impaired organ function have been reported both with the virus infection itself  and after vaccination . While inflammation may arise from autoimmunity downstream of intense acute tissue damage, the long-term persistence of spike protein after vaccination offers another straightforward explanation, and it supports the notion that the vaccines will give rise to lingering and slowly progressing inflammatory disease.
We must also note that the spike protein persists for at least twice as long as the participants of Pfizer’s farcical and fraudulent [9,10] ‘clinical trials’ were observed, on average, after the second vaccination . It follows that the reports on side effects which occurred in those trials cannot possibly be complete.
- Bansal, S. et al. (2021) Cutting Edge: Circulating Exosomes with COVID Spike Protein Are Induced by BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) Vaccination prior to Development of Antibodies: A Novel Mechanism for Immune Activation by mRNA Vaccines. J. Immunol. 207:2405-2410
- Ogata, A.F. et al. (2021) Circulating SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine Antigen Detected in the Plasma of mRNA-1273 Vaccine Recipients. Clin. Infect. Dis. (preprint)
- Letarov, A.V. et al. (2021) Free SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein S1 Particles May Play a Role in the Pathogenesis of COVID-19 Infection. Biochemistry Mosc 86:257-261
- Nielsen, S.S. et al. (2021) SARS-CoV-2 elicits robust adaptive immune responses regardless of disease severity. EBioMedicine 68:103410
- Bhakdi, S. et al. (2021) Letter to Physicians: Four New Scientific Discoveries Regarding COVID-19 Immunity and Vaccines—Implications for Safety and Efficacy.
- van der Pol, E. et al. (2012) Classification, Functions, and Clinical Relevance of Extracellular Vesicles. Pharmacol. Rev. 64:676-705
- Yong, S.J. (2021) Long COVID or post-COVID-19 syndrome: putative pathophysiology, risk factors, and treatments. Infectious diseases 53:737-754
- Anonymous, (2021) OpenVAERS COVID Vaccine Data.
- Thacker, P.D. (2021) Covid-19: Researcher blows the whistle on data integrity issues in Pfizer’s vaccine trial. BMJ p. n2635
- Palmer, M. et al. (2021) Expert evidence regarding Comirnaty (Pfizer) COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine for children.
- Anonymous, (2020) FDA briefing document: Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine.
By Sucharit Bhakdi, MD and Arne Burkhardt, MD - 15. December 2021 - Doctors for COVID Ethics
This text is a written summary of Dr. Bhakdi’s and Dr. Burkhardt’s presentations at the Doctors for COVID Ethics symposium that was live-streamed by UKColumn on December 10th, 2021. The two presentations can be viewed at the very beginning of the video recording of the symposium.
We herewith present scientific evidence that calls for an immediate stop of the use of gene-based COVID-19 vaccines. We first lay out why the agents cannot protect against viral infection. While no positive effects can be expected, we show that the vaccines can trigger self-destructive processes that lead to debilitating illness and death.
Why the vaccines cannot protect against infection
A fundamental mistake underlying the development of the COVID-19 vaccines was to neglect the functional distinction between the two major categories of antibodies which the body produces in order to protect itself from pathogenic microbes.
The first category (secretory IgA) is produced by immune cells (lymphocytes) which are located directly underneath the mucous membranes that line the respiratory and intestinal tract. The antibodies produced by these lymphocytes are secreted through and to the surface of the mucous membranes. These antibodies are thus on site to meet air-borne viruses, and they may be able to prevent viral binding and infection of the cells.
The second category of antibodies (IgG and circulating IgA) occur in the bloodstream. These antibodies protect the internal organs of the body from infectious agents that try to spread via the bloodstream.
Vaccines that are injected into the muscle – i.e., the interior of the body – will only induce IgG and circulating IgA, not secretory IgA. Such antibodies cannot and will not effectively protect the mucous membranes from infection by SARS-CoV-2. Thus, the currently observed “breakthrough infections” among vaccinated individuals merely confirm the fundamental design flaws of the vaccines. Measurements of antibodies in the blood can never yield any information on the true status of immunity against infection of the respiratory tract.
The inability of vaccine-induced antibodies to prevent coronavirus infections has been reported in recent scientific publications.
PROF. BHAKDI - PROOF IS IN: VACCINATION DESTROYS IMMUNE SYSTEM
Re-published on BITCHUTE December 28th, 2021.
Moving appeal by Prof. Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi, Doctors for Covid Ethics, on the urgent need to end the Covid vaccination program. Pathological findings, according to Bhakdi, show that in all people who receive Covid vaccination, immune cells begin to self-destruct.
Quelle/Source: Doctors for Covid Ethics, https://rumble.com/vr4tei-dr.-bhakdi-explains-basic-immunology.html
Übersetzung/Translation: Uwe Alschner, https://alschner-klartext.de
The vaccines can trigger self-destruction
A natural infection with SARS-CoV-2 (coronavirus) will in most individuals remain localized to the respiratory tract. In contrast, the vaccines cause cells deep inside our body to express the viral spike protein, which they were never meant to do by nature. Any cell which expresses this foreign antigen will come under attack by the immune system, which will involve both IgG antibodies and cytotoxic T-lymphocytes. This may occur in any organ. We are seeing now that the heart is affected in many young people, leading to myocarditis or even sudden cardiac arrest and death. How and why such tragedies might causally be linked to vaccination has remained a matter of conjecture because scientific evidence has been lacking. This situation has now been rectified.
Histopathologic studies: the patients
Histopathologic analyses have been performed on the organs of 15 persons who died after vaccination. The age, gender, vaccination record, and time of death after injection of each patient are listed in the table on the next page. The following points are of utmost importance:
- Prior to death, only 4 of the 15 patients had been treated in the ICU for more than 2 days. The majority were never hospitalized and died at home (5), on the street (1), at work (1), in the car (1), or in home-care facilities (1). Therefore, in most cases, therapeutic intervention is unlikely to have significantly influenced the post-mortem findings.
- Not a single death was brought into any possible association with the vaccination by the coroner or the public prosecutor; this association was only established by our autopsy findings.
- The initially performed conventional post-mortems also uncovered no obvious hints to a possible role of vaccination, since the macroscopic appearance of the organs was overall unremarkable. In most cases, “rhythmogenic heart failure” was postulated as the cause of death.
But our subsequent histopathological analyses then brought about a complete turnaround. A summary of the fundamental findings follows.
|Case #||Gender||Age (years)||Vaccine (injections)||Time of death after last injection|
|1||female||82||Moderna (1. and 2.)||37 days|
|2||male||72||Pfizer (1.)||31 days|
|3||female||95||Moderna (1. and 2.)||68 days|
|5||male||54||Janssen (1.)||65 days|
|6||female||55||Pfizer (1. and 2.)||11 days|
|7||male||56||Pfizer (1. and 2.)||8 days|
|8||male||80||Pfizer (1. and 2.)||37 days|
|9||female||89||Unknown (1. and 2.)||6 months|
|10||female||81||Unknown (1. and 2.)||unknown|
|11||male||64||AstraZeneca (1. and 2.)||7 days|
|12||female||71||Pfizer (1. and 2.)||20 days|
|13||male||28||AstraZeneca (1.), Pfizer (2.)||4 weeks|
|14||male||78||Pfizer (1. and 2.)||65 days|
|15||female||60||Pfizer (1.)||23 days|
Histopathologic studies: findings
Histopathologic findings of a similar nature were detected in organs of 14 of the 15 deceased. Most frequently afflicted were the heart (14 of 15 cases) and the lung (13 of 15 cases). Pathologic alterations were furthermore observed in the liver (2 cases), thyroid gland (Hashimoto’s thyroiditis, 2 cases), salivary glands (Sjögren`s Syndrome; 2 cases) and brain (2 cases).
A number of salient aspects dominated in all affected tissues of all cases:
- inflammatory events in small blood vessels (endothelitis), characterized by an abundance of T-lymphocytes and sequestered, dead endothelial cells within the vessel lumen;
- the extensive perivascular accumulation of T-lymphocytes;
- a massive lymphocytic infiltration of surrounding non-lymphatic organs or tissue with T-lymphocytes.
Lymphocytic infiltration occasionally occurred in combination with intense lymphocytic activation and follicle formation. Where these were present, they were usually accompanied by tissue destruction.
This combination of multifocal, T-lymphocyte-dominated pathology that clearly reflects the process of immunological self-attack is without precedent. Because vaccination was the single common denominator between all cases, there can be no doubt that it was the trigger of self-destruction in these deceased individuals.
Histopathologic analysis show clear evidence of vaccine-induced autoimmune-like pathology in multiple organs. That myriad adverse events deriving from such auto-attack processes must be expected to very frequently occur in all individuals, particularly following booster injections, is self-evident.
Beyond any doubt, injection of gene-based COVID-19 vaccines places lives under threat of illness and death. We note that both mRNA and vector-based vaccines are represented among these cases, as are all four major manufacturers.
Dr. Bhakdi has spent his life practicing, teaching and researching medical microbiology and infectious diseases. He chaired the Institute of Medical Microbiology and Hygiene at the Johannes Gutenberg Unversity of Mainz, Germany, from 1990 until his retirement in 2012. He has published over 300 research articles in the fields of immunology, bacteriology, virology and parasitology, and served from 1990 to 2012 as Editor-in-Chief of Medical Microbiology and Immunology, one of the first scientific journals of this field that was founded by Robert Koch in 1887.
Dr. Arne Burkhardt is a pathologist who has taught at the Universities of Hamburg, Berne and Tübingen. He was invited for visiting professorships/study visits in Japan (Nihon University), the United States (Brookhaven National Institute), Korea, Sweden, Malaysia and Turkey. He headed the Institute of Pathology in Reutlingen for 18 years. Subsquently, he worked as an independent practicing pathologist with consulting contracts with laboratories in the US. Burkhardt has published more than 150 scientific articles in German and international scientific journals as well as contributions to handbooks in German, English and Japanese. Over many years he has audited and certified institutes of pathology in Germany.
My good friend Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi, with whom we and others have written a series of open letters to the European Medicines Agency, is in utter despair.
He and his colleague, a pathologist, have confirmed that even in people who died after receiving the Covid19 vaccine and whose deaths were not attributed to the adverse effects of the vaccine, in almost all cases the death was due to the vaccine.
The number of deaths caused by these vaccines is much higher than we previously thought.
But much worse is what has just been discovered.
We knew about blood clots from spike protein expression.
We knew about autoimmune attacks on our own tissues expressing spike protein that our killer lymphocytes were primed for, such as myocarditis.
What is new, however, is the realization that lymph node cells are also targeted by the gene-based agents and mark them for auto-destruction.
Destroy this part of the immune system, which we casually refer to as "immune surveillance," and all sorts of nasty latent infections from viruses and also bacteria explode out of control.
Hundreds of millions of people will die from uncontrolled tuberculosis, Epstein-Barr virus, toxoplasmosis, etc., etc.
AND on top of that, the daily random production of cancer cells that are normally rapidly destroyed by immune surveillance before they can divide will stop.
Guess what happens then?
I don't care where you've been sitting during this ridiculous "pandemic."
Whether you went along with it knowing it was an overreaction. Or even in ignorance.
I'm telling you right now, IF AFTER YOU SEE THIS, YOU'LL LIKELY BACK DOWN AND WATCH A MOVIE, instead of calling a couple of PEOPLE YOU KNOW, AND TELLING THEM ABOUT IT, IT IS THE END OF HUMANITY, A JOINT LESSON WITH THE DAUGHTERS.
Please spread this on all platforms.
Flood the "fact checkers."
Please do it now.
Save our civilization while there are still innocents to save, especially our children and grandchildren.
I sincerely thank you,
Dr. Mike Yeadon