Goddess

COVID-19 vaccines: history of the pandemic's great scientific success & flawed policy implementation | Zenodo The COVID-19 vaccine has been a miraculous, life-saving advance, offering staggering efficacy in adults, and developed with astonishing speed. The time from sequencing the virus to authorizing the first COVID-19 vaccine was so brisk even the optimists appear close-minded. Yet, simultaneously, United States’ COVID-19 vaccination roll-out and related policies have contained missed opportunities, blunders, run counter to evidence-based medicine, and revealed limitations in the judgment of public policymakers. How can a single intervention simultaneously represent one of our greatest pandemic successes but also encapsulate real limitations? Misplaced utilization, contradictory messaging, and poor deployment in those who would benefit most — the elderly and high-risk — alongside unrealistic messaging, exaggeration, and coercion in those who benefit least — young, healthy Americans — is at the heart. It is important to consider the history of COVID-19 vaccines to identify where we succeeded and where we failed, and the effects that these errors may have more broadly on vaccination hesitancy and routine childhood immunization programs in the decades to come. Link to the PDF: COVID 19 Vaccines history_Zenodo.pdf

Evolutionary implications of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination for the future design of vaccination strategies | Communications Medicine (nature.com) Mass vaccination was the “pillar of the public health response to the COVID-19 pandemic.” But critics such as Geert Vanden Bossche warned that mass vaccination might trigger mass evolutionary pressures, thus accelerating pathogen mutations, thus accelerating pathogen mutations. The Belgian virologist was summarily dismissed, censored and blacklisted by mainstream science and its media channels as an overreacting crank. However, here, an intellectually gifted duo based in Russia and Holland raise the specter that based on their modeling “mass vaccination might accelerate SARS-CoV-2 evolution in antibody-binding regions compared to natural infection at the population level.” In what should be a must read for decision makers in vaccination, the authors both review the most important factors shaping vaccination strategies during the COVID-19 crisis, while also probing the implications of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination on virus evolution in light of accumulated knowledge and in the context of viral evolutionary theory. Their analysis raises the specter of a reality involving the evolution of rapidly mutating antibody-binding regions. Finally, the pair acknowledge the need for their own assumptions to be validated, while also pointing to the need for the research necessary to design potential future advancements in both vaccination and broader vaccination strategy. ********************************************************************************* Researchers from Singapore represented by NWS Chew, and colleagues at National University Heart Center, Yong Loo Link School of Medicine, conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis accessing PubMed, Embase, Research Square, MedRxiv and LitCovid databases and relevant papers identified up to June 29, 2021, covering at least half a year of the mass vaccination response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Targeting myocarditis cases and COVID-19 vaccination with specific inclusion criteria, the Singapore-based study authors include consecutive patients admitted in a tertiary hospital in Singapore between January 1, 2021, and March 31, 2021, with the onset of cardiovascular manifestations within 14 days after the COVID-19 vaccination procedure, included retrospectively. Published in the journal QUJ, a British peer-reviewed medical journal which was established in October 1907 as the Quarterly Journal of Medicine in late 2021, this study result indicated mounting concern even at that earlier time during the pandemic as to cardiovascular risk associated with the COVID-19 vaccines, especially with Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine among younger males.

Oh please. You've supported every shenanigan, every lie. You're only on this thread because I think deep down, you know. You know people were lied to, had their lives destroyed and were manipulated for profit. And know SUPPORTED EVERY INCH OF IT.

If you know this already, then why do you act like Big Pharma and government are suddenly champions of scientific integrity and ethics?

Risk of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) among Those Up-to-Date and Not Up-to-Date on COVID-19 Vaccination | medRxiv The CDC defines people as being “up to date” on their vaccines if they have had at least one dose of the new “bivalent” vaccines, which are the ones the so-called “health agency” has been pushing lately. These are the new and improved jabs including both the original Wuhan-style spike protein as well as the new Omicron flavor. It’s double the fun. Two spikes in one! And it’s worth every penny you pay for it, too. Anyway, the hardworking Cleveland Clinic researchers, bless them, looked at 50,000 of the hospital systems’ own employees and compared bivalent jab uptake with covid positive status. Here’s what they found: Huh. To be clear: People who take the bivalent shot get MORE covid. Bwahahaha! It would be tragic if it weren’t so hilarious. The media convinced a lot of gullible people the worst thing that could ever happen to them was catching covid. And now, their magic shots appear to actually INCREASE the chances they will catch the dreaded disease. I can hear the desperate rejoinder already. “But, but, but,” they’ll stammer, “the bivalent shot decreases risk of hospitalization and death!” Well, maybe, maybe not. Opinions on that vary. But either way, the person who DOESN’T GET COVID has the LOWEST risk of serious illness and hospitalization, since they never encounter the risks to start with. In other words, even if it’s a lower relative risk, by getting covid more often, the boosted have INFINITELY higher risk of serious illness and death than the unboosted who don’t catch the virus in the first place. Not to mention what the phenomenon suggests might be going on in boosted people’s immune systems. There’s another point. The Bivalent shot works backwards. It’s almost like the shot was never designed to prevent covid in the first place. So. It is very clear from Figure 1 in the preprint that the risk of getting COVID-19 is lower if you are not up-to-date (red). As time progressed (from the end of January 2023), the disparity between the two groups becomes more apparent. Who here is surprised? Ultimately, the authors found that the prior ‘infection’ (and robust immunity acquired from said infection), was deterministic of future COVID-19 status, ie: lower risk for COVID-19. Infection is superior to injection with regard to COVID-19 repeat infections. And finally, the authors write: Yes, it is well-known. It was well-known before. Vaccination can ever only hope to be second best to natural immunity, and that is not just my opinion. It's the opinion of the VAST MAJORITY of vaccinologists, but they've been silenced and censored. So all the MSN groupies and followers of anti-science drivel that came out of the CDC, probably don't know this.

https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/biogen-fdas-inappropriate-aduhelm-coordination-detailed-blistering-congressional-report?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email Not covid, but there are tons of stories like this that show the shenanigans that go on because the FDA is in bed with Big Pharma. It's about money. Not public health. Wakey wakey.

In addition to uncensored platforms, many of the above doctors and scientists have substacks where they discuss the latest medical studies and they host spaces where several of them can get together and discuss. I like that they understand we're not all scientists and they break things down for laypeople. (Except Dr. Jessica Rose - man, that lady knows her stuff and often thinks faster than she speaks. Her science is a total deeeeeeep dive ?) I like that they encourage critical thinking and discuss the merits and flaws of each study and how studies can be improved to reach certain endpoints. I've learned a lot. That. Is how science is done. Or..... You can continue to follow Trudeau and Tam: "We'll do all the thinking around here. Shut up and obey us, you herd of tax cattle."

Here's a list of various doctors trying to bring you the truth at great cost to themselves. Search for them on uncensored search engines and platforms. There are two Nobel Peace Prize winners and one nominee on this list. NOW GO DO YOUR HOMEWORK! Dr. Michael Yeadon (Former Pfizer VP) Dr. Robert Malone (mRNA inventor) Dr. Peter McCullough (most published on CV) Dr. Vladimir Zelenko (Nobel PP Nominee) Dr. Kary Mullis (PCR inventor/Nobel PP winner) Dr. Rima Laibow Dr. Naomi Wolf Dr. David Martin Dr. Luc Montainger Dr. Roger Hodkinson Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche Dr. Sherri Tenpenny Dr. Judy Mitkovitz Dr. Carrie Madej Dr. Vernon Coleman Dr. Ben Tapper Dr. Michael Lake Dr. Christiane Northrop Dr. Simone Gold Dr. Sean Brooks Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai Dr. Jane Ruby Dr. Ryan Cole Dr. Kevin Stillwagon Dr. Afzal Niaz Dr. Rashid A.Buttar Dr. Paul Thomas Dr. Vanessa Passov Dr. Jessica Rose Dr. Christopher Rake Dr. Charles Hoffe Dr. Mark Mcdonald Dr. Jeff Barke Dr. Andrew Kaufman Dr. Manuel Alonso Dr. Amir Shahar Dr. Patrick Phillips Dr. Bryan Ardis Dr. Franc Zalewski Dr. Daniel Griffin Dr. Zandra Botha Dr. Rochagné Kilian Dr. Joseph Mercola Dr. James Lyons-Weiler Dr. Henry Ealy Dr. Jay Bhattacharya Dr. Michael Palmer Dr. Eddy Bettermann MD Dr. Harvey Risch Dr. Steven Hotze Dr. Dan Stock Dr. Sam Duby Dr. Francis Christian Dr. Chris Milburn Dr. John Carpay Dr. Richard Fleming Dr. Gina Gold Dr. Kevin Corbett Dr. Michael Mcdowell Dr. John Witcher Dr. Jim Meehan Dr. Chris Shaw Dr. Anne McCloskey Dr. Reiner Fuellmich Dr. Christiana Parks Dr. Robert Young Dr. Amandha Vollmer Dr. Judy Wilyman Dr. Michael McConville Dr. Stella Immanuel Dr. James Nellenschwander Dr. Julie Ponesse Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi Dr. Paul Cottrell Dr. Lee Merritt Dr. Rochagne Killian Dr. Larry Palevsky Dr. Natalia Prego Cancelo Dr. Hilde de Smet Dr. Elizabeth Evans Dr. Brian Hooker Dr. Joel Hirschhorn Dr. R. Zac Cox Dr. Mohammed Adil Dr. Ralph ER Sundberg Dr. Johan Denis Dr. Daniel Cullum Dr. Anne Fierlafijin Dr. Kevin Corbett Dr. Pior Rubis Dr. Pascal Sacre Dr. Nicole Delepine Dr. Lorraine Day Dr. Yoav Yehezkelli Dr. Nour De San Dr. Kelly Brogan Dr. Hervé Seligmann Dr. Annie Bukacek Dr. Mark Brody Dr. Steven LaTulippe Dr. Mark Trozzi Dr. Scott Jensen Dr. Byram W. Bridle Dr. Andrew Wakefield Dr. Larry Palevsky Dr. Tom Cowan Dr. Dan Erickson Dr. James Todaro Dr. Joe Lapado Dr. Richard Bartlett Dr. Ben Edwards Dr. Pierre Kory Dr. Heather Gessling Dr. Bryan Tyson Dr. Richard Urso Dr. John Littell Dr. Scott Jensen Dr. Ben Carson Dr. Peter Schirmacher Dr. Zandra Botha Dr. Pamela Popper Dr. Tom Barnett Dr. Theresa Long Dr. Nancy Burks Dr. Russel Blaylock Dr. Shiv Chopra Dr. Suzanne Humphries Dr. Tori Bark Dr. Meryl Nass Dr. Raymond Obamsawin Dr. Ghislaine Lanctot Dr. Robert Rowen Dr. David Ayoub Dr. Boyd Hailey Dr. Roby Mitchell Dr. Ken Stoller Dr. Mayer Eiesenstien Dr. Frank Engley Dr. David Davis Dr. Tetyana Obukhanych Dr. Harold Butram Dr. Kelly Brogan Dr. RC Tent Dr. Rebecca Carley Dr. Andrew Moulden Dr. Jack Wolfson Dr. Michael Elice Dr. Terry Wahls Dr. Paul Thomas Dr. Stephanie Seneff Dr. Richard Moskowitz Dr. Jane Orient Dr. Richard Deth Dr. Lucija Tomljenovic Dr. Chris Shaw Dr. Susan McCreadie Dr. May Ann Block Dr. David Brownstein Dr. Jayne Donegan Dr. Troy Ross Dr. Phillip Incao Dr. Robert Mendelson Dr. Theressa Deisher Dr. Sam Eggertsen Dr. Peter Doshi Dr. Shankara Chetty Dr. Elizabeth Eads Dr. Kurt Malhom Dr. Carolyn Bosack Dr. Heiko Shoning Dr. Aseem Malhotra Dr. Patricia Lee Dr. Daniel Nagase Dr. Mobeen Syed Dr. Bruce Patterson Dr. Randi Juanta Dr. Phillip McMillan Dr. Peter Gotzche Dr. Kurt Malholm Dr. Sam Sigoloff Dr. Suzanne Humphries Dr. Ariyana Love Dr. Pierre Gilbert Dr. Nathan Thompson Dr. Scott Youngblood Dr. Peterson Pierre Dr. Darell Wolfe Dr. Mary Tally Bowden Dr. Thomas Ynges Dr. Guido Hofmann Dr. Anne Mcclosky Dr. James Grundvig Dr. Amanda Vollmer Dr. Kevin Stillwagon Dr. Luis Miguel de Benito Dr. Bruce Boros Dr. Steven Gundry Dr. Ray Page Dr. Tess Lawrie Dr. Andreas Noack Dr. Mark Hobart Dr. Peter Campbell Dr. Peter Johnston Dr. Eric Nepute Dr. Bradley Campbell Dr. Joseph Yi Dr Robert Morse ND Dr Piotr Witczak (biolog) Dr Jerzy Jaskowski Dr H.Czerniak Dr. Anna Martynowska Prof. Dolores Cahill Prof. Retsif Levi Prof. Maria Majewska- neurobiology. Dr. Laura Braden Dr. Vinay Prasad

This is an interesting case because they are suing the real perps - the US Department of Defense. Family of 24-Year-Old Who Died From COVID Vaccine Sues the DOD The family of George Watts, Jr. a 24-year-old man who died from COVID-19 vaccine-induced myocarditis filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD), the Chief Operating Officer of the Operation Warp Speed at the time that George received 2 doses of Pfizer injections. The lawsuit alleges the DOD engaged in “willful misconduct” by continuing to exclusively allow distribution of the stockpiled version of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine that had been authorized for emergency use even after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted full approval to a different vaccine, Comirnaty. The complaint states that the DOD engaged in ‘bait and switch’ fraud,” misleading the public that Comirnaty “approval” meant that the Emergency Use authorized injections were the same and thus “safe and effective”. The vast majority of the public, including health professionals today to not understand the distinction and do not know that the injections administered to the public are still only EUA. No approved versions have been made available. Also, very few people realize that both EUA and BLA versions are “countermeasures”. As a result, the lawsuit alleges, George Watts Jr. was misled into taking the investigational vaccine which lead to his death from myocarditis. This lawsuit has the potential to bring to light the "covered countermeasure" products: EUA authorized vs BLA licensed, legally distinct but biologically the same class of unregulated, undisclosed-to-recipients toxic compounds. In addition, the DOD role as a "covered person" should be examined: were they just "directing" the process vs actually being part of the manufacturing and distributing entities? And why in the first place would DOD direct a set of civilian manufacturers (in the area DOD has no competence)? What precisely DOD's role was, and how the Defense Production Act legal defenses can be invoked? Will they have to finally admit that Trump authorized war conditions in the US by PHE declaration in March 2020, and therefore use of biological weapons on the US civilian population? There is even a possibility to discuss the effective suspension of the Constitution, as the DOD may need to argue that constitution is suspended during PHE and inapplicable. Sorry for the weird formatting. I'm having computer issues and had to use my phone. Which sucks.

Tonight I noticed a post by an acquaintance on Facebook. She posted and tagged the names of 5 people in her circle who have died in the last few months. Looks like all in their mid - late 40s. She commented how baffling this was to lose so many friends so quickly. I messaged her and said I was sorry for the loss of her friends. She said 2 were heart attacks, the other 3 "just died." I ask "From what?" She says natural causes, that's all she knows, they just died. She was 100% into the whole covid thing - lots of posts for everyone to lock down, wear masks, get vaccinated. I don't say anything to her because there's no point. Like, no one thinks this is weird. She doesn't know anyone who died of covid but loses 5 middle-aged friends in a few months and......just nothing. I hope some day soon we see less "died suddenly" and more "jailed suddenly."

I totally backed the lockdown (and quite enjoyed it). But was I just a mug? (thetimes.co.uk) The UK author who wrote the above piece is a bit of a rightwing shock-jock, but at least he admits his opinion changed and it is in a non-tabloid newspaper. My wife remarked to me, in March 2020: “It’s all shite, all of it. None of it will make a difference. It’s about control. And it will go on for ages.” Nonsense, my dear — it will all be over by September, and this is simply a case of ensuring the frailest of us survive, I assured her. What a terrible thing it is to have to admit, in a national newspaper, that one’s wife was absolutely right, on all counts, and that I was wrong. The government was right too. The ministers, including the prime minister, and the civil servants took not the slightest notice of their own advice. They partied like it was 2019. They were happy to pass on the fatuous injunctions from Sage to the plebs and to ensure that transgressors were fined or shamed or both — but they knew it was all bollocks. This is, I think, at least half of the reason the public is so angry about partygate: we are angry at ourselves for being mugs and doing exactly as we were bidden. Yes, we might despise the arrogance and entitlement of Johnson and co, but the real vexation is with ourselves. And the horrible implication that the nutters, the extremists — the people we rather pompously derided and later silenced altogether — were right all along.

https://twitter.com/croissantk/status/1663258404826038274?s=20 I'm not the only one who knows a lot of people injured by the jabs. This USPS worker is waking up. 19 people dead on her route in the last 4 months.

I know, right? ? That Cureus article about the German study is the first one I've seen that specifically ties excess mortality to the jabs, not the virus. Most every study tip-toes around it and some scientists have said they silently fume because they have to put the obligatory "the jabs are wonderful and saved lives" line in their studies or it won't get published at all. The Europeans are way ahead of us on "the science".

If you're interested in further reading from Ethical Skeptic, here is one of his articles on 7 ways to spot fraud in scientific studies: The Elements of Hypothesis | The Ethical Skeptic

Possible cancer-causing capacity of COVID-19: Is SARS-CoV-2 an oncogenic agent? - PMC (nih.gov) A peer-reviewed, pre-released article intended for publication in the journal Biochimie became available online this week, titled “Possible cancer-causing capacity of COVID-19: Is SARS-CoV-2 an oncogenic agent?” The editors didn’t say WHY it was so dang important to rush it to print before it was ready. But that will become clear if you stay with me. The article is very dense and still needs some editing for clarity. It seems like the author’s first language is not English. A note from the editors at the top of the article recognizes these problems, but says that due to the importance of the subject matter, they wanted to get it out even while they’re still editing. Peer-review is already done. In this paper we learn about a category of diseases called “oncogenic viruses.” Oncogenic means tending to cause cancer. Notably, HIV is considered an oncogenic virus, as are herpes, leukemia virus, and hepatitis B and C. In the article’s “highlights” section, this sentence leaps off the page: Which proteins? It never gets around to saying WHICH covid protein has all the oncogenic properties. Which is weird. What do you want to bet the “protein” is Spike? That’s my bet. And I’ll explain why they probably obscured that fact. But stay with me for now. The authors begin by noting that SARS-CoV-1 — the virus’ prior version from ten years ago — was never linked to cancer. It doesn’t promote cancer growth. So all the pro-cancer features described in the article are brand new to SARS-CoV-2. Nature was super busy working on this one! The authors say it’s too soon to connect covid-19 to cancer, because we haven’t had a decade of study yet. Their point was that covid — coincidentally — shares certain unique features with other oncogenic viruses like HIV and hepatitis, suggesting there WILL be a link between covid and cancer: The article discusses the 3 oncogenic mechanisms of covid. 2 of the mechanisms are related to inflammation. Covid-19’s “proteins” don’t just have ONE pro-cancer pathway, which would have been remarkable, but there are at least THREE and covid’s mystery “protein” is a witches’ brew of features found in other oncogenic viruses: Whoever designed the virus — nature, Chinese bioweapons engineers, or Fauci and that guy from North Carolina — TRIPLED the ways that covid could encourage cancer cells to grow and flourish in the body. The organ systems that are at particular risk are: the lungs, the colon, pancreas, breasts, mouth & throat. In the Conclusion, they refer to "malignant neoplasms" - AKA cancerous tumors: Why did the editors rush this article out so quickly as a pre-release? Could it be because *this* paper ALSO came out this week? 20230523-18780-kpzba5.pdf (cureus.com) In this peer-reviewed article you’ll be shocked when you see what the researchers suggested was the possible mechanism to explain the unprecedented levels of mortality. The researchers were surprised to find NO excess death in 2020 — the most intense year of the pandemic — but to find 100,000 extra people unexpectedly died in 2021 and 2022. A hundred thousand is a lot of folks, especially in a country about the size of Montana with only 83 million citizens. Hmmmmmm........Something happened. Something! Something in Spring 2021...... Why don’t they just say it? Oh, wait! They finally do. (I'll save you from the narcoleptic maths in the study....) The same "flawed safety analysis" that many doctors and scientists have tried for 2 years now to get the CDC to acknowledge, too. Many have sent urgent reports and emails to the CDC urging them to examine their system because the "death" safety signal was actually triggered almost immediately following the vax rollout. The CDC has so far ignored this. But I digress. There's more: Did you catch that? The non-highlighted part? “The obvious hypothesis of a decrease in excess mortality with an increasing number of vaccinated persons, is not correct.” What they’re saying is, the data shows that the jabs DON’T WORK. We already know the jabs don’t stop infections, nobody is even arguing about that debunked lie now. What they’re saying is that the data doesn’t even show that the jabs reduced deaths. The German researchers are rightly pointing out that the vaccines appear to have INCREASED all-cause mortality. A vaccine that lowers your risk of dying from covid a little, but increases your risk of dying from cancer a lot......well, it's up to you, I guess. Excess mortality is finally becoming impossible to ignore: it’s been elevated for two consecutive years now - all over the world, but only in highly vaccinated countries. Two years during which the miraculous jabs had their chance to do their work but failed, and the link to the vaccines is looking a lot like an obvious candidate for the deaths, as the German researchers properly noticed. So here is where the narrative makers are likely going to try and pull a(nother) quick psyop on us: They need a way to blame the excess deaths on something besides the jabs. It needs to be compelling. It needs to be airtight. It needs to be distracting. So they’ll probably have to use something true. The hastily approved, quickly peer-reviewed Biochimie study on covid’s oncogenic properties offers covidians a handy-dandy explanation for both the excess deaths and the timing problems. If they can show covid causes cancer — and I believe it can — then they can attribute the excess deaths to the virus! And the lag making the excess deaths LOOK attributable to the vaccines can also be attributed to the lag time required for cancer to develop and be diagnosed — and remember, the hospitals were deferring cancer screenings. Let's unpack that one now: "deferred cancer screenings." I followed Ethical Skeptic almost from the beginning. You should, too. Here's his website: The Ethical Skeptic - Challenging Pseudo-Skepticism, its Agency and Cultivated Ignorance Ethical Skeptic has been reporting on the latest neoplasm figures every couple weeks for years. Ethical consistently reports a steady increase in neoplasms since a few months following the rollout of the jabs — except for a few types of cancer that have helpfully remained flat, allowing us to rule out “deferred treatment” as the cause for the types of increasing cancers. In other words, if the cause was deferred screenings, then we’d expect to see ALL types of cancer increasing. Not just certain types. One of Ethical’s most compelling charts exposes the rapid increase in spending on medical treatments for “neoplasms” (cancer) since the jabs were introduced to the population: A few days ago, at the Third Annual European Union International COVID Summit, Dr. Cole reported (again) on all the anecdotal clinical evidence showing skyrocketing rates of “unexpected” neoplasms. At one point he asked the medical attendees to raise their hands if they were experiencing unparalleled rates of new cancer diagnoses in their practices. Dr. Cole said half the audience raised their hands. Dr. Cole also referenced Ethical Skeptic’s findings: https://twitter.com/ChrisGreece48/status/1659829360134615040?s=20 Confirming both Dr. Cole and Ethical Skeptic, note the following article that published in MedScape in November 2022: Cancer Drug Shortages Continuing and Increasing (medscape.com) The article tried blaming the problem on greedy drugmakers, but once the reader slices through the noise, what they’re really saying is that increased demand has gobbled up all the low-cost generic cancer drugs, so all that’s remaining are expensive branded substitutes. Increased demand. What would cause increased demand for cancer drugs? Remember Ethical Skeptic’s chart on cancer drug expenditures, which seems to confirm higher purchases of the more expensive branded options after generics ran out. That’s three sources all confirming unprecedented rates of cancers. But the point isn’t that cancers — especially turbo cancers — are exploding. We already knew that. The point is: the data is getting undeniable. They can’t keep denying it’s happening and they won’t be able to ignore it much longer. The giveaway is that the Biochimie study never once mentioned the spike protein, instead generically referring to “covid proteins.” Why obscure the role of spike? It’s unbelievable that a highly-accurate, peer-reviewed article like this one, which goes into mind-numbing detail about all the specific genes and microscopic components of the oncogenic EFFECTS of the covid proteins, never actually gets around to which genetic parts of the “covid proteins” are oncogenic. It’s like they’re not even curious. Why not mention the spike? There’s a good reason. BECAUSE THE JABS PRODUCE BILLIONS MORE SPIKE THAN THE VIRUS. If the spike protein IS oncogenic, then jabbed people are far more at risk of cancer than are naturally infected people. In an infected person, spike hangs out in the body for around eight days. In a jabbed person, spike is being steadily produced for at least four months, and maybe much longer, especially if people keep getting boosted. In other words, any elevated cancer risk caused by covid infections only lasts a few days. But elevated cancer risk from the jabs will last for months or even years. The bottom line is, they can’t talk about spike without hauling the jabs into the discussion. So the new narrative that we’re supposed to believe is that covid INFECTION causes cancer and the jabs help prevent that from happening. Don’t buy it. Covid might cause cancer, but if it does, it does to at fractional rates compared to the jabs. REMEMBER: they tried to do this exact same bait & switch with myocarditis, claiming that the virus caused more myo than the jabs, when it was the opposite. The vaccine trials only observed participants for a couple weeks, and then the drugmakers “unblinded” the studies, making it impossible to compare jabbed vs. unjabbed after that. By disclosing in great detail exactly how covid promotes neoplasmic growth, they are stitching together a coverup blanket, a new narrative to throw over the explosion in turbo cancers and blame the excess deaths on the virus. Because you can’t sue or or even criminally accuse a virus, unlike public health officials and military bioweapons designers.

You should watch "How To Be a Tyrant" on Netflix. Many similarities to Trudeau.

The Dangerous Illusion of Scientific Consensus (illusionconsensus.com)

I don't think that most people grasp how closely we came (and still could) to descending into the madness of Germany. I watch the videos of Trudeau vilifying the unvaccinated - all he needs is the little moustache. "Those people!" "Racists!" "Misogynists!" "Anti-science!" "Endangering MY children and YOUR children!" "Do we tolerate these people?!?!" It led to comments here like "Put them in refrigerated trucks, they're just going to die anyways." It led to this: Some of you should brush up on the Milgrim and Asch experiments. It's because of people like me, that people like Eyeball and Dialamah were stopped.

I shake my head every time you say this and just yesterday, I was reading something about this. It was a bioscientist's blog and he was talking about how when the jabs came out, everyone was assured that they "elicited an immune response." He commented, "I mean, you could inject pink lemonade and elicit an immune response!" Then he talked about how many scientists asked, "What was the immune response? Can we see the trial data?" and were told, "No. You can't see it for 75 years." It's amazing to me that you (Eyeball) think that the "vast, vast majority" of scientists and medical experts were content with that answer.

Just gonna leave this here. The decline of science at the FDA has become unmanageable | The BMJ

Good gawd, I've just provided 64 pages of sources for you. Including "how" explanations. You haven't provided even one. Even though you've been asked repeatedly for your sources, studies and datasets. It appears you need it more than I do.

Today is the last day of the NCI hearings in Quebec. I wish my French was better. ☹️ It's a bit harder to follow with the translators. (Spanish is my second language.) This morning there was an economist that spoke for quite a long time - he was phenomenal.