Stories of Covid vaccination side effects or worse

UK Lab Report discovers Graphene in the Covid-19 Vaccines; & Scientists believe the Vaccinated are transmitting it to the Unvaccinated.
There’s something about solids that are arranged in a hexagonal shape that creates a certain type of energy, perhaps from the De Broglie effect. Graphene is structured as a single sheet of hexagonal carbon atoms.

In any case the Russian entomologist Grebennikov discovered that there’s a pleasant field emmitted from the honeycomb of bees which has a hexagonal structure and is back to back and an unpleasant field emmited from the nests of wasps which also have a hexagonal structure but are only built in single compartments and are made of paper vice beeswax. Injecting these particles of graphene could simply damage the body simply because of the field they emit. Grebennikov called it the CSE, or cavernous structures effect. In any case, my thoughts are it might be possible to create something out if the right material that produces a more pleasant environment for the people living in it. It would certainly take some time and effort to produce any sort of artificial honeycomb but it might be worth that effort considering the increasing EMF, if the CSE from materials would in fact cancel that out. Perhaps a question for the C’s after more research. Grebennikov’s books aren’t translated in English from the original Russian, but he certainly appeared to have some insights into Nature’s design.
 
Disease soars in vaccinated children compared to unvaccinated children.

Dr Paul Thomas.jpg

We studied every baby born in my practice over a 10-year period. The results were startling.

Dr Paul Thomas: "We stratified the children according to the number of vaccinations they had received. The data was clear: The more vaccinations a child receives, the worse their health becomes; chronic illness, asthma, ADHD, neurological problems, allergies, etc.

Unvaccinated children did not get sick.

This data is so powerful that within 5 days of publishing it online, they took away my medical license because I was a threat to public health.

Because we insist on informed consent, an increasing number of parents have refused to have their children vaccinated."

 
Top scientist: Covid vaccines cause up to 100 times more serious injuries in young adults than they prevent.

Vaccine flask.jpg

University COVID-19 vaccine mandates are unethical because the vaccines are up to nearly 100 times more likely to cause a person of student age serious injury than prevent him or her from being hospitalised with COVID-19, a new study has concluded.

The study, whose authors include Dr. Kevin Bardosh, a recipient of funding from the pro-vaccination Wellcome Trust led by Sir Jeremy Farrar, and Dr. Tracy Beth Høeg of the Florida Department of Health, presents a risk-benefit assessment of booster vaccines among people of student age and provides five ethical arguments against mandates.

The researchers estimate that 22,000-30,000 previously uninfected adults aged 18-29 must be boosted with an mRNA vaccine to prevent just one COVID-19 hospitalisation. In the study, which is currently undergoing peer-review, the authors analyse CDC and reported adverse event data and find that booster mandates are likely to cause a net expected harm. They estimate that for every COVID-19 hospitalisation prevented in previously uninfected young adults, 18 to 98 serious adverse events will occur, including 1.7 to 3.0 booster-associated myocarditis cases in males, and 1,373 to 3,234 cases of serious injury which interferes with daily activities.

The authors add that given the high level of natural immunity following infection now present in the population, the actual risk-benefit profile is even less favourable.

On the basis of this evidence they argue that university booster mandates are unethical because:
  1. no formal risk-benefit assessment exists for the age group;
  2. vaccine mandates may result in a net expected harm to individual young people;
  3. mandates are not proportionate: expected harms are not outweighed by public health benefits given the modest and transient effectiveness of vaccines against transmission;
  4. U.S. mandates violate the reciprocity principle because rare serious vaccine-related harms will not be reliably compensated due to gaps in current vaccine injury schemes; and
  5. mandates create wider social harms.
They consider counterarguments, such as a desire for socialisation and safety, and show that such arguments are weak and lack scientific and ethical support.

The authors include Dr. Vinay Prasad of the University of California and Dr. Martin A. Makary and Dr. Stefan Baral of Johns Hopkins University. A previous intervention in February by many of the same authors, published in BMJ Global Health, took a strong ethical stance against vaccine coercion in the form of mandates and passports.

It’s been clear for some time that the cost-benefit assessment of the vaccines will not be favourable for young people. But with leading scientists, including some funded by pro-vaccination organisations like the Wellcome Trust, now putting the case in top journals, hopefully the message will get through to politicians and administrators, especially in America, who continue to impose vaccine requirements on young adults.

While the present paper is focused on vaccine coercion, its arguments also apply more generally to the offer of vaccination to young adults, and raise questions as to whether vaccine recipients are being fully apprised of the risks and likely benefits before consenting to the inoculation.

 

Attachments

Last edited:
What Stephanie Seneff wrote about Interferon alfa suppression turned out to be true:
In this case report, plasma levels of IgG neutralizing autoantibodies against type I interferons were increased specifically among the 103 autoantibodies tested following the second shot of COVID-19 vaccine BNT162b2 compared to pre-vaccination and further increased following the third shot of BNT162b2.
There are several potential mechanisms accounting for BNT162b2-mediated anti-type I IFN autoantibodies: 1) antigen mimicry between BNT162b2-mediated S protein and human type I IFN. 2) The COVID-19 mRNA may have the innate immune activity through endosolic and cytoplasmic nucleic acid receptors including toll-like receptor (TLR)7 or TLR9, or components of the inflammasome. 3) Non-TLR adjuvant effects. For example, the lipid nanoparticle is used in the BNT162b2 vaccine and has the adjuvant effect by inducing robust T follicular helper cell and humoral responses [13].

It has become increasingly apparent that innate immunity is critical for the induction of virus-specific adaptive immune responses [14]. Thus, the type I IFN innate-mediated immune responses can be double-edged swords in enhancing vaccine efficacy and immune responses to acute infectious diseases, as well as accelerating chronic disease pathogenesis (e.g., chronic viral infections, cancer, and autoimmune diseases) [15,16]. This case highlights BNT162b2-induced neutralizing anti-type I IFN autoantibodies, which may affect vaccine efficacy or chronic disease pathogenesis in some patients and deserves further investigations.

For the record, taken from Seneff's paper abstract:
The mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccines were brought to market in response to the public health crises of Covid-19. The utilization of mRNA vaccines in the context of infectious disease has no precedent. The many alterations in the vaccine mRNA hide the mRNA from cellular defenses and promote a longer biological half-life and high production of spike protein. However, the immune response to the vaccine is very different from that to a SARS-CoV-2 infection. In this paper, we present evidence that vaccination induces a profound impairment in type I interferon signaling, which has diverse adverse consequences to human health. Immune cells that have taken up the vaccine nanoparticles release into circulation large numbers of exosomes containing spike protein along with critical microRNAs that induce a signaling response in recipient cells at distant sites. We also identify potential profound disturbances in regulatory control of protein synthesis and cancer surveillance. These disturbances potentially have a causal link to neurodegenerative disease, myocarditis, immune thrombocytopenia, Bell's palsy, liver disease, impaired adaptive immunity, impaired DNA damage response and tumorigenesis. We show evidence from the VAERS database supporting our hypothesis. We believe a comprehensive risk/benefit assessment of the mRNA vaccines questions them as positive contributors to public health.
 
Last edited:
Study (September 9 2022, Brighton Collaboration) : Serious adverse events of special interest following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination in randomized trials in adults.

Results

Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were associated with an excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest of 10.1 and 15.1 per 10,000 vaccinated over placebo baselines of 17.6 and 42.2 (95 % CI −0.4 to 20.6 and −3.6 to 33.8), respectively. Combined, the mRNA vaccines were associated with an excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest of 12.5 per 10,000 vaccinated (95 % CI 2.1 to 22.9); risk ratio 1.43 (95 % CI 1.07 to 1.92). The Pfizer trial exhibited a 36 % higher risk of serious adverse events in the vaccine group; risk difference 18.0 per 10,000 vaccinated (95 % CI 1.2 to 34.9); risk ratio 1.36 (95 % CI 1.02 to 1.83). The Moderna trial exhibited a 6 % higher risk of serious adverse events in the vaccine group: risk difference 7.1 per 10,000 (95 % CI –23.2 to 37.4); risk ratio 1.06 (95 % CI 0.84 to 1.33). Combined, there was a 16 % higher risk of serious adverse events in mRNA vaccine recipients: risk difference 13.2 (95 % CI −3.2 to 29.6); risk ratio 1.16 (95 % CI 0.97 to 1.39).

 

Attachments

I think shingles is actually pretty common, and occasionally very serious. I probably heard about a case every week when I was practicing. One of my kids had it in his 20's. I have several friends that got it in their 20's. Almost everyone over a certain age has had Chicken Pox exposure. The vaccine is said to be maybe 50% effective. I'll pass on that. I take BHT as a preventative. It stabilizes cell membranes and is helpful in preventing outbreaks of Viral Recurrent Illness.
There's a link to The BHT Book on this page: The BHT Book by Steven Fowkes (free!)
It is heavy, technical reading, but definitely worth it.
 
Dr. Ariyana Love - The PCRs deployed for C0VlD are not tests, but a technology for human cloning.
Dr. Ariyana Love - Les PCR déployés pour le C0VlD ne sont pas des tests, mais une technologie destinée au clonage humain.

This is what paper she is refereeing to (2015):


Background​

Over the last decades, molecular cloning has transformed biological sciences. Having profoundly impacted various areas such as basic science, clinical, pharmaceutical, and environmental fields, the use of recombinant DNA has successfully started to enter the field of cellular engineering. Here, the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) represents one of the most essential tools. Due to the emergence of novel and efficient PCR reagents, cloning kits, and software, there is a need for a concise and comprehensive protocol that explains all steps of PCR cloning starting from the primer design, performing PCR, sequencing PCR products, analysis of the sequencing data, and finally the assessment of gene expression. It is the aim of this methodology paper to provide a comprehensive protocol with a viable example for applying PCR in gene cloning.

Results​

Exemplarily the sequence of the tdTomato fluorescent gene was amplified with PCR primers wherein proper restriction enzyme sites were embedded. Practical criteria for the selection of restriction enzymes and the design of PCR primers are explained. Efficient cloning of PCR products into a plasmid for sequencing and free web-based software for the consecutive analysis of sequencing data is introduced. Finally, confirmation of successful cloning is explained using a fluorescent gene of interest and murine target cells.

Conclusions​

Using a practical example, comprehensive PCR-based protocol with important tips was introduced. This methodology paper can serve as a roadmap for researchers who want to quickly exploit the power of PCR-cloning but have their main focus on functional in vitro and in vivo aspects of cellular engineering.

Electronic supplementary material​

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1754-1611-9-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Here is her full interview with Peters, and she ramps up the idea that the PCR is being used to check on the cloning processes of those being tested (with all kinds of background firefly insect dna).

So there you have it. The PCR kits target genes for gene deletions and monitor the cloning progress.

Love does bring things to light (her own son at age 2 was vaccine damaged it has been said on the forum), however are all her ideas correct?

Regarding PCR (invented by Mullis way well back in time), it has been utilized in so many ways that cloning, as looked at in the paper Love points out, would not necessarily back up her claims of its overall use now to clone the human being. It is know in the case of covid that it was used (depending on its cycle adjustment) to prove cases from cells (dead or alive) from the bodies fluids. What it was proving is at issue.

Here is a rundown on the PCR (general mainstream format):

Why and How the PCR Technique Got Invented?
Neha Mittal03:31:04 12/22/2020

Dr. Kary Banks Mullis: Inventor of PCR
A. Background
: Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) technique is like a miracle for researchers who work in the fields of biotechnology, biology and other related disciplines. This technique acts like a magnifying lens and allows researchers to amplify a desired gene from a minute amount of DNA sample. Today a lot of varieties and versions of this technique have already been established, but it is meaningful to remember the scientist who started it all: Dr. Kary Banks Mullis. In 1993, Dr. Mullis won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his discovery of this press-button technique and completely revolutionized the field of biotechnology. In this present article, I am going to describe before and after perspectives of the PCR discovery.
B. Science before PCR discovery: Identification and formation of multiple copies of a single desired gene from a long stretch of chromosomal DNA is analogous to searching for a needle in a hay stack and before the discovery of PCR, this process was very difficult and time-consuming. While
the molecular ingredients for the PCR recipe (i.e. DNA, RNA), as well as the basic concept for DNA replication had already been discovered by the other scientists in late 1980’s, no one ever considered artificial DNA synthesis as a method of understanding basic molecular biology. So, while their discoveries were meaningful advancements in the field, they were not good enough to understand the mechanisms associated with various genetic disorders and related to their diagnosis.
C. Invention of PCR: Dr. Kary Mullis, the father of PCR, was working as a DNA chemist at the Cetus Corporation in California at the time of his discovery of the technique. The idea came to him as he was driving from San Francisco to Mendocino as he tried to rationalize how the tiny oligonucleotides arranged in DNA one by one, not randomly. From this idea, Dr. Mullis invented a small box machine that could make millions of copies of DNA from only one existing piece.
D. Science after PCR discovery: Initially it took a long time for the scientific community to take the invention of PCR seriously, but nowadays it has many biological applications including in health diagnostics, crime labs, genomic fingerprinting in plants, animals, and humans and in many other areas. This basic technique has proven useful for the amplification of DNA, and modified versions can be used in the reverse transcription process due to certain modernizations. Now, using a small amount of existing sample from any species on earth, we can make millions of copies of DNA and RNA molecules using a PCR machine. The data collected during these processes allows us to understand the basics of genomics and other molecular biology concepts very clearly and is useful for not only studying the target species, but also for studying other, related species.
E. Challenges associated with PCR discovery: The process of PCR is not as simple as it may seem; the actual amplification of DNA requires specific methodologies and steps and there is a lot of complications associated with the process. After working with other collaborators, Kary Mullis made one of the most important discoveries associated with PCR: Taq DNA polymerase enzyme.Typically, enzymes cannot withstand the high temperatures used in the PCR machine and are denatured during the process, but the important discovery of heat-tolerant DNA polymerase enzyme isolates extracted from Thermus aquaticus bacterium allows PCR to proceed without interruption.
F. Working of PCR: After the complete discussion of PCR invention and its inventor, in the section below, I wanted to outline how this machine actually works and describe the key elements required to make it functional. The complete description of requirements and steps of PCR is as follows:
F.1: Components for PCR Reaction:
1. Taq Buffer solution: - It provides a suitable chemical environment for optimum activity and stability of the DNA polymerase. It also maintains the pH of the solution.
2. Divalent cations: - Generally Mg2+ is used. It acts as an activator for Taq DNA polymerase enzyme during amplification reactions.
3. Deoxynucleoside triphosphates (dNTPs): - These are also very commonly and erroneously called dNTPs. These act as the building blocks from which the DNA polymerases synthesize a new strand of DNA.
4. Primers: - These are the short oligonculeotide sequences of the DNA. The function of the primers is to anneal each of the sense and anti-sense strands of the DNA target to beamplified.
5. The DNA polymerase (Taq polymerase): - This acts as an enzyme, which required for the amplification reactions.
F.2: Steps of PCR Reaction:
1. Initialization step: - This step consists of heating the reaction to a temperature of 94–96°C (or 98°C if extremely thermostable polymerases are used), which is held for 1–9 min.
2. Denaturation step: - This step is the first regular cycling event and consists of heating the reaction to 94–98 °C for 20–30 sec. It causes separation of DNA templates and primers by disrupting the hydrogen bonds between complementary bases of the DNA strands, yielding single strands of DNA.
3. Annealing step: - The reaction temperature is lowered to 50–65 °C for 20–40 sec. allowing annealing of the primers to the single-stranded DNA template.
4. Extension/elongation step: - The temperature at this step depends on the DNA polymerase used; Taq polymerase has its optimum activity temperature at 75–80°C, and commonly a temperature of 72°C is used with this enzyme. At this step the DNA polymerase synthesizes a new DNA strand
complementary to the DNA template strand by adding dNTPs that are complementary to the template in 5' to 3' direction, condensing the 5'-phosphate group of the dNTPs with the 3'- hydroxyl group at the end of the nascent (extending) DNA strand.
G. Major applications of PCR:
1. PCR allows the isolation of DNA fragments from genomic DNA by selective amplification of a specific region of DNA. This property of PCR can be used in many applications, such as generating hybridization probes for Southern and Northern hybridization techniques and DNA cloning.
2. PCR can be used in DNA sequencing by the determination of unknown PCR amplified sequences in which one of the amplification primers may be used in Sanger sequencing.
3. PCR may also be used for genetic fingerprinting; a forensic technique used to identify a person or organism by comparing experimental DNAs through different PCR-based methods. It can also be used for the DNA fingerprinting of plants.
4. It can also be used in the analysis of ancient DNA that is tens of thousands of years old.
5. PCR is used for the identification of non-cultivable or slow-growing microorganisms such as mycobacteria, anaerobic bacteria or viruses from tissue culture assays.

And here is Love's writing Transgenic Hydras & Parasites A Biological Weapons System For Rapid Human Cloning.

Love cross references to others, such as Madej, Botha, Martin, McCullough (to back up her individual comments), however is she going overboard with a cloning process - the as we stand and walk around with PCR's as a monitoring device, process?

Muddy waters.
 
Back
Top Bottom