Tag: vaccines

Covid Vaccines Contain Cancer Virus Fragments & Mutagenic DNA Contamination — Study

A peer-reviewed study published Sunday documented findings from Covid gene-therapy vaccine analysis conducted in the BSL-1 research facility at the FDA White Oak campus. The findings detailed how the mRNA injections contain fragments of SV40 cancer virus, as well as DNA contamination.

“Using 4 vials of experimental mRNA vaccines, we found that two out of four vials of those experimental mRNA vaccines contained residual plasmid DNA that transformed Escherichia coli cells. We subsequently applied our method to assess 2 separate lots of Pfizer COVID-19 mRNA vaccines and found no replication-competent plasmid DNA. However, these authorized vaccines do contain residual DNA to a level that exceeds 10 ng per dose,” the study said in the ‘Abstract’ section.

While SV40 cancer virus fragments were detected, the researchers stated that since it was just fragments it’s unlikely they’d have the same carcinogenic effect as fully intact SV40 cancer viruses, yet may still cause localized reactions.

It should be noted however that other researchers have detected larger SV40 cancer virus fragments in their mRNA Covid vaccine samples.

“Although some investigators have reported the presence of larger DNA fragments with SV40 promoter/enhancer from the commercial mRNA vaccines (18), our results showed the efficient digestion of plasmid DNA in Pfizer COVID-19 mRNA vaccines,” the study said in the ‘Discussion’ section. “Since we only detected DNA fragments < 35 bp in our study, it is practically unlikely for these broken pieces of SV40 promoters to be functional. The plasmid DNA template does not contain oncogenes. Therefore, it is less likely that these DNA fragments will be oncogenic or infectious. Smaller DNA fragments can be immunostimulatory, contributing to local reactions after vaccination.”

Perhaps ironically, the impetus of this study was to “report a simple method to detect residual replication-competent plasmid DNA that is present in mRNA vaccines as impurities” in order to “suggest that stringent and transparent monitoring of DNA impurity may aid in the buildup of public trust in mRNA vaccines.”

Keep reading

Vermont Supreme Court Ruling Allows Schools to Administer COVID Vaccines Without Parents’ Consent

Numerous mainstream media outlets are deliberately lying to American parents about the law regarding COVID-19 vaccines.

In August, Vermont’s Supreme Court that ruled a 6-year-old boy administered a COVID-19 vaccine against his parents’ specific instructions that he not be jabbed has no state tort remedies, and that the family’s sole recourse is a federal claim requiring proof of serious bodily harm or death to proceed.

All other traditional causes of action for violating these parents’ rights, and fundamental constitutional informed consent protections for patients, are extinguished completely. And yet, numerous media outlets reported the precise opposite. This is blatant misinformation.

The Associated Press (AP) launched an utter deception titled falsely: “Fact Focus: Vermont ruling does not say schools can vaccinate children without parental consent.” This is the opposite of the truth: Politella v. Windham Southeast School District, et al. held exactly that:

“Other state courts faced with similar facts have concluded that state-law claims against immunized defendants cannot proceed in state court in light of the PREP Act’s immunity and preemption provisions, including claims based on the failure to secure parental consent.”

In support of its abject lie, the AP cited a Vermont Law School professor:

“Rod Smolla, president of the Vermont Law and Graduate School and an expert on constitutional law, told The Associated Press that the ruling ‘merely holds that the federal statute at issue, the PREP Act, preempts state lawsuits in cases in which officials mistakenly administer a vaccination without consent.’

“‘Nothing in the Vermont Supreme Court opinion states that school officials can vaccinate a child against the instructions of the parent,’ he wrote in an email.”

Professor Smolla is an embarrassment to the Vermont Law School of which he is President. Politella specifically holds that all state tort claims, including those alleging willful jabbing, are preempted by federal law.

In observable fact, the court ruled that the Politella family could not proceed with their case — even though the complaint alleges that the school “vaccinated a child against the instructions of the parent.” Where did professor Smolla not learn the law? — a 6-year-old can read the case and see the falsehood of his statement.

The Politella court specifically determined that “each defendant is immune from plaintiffs’ state-law claims, all of which are causally related to the administration of the vaccine to [the minor child] L.P.”

Keep reading

Court Upholds $7.8 Million Verdict For Transit Workers Fired For Refusing COVID-19 Vaccine

A federal judge in California has rejected an effort by Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) to overturn a jury verdict that awarded $7.8 million to six former employees who were fired for refusing to comply with the agency’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate on religious grounds.

In a Dec. 30 order, Judge William A. Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California acknowledged minor “imperfections” in the jury trial—including flawed instructions to the jurors—and determined they were not severe enough to invalidate the jury’s October decision requiring BART to pay each of the six former workers between $1.2 million and $1.5 million.

Alsup denied BART’s post-trial motions to overturn the verdict and seek a new trial, saying that the agency failed to demonstrate that accommodating the employees’ religious objections would have posed an undue hardship.

“Simply put, on the instructions given and evidence received, a reasonable jury could have found that BART had not carried its burden of proving its affirmative defense,” Alsup wrote, referring to the fact that, in order to prevail in the case, BART had to prove that granting accommodations such as masking, testing, or remote work in lieu of vaccination would have imposed an undue burden on the agency.

BART’s defense relied heavily on expert testimony to argue that no alternative measures were as effective as vaccination against COVID-19, with the judge noting that the agency claimed it had presented “‘unrebutted’ scientific expert testimony” to that effect. However, Alsup noted that the jury was entitled to weigh the credibility of the experts, particularly given their financial ties to the agency.

“In light of the large sums paid to the experts by BART, our jury was entitled to find that they were ‘bought and paid for,’ were merely parroting the ‘company line,’ and were not credible in light of their bias, common sense, and other evidence,” the judge wrote. “An expert witness is like any other witness, and it is up to the jury to decide how much weight their testimony deserves.”

Keep reading

2025: Derailing Trump with Bird Flu & the Resurrection of the mRNA Vaccine

Over these last few days of 2024, there has been a plethora of news warning about a possible bird flu pandemic in 2025.

I know what you’re thinking. Karen, couldn’t you have picked a more positive topic for the last day of the year?

Maybe tomorrow.

We need to remind ourselves about mRNA vaccines and that pesky bird flu and a few of the crazy things that we’ve been subjected to so we can better face the crazy things to come.

So, let’s start with Magical mRNA.

“You can basically do anything with synthetic RNA/DNA. It’s like a computer program…. You could probably stop aging, reverse it if you want. You could turn someone into a frigging butterfly if you want with the right sequence. I mean, caterpillars do it.” ~ Elon Musk

As we go through this short piece, remember Musk’s words and remind yourself that it isn’t just about disease or even money, our conditioned obsession with heath and curing it with drugs is the most critical method transhumanists have to convince he masses to allow themselves to be experimented on.

Just yesterday, Newsweek warned:

The first severe human bird flu case in the United States was reported in Louisiana earlier this month.

Genetic analysis found the virus had mutated, making it more easily transmissible to humans, the CDC said.

The agency called the mutations “concerning’ and “a reminder that A(H5N1) viruses can develop changes during the clinical course of a human infection.”

For President Trump, this could be like Groundhog Day. Not only will he be expected to stop World War III; he might just need to save us from another pandemic.

Only this time, half the population isn’t going to believe any of it.

  • Will he order another “Operation Warp Speed?”
  • What if people really do start dying, not just the elderly, but young people. Children. Will he be blamed for how unprepared we are?
  • All those middle America folks who voted for Trump, all the farmers and laborers, how much will they suffer?
  • And if Trump starts deporting the illegals who work on the farms, will the farmers suddenly decide illegals aren’t so bad after all and turn against Trump?
  • Who will be willing to take the place of desperate illegal workers who work for low wages and are willing to put their health in danger?
  • Which experts will Trump choose to advise him? It won’t be Dr. Fauci. What will Robert Kennedy Jr recommend, will he suddenly start supporting vaccines?

A second pandemic doesn’t bode well for a nation so divided, especially when it was the first pandemic that made us this way. A pandemic that our government says it still doesn’t know where it came from.

“The Pandemic clock is ticking.”

So says Dr. Michael Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, urging officials to examine what they learned during the COVID-19 pandemic and use it to prepare for the next pandemic. That should set off all sorts of alarm bells.

Keep reading

PREP Act Empowers Gov’t to ‘Administer’ Drugs, Biological Products, Devices to Citizens in Secret

Big Picture: The Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act, codified at 42 U.S. Code § 247d–6d, grants the government extraordinary authority to deploy countermeasures during public health emergencies. These powers allow for sweeping actions that include administering drugs, devices, or biological products to populations—without requiring public knowledge or consent. Signed into law by President George W. Bush on December 30, 2005, as part of the Department of Defense appropriations bill (H.R. 2863), the PREP Act was intended to prepare the nation for biological threats but has since raised questions about accountability and transparency.

Focus: The PREP Act’s language reveals how liability immunity, broad discretion for the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), and exemptions from disclosure requirements create an alarming framework for secretive government actions.

Keep reading

Researchers Funded by Bill Gates Turn Mosquitoes into ‘Flying Syringes’ to Deliver Vaccines

Researchers at Leiden University Medical Center, backed by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, have developed a new method of delivering malaria vaccines using genetically modified mosquitoes as “flying vaccinators.”

The Blaze reports that in a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, scientists have demonstrated the effectiveness of using mosquitoes as “flying syringes” to vaccinate humans against malaria. The research, conducted at the Leiden University Medical Center (LUMC) in the Netherlands with funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, represents a new and potentially worrying advancement in vaccine technology.

The study involved genetically modifying malaria parasites to stop developing after a certain period of time in the human body. The modified parasites, named GA1 and GA2, were designed to prime the immune system without causing a full-blown malaria infection. Researchers then infected mosquitoes with these engineered parasites and allowed them to bite human test subjects in a controlled setting.

Keep reading

30 Questions For an mRNA Shot Straddler

Remarkably, despite overwhelming evidence of harm, I still encounter the odd person expressing enthusiasm for getting their next mRNA injection. It’s like they’re waiting for a Toblerone bar in their Christmas stocking.

I used to think such an enthusiast was reachable.

I no longer believe so.

They will not be susceptible to any new information that makes them question their sacrament, even if that information is offered in the spirit of saving their lives.

A true believer would rather go to their grave than be wrong.

But I also encounter quite a few straddlers—those who are not particularly invested in a tribal-identity belief regarding their vax status but simply took an injection, or even a booster or two, because they wanted to fly somewhere on vacation, or see a concert, or because their employer said so, and they heard it was “Safe and Effective”, so what’s the harm?

These people, I believe, may be reachable with some strategic Did-You-Know questions.

Did-You-Know questions are respectful—you’re not insulting anyone’s intelligence by telling them they’re wrong, or telling them what to believe. Instead, you’re appealing to their intelligence by offering them something to consider on their own.

The point, as always, is not to convince anyone of anything. It’s to get them thinking for themselves.

Keep reading

Lockdown Fanatic Leana Wen Pushing Bird Flu Jabs Before Trump Takes Office

Leana Wen – the former Baltimore Health Commissioner who burst onto the scene during the Boston Marathon Bombing – only to recommend forcing the unvaccinated to remain indoors during the COVID pandemic – is now pushing the Biden administration to expedite the approval of a bird flu vaccine before Donald Trump’s inauguration.

During a Sunday interview with CBS News‘s “Face the Nation,” Wen said “There are two main things they should be doing in the days that they have left,” adding “The first is to get testing out there… we should have learned out lesson from Covid that just because we are not testing, it doesn’t mean the virus isn’t there.”

Wen then said that the “second very important thing” is that the Biden administration work to secure FDA authorization for the widespread use of bird flu vaccine, adding that Trump has “people coming in with anti-vaccine stance.”

Keep reading

Did COVID Vaccines Cost More Lives Than They Saved? Public Deserves a Rigorous, Truthful Evaluation

“Do you think there would have been less deaths overall if we hadn’t had a vaccine?”

This question was posed to Dr. Aseem Malhotra by Steven Bartlett during an interview on Bartlett’s podcast “Diary of a CEO.” To which Malhotra responded simply “Yes.”

Full Fact, a fact-checking organization, has written a verdict on Malhotra’s answer, claiming: “False. There is clear evidence that the vaccines saved far more lives than they cost.”

Part I: The illusion of certainty — Deconstructing claims of vaccine efficacy

The assertion that “There is clear evidence” of COVID-19 vaccines’ benefits outweighing their harms” exemplifies a dangerous oversimplification of complex medical realities.

This claim, often propagated by fact-checkers and mainstream narratives, fails to acknowledge the fundamental limitations in our current understanding and the methodological flaws inherent in much of the existing research.

The missing gold standard: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs)

In evidence-based medicine, properly conducted RCTs measuring all-cause mortality are the gold standard for determining an intervention’s overall impact. For COVID-19 vaccines, no such trials have demonstrated an all-cause mortality benefit.

The original trials were not designed or powered to detect differences in all-cause mortality, and follow-up periods were too short to capture long-term effects. Without this crucial evidence, claims of clear benefit are premature at best and misleading at worst.

The pitfalls of observational studies

In the absence of robust RCT data, fact-checkers often turn to observational studies. However, these studies are fraught with potential biases that consistently overestimate benefits and underestimate harm:

Selection distortion: Healthy user bias and time-dependent effects inflate apparent vaccine benefits and mask potential harms due to inherent differences in vaccinated groups and changing study conditions.

Temporal misclassification: Survivorship bias and miscategorization of vaccination status in early post-injection periods artificially inflate efficacy estimates and underestimate potential harms.

Classification bias: Vaccine status classification errors occur in a single direction, with the vaccinated often misclassified as unvaccinated. This results in infections and harms in the vaccinated being misattributed to the unvaccinated group, overestimating benefits and underestimating harms.

Reporting bias: Systematic underreporting of adverse events following vaccination due to factors like lack of recognition, dismissal of potential vaccine-related causes, or fear of professional repercussions leads to underestimation of vaccine risks and overstates safety.

Publication bias: The preferential publication and promotion of studies showing positive vaccine effects, coupled with the suppression or non-publication of studies showing no effect or negative effects, skews the overall body of evidence and public perception.

Keep reading

Key senator says U.S. vaccine safety system failing, urges reforms to testing and liability

Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., who next month will begin overseeing the Senate’s most powerful investigative body, says the government’s vaccine safety system is no longer protecting Americans adequately because of conflicts of interest and lack of transparency, and he is vowing to work with the incoming Trump administration to press for sweeping reforms.

Those reforms could range from changing the vaccine liability protections of drug makers to taxpayer funding and other changes to insure the independence of safety testing, he told Just the News.

“The best solution for this is actually make these products safer, and do real science to determine whether there are certain conditions that make you more vulnerable,” Johnson said in a wide-ranging interview on the Just the News, No Noise television show.

Asked whether the current safety system led by the Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was adequately protecting Americans, Johnson answered: “I would say absolutely not.”

Keep reading