Safe and effective whole-population vaccination against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the only long-term solution to the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic [1]
The only long-term solution?
This study does not show that, let alone prove it, yet it's in there as a fait a compli.
I've seen that kind of language in paper after paper. Here's Cavalcanti:
"We await a vaccine"
Of course, that paper turned out to be hiding the fact that ~40% of the control group was medicated! It's amazing what you find when you dig into biomedical research. There are some good people in there, but it's a dirty field on the whole.
I suspect this language is to bypass the gatekeepers at the journals. Write a clearly pro-vaccine statement up front so you can spend the rest of the paper showing the exact opposite.
I don't think these authors *meant* to "show the opposite". In fact, a friend pointed out signs that they may have toned down some information on that level. But publication may have been unavoidable for them for any number of reasons.
The pro-mask studies are all aerosol studies, showing that masks reduce the virus load in the air from, for example, one million per m² to one thousand per m² - a dramatically improvement.
The counter argument: Ten virus particles are enough for an infection. Studies about super spreading events have shown that the distance from the spreader (therefore the virus concentration in the air) didn't matter - people got infected regardless if they were 2 or 20 meters away.
Another counter argument: Droplets fall to the bottom. Masks hold the droplets until they dry out, releasing the viruses into the air.
There are three types of mask studies: Aerosol studies, observational studies and randomized controlled trials.
Every single aerosol study could show that masks lower the amount of Fauchi-droplets spread in a room or inhaled in. They can show that N95s are better than surgical masks. But they cannot answer if this makes a difference in real life. One article that cites aerosol studies to scare people to death:
The observational studies are incomplete because they cannot guarantee that one group was always masked up and the other never. So they compare the results of mask mandates instead. This one by the CDC is cited often:
After using all statistical magic in the book and adjusting the reference and observation periods to get the desired results, they got a 0-2% reduction in the death rate. But they claimed this means "Mask mandates were associated with statistically significant decreases in county-level daily COVID-19 case and death growth rates", and this was the result communicated to the press.
The randomized controlled trials are discussed here:
Some randomized controlled trials were done in Denmark because it allowed for a setting where mask wearing was uncommon. They divide people into two groups, one group were told to wear masks, to find out if masks protect the wearer (not others). The results were not positive, one example:
I disagree on the pro-mask studies. Most are models not even proper studies. The rest are observational studies showing schools have lower rates of infection than the surrounding area, and therefore masks work...but there aren't any control groups to have any idea which interventions if any made any difference.
The aerosol studies show that nothing short of N95 does a damn and N95 is only helpful in reducing the odds of catching, not transmitting, and only if VERY well fitted.
Not sure if you've seen this study on myocarditis following smallpox vaccine, but it is amazing in its parallels
"The myocarditis/pericarditis incidence rate for the post-SPX cohort was 463 per 100,000 (95% CI 150–1079 per 100,000)."
"...when compared to the published background rate of MP in a comparable population of service members not exposed to SPX immunization (detailed in Table 3)[3], the relative risk of clinical MP was 214 fold higher (95% CI (65–558); p<0.001) than the published background rate. "
"Prior to the present study, the incidence of MP following smallpox vaccination was estimated from passive surveillance registries and population databases, with an inherent bias towards underestimation of disease incidence. "
Engler RJ, Nelson MR, Collins LC Jr, et al. A prospective study of the incidence of myocarditis/pericarditis and new onset cardiac symptoms following smallpox and influenza vaccination. PLoS One. 2015;10(3):e0118283. Published 2015 Mar 20. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0118283-2198(21)00702-9.
Mathew, are you familiar with the concern that the spike protein includes a prion folding domain that is likely to cause a neurological syndrome similar to Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease? I don't have the knowledge base and experience to evaluate those claims, and I don't know who would. But this is my nightmare: everyone with spike protein in their blood, whether from the virus or the vaccines, turning slowly into sponge brained zombies.
I have not weighed in on the topic because my demand for data analysis has been high (I could hire a staff of 5 to help me and maybe keep up), and I'm constantly learning more biology, biochemistry, genetics, and medical knowledge in order to keep up. I'm also dyslexic, which limits my reading time, but not my analysis and writing time. As best I can, I try to strike a balance in impact, and don't feel responsible for not commenting where I have too little knowledge. To any extent I go outside my comfort zone, I try to make it clear where I'm more or less confident in my analysis or opinions at any time. This feels like an economical balance.
"Canadian immunologist and vaccine researcher Byram Bridle, Ph.D., has gained access to Pfizer’s biodistribution study from the Japanese regulatory agency. The research, previously unseen, demonstrates a huge problem with all COVID-19 vaccines"
"The assumption that vaccine developers have been working with is that the mRNA in the vaccines would primarily remain in and around the vaccination site. Pfizer’s data, however, show the mRNA and subsequent spike protein are widely distributed in the body within hours"
"It used to be normal practice when giving an injection to make sure that the tip of the needle wasn’t in a blood vessel.... But the authorities in the UK (and I suspect elsewhere) apparently decreed that jabbers should not check to see if the needle was in a vein. They told doctors and nurses (and others) to just stick the needle into an arm, depress the plunger and call the next patient." -Vernon Coleman
"After spending 20 hours of research, I found there are no animal biodistribution studies of mRNA vaccines done by Pfizer, Moderna, or J and J published on an internet search."
"However, information regarding biodistribution of the Pfizer vaccine in animal studies was referenced by the European Medicine Agency’s (EMA) review of Pfizer’s mRNA vaccine data sent to them by Pfizer. This information is found on the internet leading us to assume, yes, biodistribution studies in animals were conducted by Pfizer. I am giving you the technical version so you can see for yourself the actual data reviewed by EMA."
More interesting info about the obfuscation of studies and Pfizer claims such as "The Applicant refers to that as they (Safety pharmacology studies) are not considered necessary according to the WHO guideline"
"No traditional pharmacokinetic or biodistribution studies have been performed with the vaccine candidate BNT162b2"
"The applicant has determined the pharmacokinetics of the two novel LNP excipients ALC-0315 (aminolipid) and ALC-0159 (PEG-lipid) in plasma and liver as well as their elimination and metabolism in rats"
"Following plasma clearance, the liver appears to be to major organ to which ALC-0315 and ALC-0159 distribute. The applicant has estimated the percent of dose distributed to the liver to be ~60% for ALC-0315 and ~20% for ALC-0159. The observed liver distribution is consistent with the observations from the biodistribution study and the repeat-dose toxicology, both using IM administration"
"The biodistribution was also studied in rats using radiolabeled LNP and luciferase modRNA (study 185350). The radiolabeling data, measuring distribution to blood, plasma and selected tissues, of IM injection of a single dose of 50 μg mRNA over a 48-hour period is considered more sensitive than the bioluminescence method and indicate a broader biodistribution pattern than was observed with bioluminescence. Over 48 hours, distribution from the injection site to most tissues occurred, with the majority of tissues exhibiting low levels of radioactivity."
I was merely being polite, Mr. Crawford, since I do not know you. I would really like to help and I do not require pay. Is there any way to contact you privately?
"Careful histopathological examination of the heart is required in any case of fatality following COVID-19 mRNA vaccines as myocarditis can be focal or masquerade as ischemic heart disease in older patients."
Does this mean everyone who dies following the vax needs an autopsy?
Literally almost every pharmacy is doing these shots, and only now we find out that a little matter of injection technique can kill someone?
"Does this mean everyone who dies following the vax needs an autopsy?"
This is one of the big scandals. In every nation performing autopsies, there is a claim of substantial proportions of causality...with the sole exception of the U.S.
The number of autopsies performed in the U.S. is unclear. There are 200ish mentions of "autopsy" in VAERS reports, but in the entire past 20 months, there are hardly any published either for COVID or for the vaccines. This is either astounding stupidity or astounding corruption. Ahem.
In email threads I've been on, including recently with a reuters fact checker (ha)...she claimed that the FDA said they've examined bodies and found nothing. I asked her if they shred those autopsy reports with her and she hasn't responded since. Um... they certainly haven't shared them with any of the dozens of people I've talked with about it.
PEG in mRNA vaccines contributing to clots as well? Did you know PEG makes up 90% of Vaping liquid? And vaping has been tied to heart and lung blood clots? Here’s more information: The affidavit mentions PEG. One comment I saw pointed out that it’s used in e-cigarette/vaping.
So that reminded me, wasn’t there an issue with young men having heart or lung trouble with vaping? Maybe instead of the nicotine, PEG was the culprit all along?
“Propylene glycol, on the other hand, is considerably less toxic than ethylene glycol and may be labeled as “non-toxic antifreeze”. It is used as antifreeze where ethylene glycol would be inappropriate, such as in food-processing systems or in water pipes in homes where incidental ingestion may be possible. As confirmation of its relative non-toxicity, the FDA allows propylene glycol to be added to a large number of processed foods, including ice cream, frozen custard, salad dressings and baked goods,
👉👉👉it is also often a main ingredient of E-cigarette liquid (E-liquid or E-juice).”
In 2019 this report on vaping talked about side effects that sound very similar to severe Covid effects:
“More than 450 people across 33 states have been affected by serious lung illnesses associated with vaping and six people
have died.”
“The illness is defined by severe pneumonia symptoms, shortness of breath, coughing, fever, fatigue, and respiratory failure, and has so far affected mostly young people. In one case documented in the Midwest, the patient also had a pneumothorax, or collapsed lung.
👉👉Federal health officials are
still trying to determine what ingredient
or ingredients in vaping liquids is making people sick and whether the current outbreak is a new phenomenon or part of a long-running epidemic that is only now surfacing.”
“one day he started having trouble breathing. Days later, he was at the hospital getting intubated and placed on a ventilator.”
“wanted to warn his friends about the dangers of using e-cigarettes when he posted photos of his lungs covered in black dots.
Could these black dots be blood clots? Answer: yes!
Here’s one from Sept 7, 2021: vaping raises a user's risk of blood clots, damage small blood vessels and can also raise heart rate and blood pressure, a new study finds.
“Vaping juice ingredients are composed of the following essential components: water, food flavoring, nicotine or zero nicotine, and propylene glycol (PG) or vegetable glycerin (VG). About 10% of the ingredients in vape juice are the flavorings, water, and nicotine, and the remaining 90% is PG or VG fluid.”
Seems like injecting PEG, even in small doses, may be extremely dangerous.
What do you think of the peg idea? If there’s studies already showing that it causes similar Covid symptoms couldn’t there be a direct correlation tied to the Covid vaccine and placed more doubt in peoples minds?
Are there black dots on lungs of Covid patients as well as vaxxed patients with complications?
This is a picture of a person with Covid lung damage. So spike protein is likely causing this, right?
What’s interesting here is that PEG comes wit the lipid nanoparticle that is going inside each and every cell where it’s triggering the body to also make spike protein. So maybe it’s a double whammy?
PEG (polyethylene glycol) is not in vape liquid, it's propylene glycol and glycerin. PEG comes in various molecular weights and is (usually?) a powder. It's also used as a laxative.
Ugh. I feel like a dope! Thank you so much for pointing out one is PEG and one is PG. What’s weird is the current advice to people who are concerned about allergic reaction to vax, that one way of knowing if it’s a concern is are you allergic to Miralax,a powdered laxative? Which I feel is weird because wouldn’t injecting PEG into your muscle or veins be even MORE dangerous? I have a friend who’s doctor told her, most people who have allergic reactions are fine if they take a Benadryl. 😳🙄
Don't feel bad, I've made the same error myself. We're all just here trying to help each other put the puzzle together, and you brought some interesting info. I was unaware of the clotting in the vaping victims. Yes, injecting PEG seems insane under any circumstance, no matter how dilute, and it is in a lot of processed foods, so is PG. I imagine that's one of the reasons the incidence of GI disorders are so high these days, people can develop a sensitivity to it and it starts causing inflammation. I developed a sensitivity to PG where my vape liquid was leaking on my skin. When I figured it out I switched to glycerin and stopped taking an oral medication which had a lot of PG in it. I had 40 stubborn, excess pounds which disappeared after I did that, with no change in diet.
And there's the opinion that the mystery vaping sicknesses may have actually been an early incidence of "COVID", though it's odd it was occurring in young people, and I believe it was ultimately attributed to some vitamin supplement they were putting specifically in cannabis vapes. Pop in to any online vaping community and they'll all tell you their health has never been better since switching to vaping. There may be an instance where PEG has found its way into vape liquid, but it's not something that would be deliberately added.
It could have been a trial with a none-airborne version of the virus. The widely accepted explanation was that cannabis often gets treated with an anti-fungal stuff that creates cyanide under some conditions.
I am curious, if you have any links referring directly to PEG in vape juice, please share them, but in general I think you're conflating PEG with PG. Understandable given how monstrously un-pronouncable many chemicals can be.
That Li paper is disturbing, to say the least. However, I'm not sure that the dosages they used aren't enormous compared to the normal human dosages. They are injecting the mice with 5ug of vaccine, while the dose/fatality plot seems to show only 30ug or 100ug doses for humans. I think maybe I'm comparing apples to oranges with these numbers, but if not, the Li paper isn't as scary.
They pumped the mice full because they wanted to see where the stuff accumulates so they can then look closer at exactly these organs in the follow-up studies with humans. They claim that they have found nothing then.
It is important to understand the doses, for sure. That can scale by mass, with an adjustment, most but not all of the time. Regardless...we see the same problem. Maybe in a more advanced stage, but it is the same problem. Combining that with the lognormalize mortality curve is what becomes so compelling.
Pete, also remember that the "Kamal curve" is lognormalized. Don't think of the rat doses as huge, but the human doses as small relative to weight. Then realize that the rats are just further along the linearized curve. What would be interesting is to inject a few thousand rats with four different mRNA doses. That would answer the question very quickly.
We should let authorities know this is now their responsibility.
True enough. The vet had me give my pet a half dose of human medicine, despite being only a fraction of the weight. I wish they had explained their rationale.
Peter Dasak and Eco Health Alliance are all over this story and quoted. Could they have used the aerosolized version of the virus Dasak wanted to partner with DARPA on? Which DARPA turned down but Eco health alliance got funding for elsewhere?
Here are some interesting quotes from that April 2018 article above:
“To see if the virus had the capacity to jump to humans, the investigators conducted tests on the blood of 35 farm workers who had close contact with the sick pigs, and none were positive for SADS-CoV exposure.”
“They also said that new technological tools, such as next-generation sequencing, (PCR tests using genomic sequence databases?) can be performed rapidly
👉before👈 the virus is isolated.” [in this doc, the FDA admits that sars cov-2 virus wasn’t (still hasn’t been) technically isolated. https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download]
Then there’s this, Summer 2019: “Chinese military researchers were part of a project that created mice with “humanized” lungs — apparently to test the infectiousness of various viruses.” But when the NSC investigators worked backward to establish a timeline for the study, they realized that the critters were created sometime during summer 2019 — before the coronavirus pandemic exploded, according to Vanity Fair.
To recap, Fauci gave money for years to groups to make humanized mice to do experiments to see how the human immune system responds to immune challenges. This was largely shut down in June 2019 by Trump. Then China, again, picks up the baton to do similar off-the-books research on humanized mice. Previously, this was the kind of research being done in the USA: “From the aborted fetuses, thymus, liver, spleen and full-thickness skin were transplanted and grafted onto the rodents and allowed to grow. Then the rodent models were given a staph infection on the skin to study how the internal organs responded,” she added. The human skin grafted over the rib cages of rodents grew blood vessels and immune cells, and human hair grew on the grafted fetal scalps. As Trasancos notes, “Images literally show a patch of baby hair growing on a mouse’s back.”
The research was supported by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), which has been headed by Anthony Fauci, M.D., since 1984. NIAID has partnered this year with Pharmaceutical giant Moderna to develop a COVID-19 vaccine.
So much of this article is over my head, but when I went to the Li study (the abstract) it suggested to my layman mind that myopericarditis (which I assume to be heart issues) was not a problem:
"Methods
We compared the clinical manifestations, histopathological changes, tissue mRNA expression, and serum levels of cytokine/chemokine in Balb/c mice at different time points after intravenous (IV) or intramuscular (IM) vaccine injection with normal saline (NS) control.
Results
Although significant weight loss and higher serum cytokine/chemokine levels were found in IM group at 1–2 days post-injection (dpi), only IV group developed histopathological changes of myopericarditis "
My understanding is that the J&J, etc., vaccines are given in the muscle, not by IV. The Li study says only the IV group had issues.
I so wish someone could translate Matt Crawford's terrific articles into laymen terms.
I have been running with a similar, but different theory of etiology. It is not that teen and younger adult men have more muscle mass overall, but that the *portion* of capillary blood-flow in the heart, even though it is small, is not nearly as small as it will be after later fat / muscle gain that occurs with aging. The lower incidence among older men is just a statistical artifact of overall population body mass.
In other words, teen males are selected into the vulnerable group as their hearts grow larger with puberty and then selected back out of it as the rest of their body grows with age (leading to proliferation of vessels / capillaries in added fat and muscle).
This would predict that it is *leaner, less muscular* young men who are more affected, which could be looked into if anyone was actually trying to clinically and systematically examine Covid vaccine recipients (but that's crazy talk!). You could also say that the inadvertent intravenous injection problem selects for leaner shoulders as well - but not if lots of injections are actually going into the arm anyway. For all we know for now, dispersion of the spike script throughout the body is either universal or random across all body types.
I think there is also more subclinical myocarditis among women than men, as women seem to experience cardiac distress as diffuse pain, sometimes not even near the heart, more often than men.
As you acknowledged, there is still the hope that the Covid vaccine-induced myocardial inflammation is not tethered to the same actual tissue destruction as normal myocarditis, and doesn't have the same prognosis. But it it's from spike expression, those cells are toast. I don't peg the likely final value of additional deaths in 5 figures. I fear it's 8 at least (or, would be if not for the "discount" from all the other mortal harms).
Something odd is going on with Mokeddum's data. He identifies a total of 2554 deaths from the mRNA vaccines, through Sept. 13. This seems too small compared to other reports about VAERS contents. There's a dialog about this in the comments section at the article, and Mokeddum posted his code, but I don't feel the issue is resolved.
This "The Li animal model study and others such as Payvandi et al (2021, N = 30) do not include enough individuals to observe whether 1% or 0.1% or 0.01% of the vaccinated population (intramuscular injection) are likely to see mRNA create spike protein that leaks into the blood"
Made me think for the first times.in terms of risk/benefit analysis for younger people in terms of a very particular thing. Meaning, if risk of serious harm from covid is LESS than the chance of Myocarditis if given the injection, then that should be a no brainer that these vaccines should not be given to anyone who's physiology makes them more at risk. Especially when, whatever protection is granted (i am still doubtful that it is ANY to be honest because of the narrow focus on just spike in the vaccines) is so poor.
Under these circumstances it sounds like we are weaking part of the body that makes Covid more deadly in youths, through the use of vaccines made to protect against covid, which are themselves non sterilizing and weak and grant no immunity.
Youth gets shot, gets myocarditas (at any percent higher than risk from covid) and THEN catches a breakthrough case of covid. Effectively caused a significant portion of people to become weaker, not stronger.
Quite the opposite of "do not harm."
Hopefully what I wrote makes sense... I'll revisit it tomorrow.
How do they get away with opening with:
Safe and effective whole-population vaccination against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the only long-term solution to the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic [1]
The only long-term solution?
This study does not show that, let alone prove it, yet it's in there as a fait a compli.
I've seen that kind of language in paper after paper. Here's Cavalcanti:
"We await a vaccine"
Of course, that paper turned out to be hiding the fact that ~40% of the control group was medicated! It's amazing what you find when you dig into biomedical research. There are some good people in there, but it's a dirty field on the whole.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2026913?query=recirc_mostViewed_railB_article
I suspect this language is to bypass the gatekeepers at the journals. Write a clearly pro-vaccine statement up front so you can spend the rest of the paper showing the exact opposite.
I don't think these authors *meant* to "show the opposite". In fact, a friend pointed out signs that they may have toned down some information on that level. But publication may have been unavoidable for them for any number of reasons.
The pro-mask studies are all aerosol studies, showing that masks reduce the virus load in the air from, for example, one million per m² to one thousand per m² - a dramatically improvement.
The counter argument: Ten virus particles are enough for an infection. Studies about super spreading events have shown that the distance from the spreader (therefore the virus concentration in the air) didn't matter - people got infected regardless if they were 2 or 20 meters away.
Another counter argument: Droplets fall to the bottom. Masks hold the droplets until they dry out, releasing the viruses into the air.
The "masks work" studies I've seen have been bogus. What's the best one?
There are three types of mask studies: Aerosol studies, observational studies and randomized controlled trials.
Every single aerosol study could show that masks lower the amount of Fauchi-droplets spread in a room or inhaled in. They can show that N95s are better than surgical masks. But they cannot answer if this makes a difference in real life. One article that cites aerosol studies to scare people to death:
https://elpais.com/especiales/coronavirus-covid-19/a-room-a-bar-and-a-class-how-the-coronavirus-is-spread-through-the-air/
The observational studies are incomplete because they cannot guarantee that one group was always masked up and the other never. So they compare the results of mask mandates instead. This one by the CDC is cited often:
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7010e3.htm
After using all statistical magic in the book and adjusting the reference and observation periods to get the desired results, they got a 0-2% reduction in the death rate. But they claimed this means "Mask mandates were associated with statistically significant decreases in county-level daily COVID-19 case and death growth rates", and this was the result communicated to the press.
The randomized controlled trials are discussed here:
https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/do-masks-work-review-evidence
Some randomized controlled trials were done in Denmark because it allowed for a setting where mask wearing was uncommon. They divide people into two groups, one group were told to wear masks, to find out if masks protect the wearer (not others). The results were not positive, one example:
https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817
They used surgical masks, citing a meta study that showed that there is no difference between surgical masks and N95 in protecting against influenza:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32167245/
A lot of mask studies are pure garbage. Have you seen this?
https://rumble.com/vjt3qx-2-just-wear-a-mask-or-youll-kill-grandma-v2.html
I disagree on the pro-mask studies. Most are models not even proper studies. The rest are observational studies showing schools have lower rates of infection than the surrounding area, and therefore masks work...but there aren't any control groups to have any idea which interventions if any made any difference.
The aerosol studies show that nothing short of N95 does a damn and N95 is only helpful in reducing the odds of catching, not transmitting, and only if VERY well fitted.
would you email me the 11 studies please? medinnus@hotmail.com
You rock! Thank you so much!
Not sure if you've seen this study on myocarditis following smallpox vaccine, but it is amazing in its parallels
"The myocarditis/pericarditis incidence rate for the post-SPX cohort was 463 per 100,000 (95% CI 150–1079 per 100,000)."
"...when compared to the published background rate of MP in a comparable population of service members not exposed to SPX immunization (detailed in Table 3)[3], the relative risk of clinical MP was 214 fold higher (95% CI (65–558); p<0.001) than the published background rate. "
"Prior to the present study, the incidence of MP following smallpox vaccination was estimated from passive surveillance registries and population databases, with an inherent bias towards underestimation of disease incidence. "
Engler RJ, Nelson MR, Collins LC Jr, et al. A prospective study of the incidence of myocarditis/pericarditis and new onset cardiac symptoms following smallpox and influenza vaccination. PLoS One. 2015;10(3):e0118283. Published 2015 Mar 20. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0118283-2198(21)00702-9.
Mathew, are you familiar with the concern that the spike protein includes a prion folding domain that is likely to cause a neurological syndrome similar to Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease? I don't have the knowledge base and experience to evaluate those claims, and I don't know who would. But this is my nightmare: everyone with spike protein in their blood, whether from the virus or the vaccines, turning slowly into sponge brained zombies.
I have not weighed in on the topic because my demand for data analysis has been high (I could hire a staff of 5 to help me and maybe keep up), and I'm constantly learning more biology, biochemistry, genetics, and medical knowledge in order to keep up. I'm also dyslexic, which limits my reading time, but not my analysis and writing time. As best I can, I try to strike a balance in impact, and don't feel responsible for not commenting where I have too little knowledge. To any extent I go outside my comfort zone, I try to make it clear where I'm more or less confident in my analysis or opinions at any time. This feels like an economical balance.
That's a very sensible and prudent answer. But if some random doc or cat whispers some credible thoughts in your ear, please do let us know? Thanks.
Bio-distribution study on the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine conducted in Japan titled “Pfizer Confidential“ tranlated to English
http://naturalnews.com/files/Pfizer-bio-distribution-confidential-document-translated-to-english.pdf
"Canadian immunologist and vaccine researcher Byram Bridle, Ph.D., has gained access to Pfizer’s biodistribution study from the Japanese regulatory agency. The research, previously unseen, demonstrates a huge problem with all COVID-19 vaccines"
"The assumption that vaccine developers have been working with is that the mRNA in the vaccines would primarily remain in and around the vaccination site. Pfizer’s data, however, show the mRNA and subsequent spike protein are widely distributed in the body within hours"
"It used to be normal practice when giving an injection to make sure that the tip of the needle wasn’t in a blood vessel.... But the authorities in the UK (and I suspect elsewhere) apparently decreed that jabbers should not check to see if the needle was in a vein. They told doctors and nurses (and others) to just stick the needle into an arm, depress the plunger and call the next patient." -Vernon Coleman
"After spending 20 hours of research, I found there are no animal biodistribution studies of mRNA vaccines done by Pfizer, Moderna, or J and J published on an internet search."
"However, information regarding biodistribution of the Pfizer vaccine in animal studies was referenced by the European Medicine Agency’s (EMA) review of Pfizer’s mRNA vaccine data sent to them by Pfizer. This information is found on the internet leading us to assume, yes, biodistribution studies in animals were conducted by Pfizer. I am giving you the technical version so you can see for yourself the actual data reviewed by EMA."
https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/assessment-report/comirnaty-epar-public-assessment-report_en.pdf
More interesting info about the obfuscation of studies and Pfizer claims such as "The Applicant refers to that as they (Safety pharmacology studies) are not considered necessary according to the WHO guideline"
https://regenerativemc.com/biodistribution-of-pfizer-covid-19-vaccine/
"No traditional pharmacokinetic or biodistribution studies have been performed with the vaccine candidate BNT162b2"
"The applicant has determined the pharmacokinetics of the two novel LNP excipients ALC-0315 (aminolipid) and ALC-0159 (PEG-lipid) in plasma and liver as well as their elimination and metabolism in rats"
"Following plasma clearance, the liver appears to be to major organ to which ALC-0315 and ALC-0159 distribute. The applicant has estimated the percent of dose distributed to the liver to be ~60% for ALC-0315 and ~20% for ALC-0159. The observed liver distribution is consistent with the observations from the biodistribution study and the repeat-dose toxicology, both using IM administration"
"The biodistribution was also studied in rats using radiolabeled LNP and luciferase modRNA (study 185350). The radiolabeling data, measuring distribution to blood, plasma and selected tissues, of IM injection of a single dose of 50 μg mRNA over a 48-hour period is considered more sensitive than the bioluminescence method and indicate a broader biodistribution pattern than was observed with bioluminescence. Over 48 hours, distribution from the injection site to most tissues occurred, with the majority of tissues exhibiting low levels of radioactivity."
Thanks, Matt. Although I do miss the old days where social media was good for a laugh
Interesting info about moderna dosage and the fact Swedish FHM recently went public on giving half dose for a 3rd moderna shot.
https://www.folkhalsomyndigheten.se/nyheter-och-press/nyhetsarkiv/2021/oktober/halv-dos-av-modernas-vaccin-mot-covid-19-rekommenderas-som-pafyllnadsdos/
And now they're halting the use of moderna for people below 30.
https://www.folkhalsomyndigheten.se/nyheter-och-press/nyhetsarkiv/2021/oktober/anvandningen-av-modernas-vaccin-mot-covid-19-pausas-for-alla-som-ar-fodda-1991-och-senare/
Dear Mr. Crawford, is there anything in your efforts that could benefit from someone doing programming?
You called me "Mr. Crawford", so I'm going to assume you're a former student...
Yes, much of my work could be sped up with a programmer, though I don't have a great budget to pay for the work.
I was merely being polite, Mr. Crawford, since I do not know you. I would really like to help and I do not require pay. Is there any way to contact you privately?
mathew.crawford@protonmail.com
Thank you, I sent an email to that address
"Careful histopathological examination of the heart is required in any case of fatality following COVID-19 mRNA vaccines as myocarditis can be focal or masquerade as ischemic heart disease in older patients."
Does this mean everyone who dies following the vax needs an autopsy?
Literally almost every pharmacy is doing these shots, and only now we find out that a little matter of injection technique can kill someone?
"Does this mean everyone who dies following the vax needs an autopsy?"
This is one of the big scandals. In every nation performing autopsies, there is a claim of substantial proportions of causality...with the sole exception of the U.S.
The number of autopsies performed in the U.S. is unclear. There are 200ish mentions of "autopsy" in VAERS reports, but in the entire past 20 months, there are hardly any published either for COVID or for the vaccines. This is either astounding stupidity or astounding corruption. Ahem.
In email threads I've been on, including recently with a reuters fact checker (ha)...she claimed that the FDA said they've examined bodies and found nothing. I asked her if they shred those autopsy reports with her and she hasn't responded since. Um... they certainly haven't shared them with any of the dozens of people I've talked with about it.
PEG in mRNA vaccines contributing to clots as well? Did you know PEG makes up 90% of Vaping liquid? And vaping has been tied to heart and lung blood clots? Here’s more information: The affidavit mentions PEG. One comment I saw pointed out that it’s used in e-cigarette/vaping.
So that reminded me, wasn’t there an issue with young men having heart or lung trouble with vaping? Maybe instead of the nicotine, PEG was the culprit all along?
“Propylene glycol, on the other hand, is considerably less toxic than ethylene glycol and may be labeled as “non-toxic antifreeze”. It is used as antifreeze where ethylene glycol would be inappropriate, such as in food-processing systems or in water pipes in homes where incidental ingestion may be possible. As confirmation of its relative non-toxicity, the FDA allows propylene glycol to be added to a large number of processed foods, including ice cream, frozen custard, salad dressings and baked goods,
👉👉👉it is also often a main ingredient of E-cigarette liquid (E-liquid or E-juice).”
In 2019 this report on vaping talked about side effects that sound very similar to severe Covid effects:
“More than 450 people across 33 states have been affected by serious lung illnesses associated with vaping and six people
have died.”
“The illness is defined by severe pneumonia symptoms, shortness of breath, coughing, fever, fatigue, and respiratory failure, and has so far affected mostly young people. In one case documented in the Midwest, the patient also had a pneumothorax, or collapsed lung.
👉👉Federal health officials are
still trying to determine what ingredient
or ingredients in vaping liquids is making people sick and whether the current outbreak is a new phenomenon or part of a long-running epidemic that is only now surfacing.”
“one day he started having trouble breathing. Days later, he was at the hospital getting intubated and placed on a ventilator.”
“wanted to warn his friends about the dangers of using e-cigarettes when he posted photos of his lungs covered in black dots.
Could these black dots be blood clots? Answer: yes!
A quick search found TONS of information:
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=vaping+caused+blood+clots&t=iphone&ia=web
Here’s one from Sept 7, 2021: vaping raises a user's risk of blood clots, damage small blood vessels and can also raise heart rate and blood pressure, a new study finds.
https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2021-09-07/vaping-raises-blood-clotting-risks-harms-small-arteries-study
“Vaping juice ingredients are composed of the following essential components: water, food flavoring, nicotine or zero nicotine, and propylene glycol (PG) or vegetable glycerin (VG). About 10% of the ingredients in vape juice are the flavorings, water, and nicotine, and the remaining 90% is PG or VG fluid.”
https://www.usonicig.com/blog/vape-guides/what-is-pg-and-vg-in-vape-juice/
Seems like injecting PEG, even in small doses, may be extremely dangerous.
What do you think of the peg idea? If there’s studies already showing that it causes similar Covid symptoms couldn’t there be a direct correlation tied to the Covid vaccine and placed more doubt in peoples minds?
Are there black dots on lungs of Covid patients as well as vaxxed patients with complications?
This is a picture of a person with Covid lung damage. So spike protein is likely causing this, right?
https://www.reddit.com/r/MedicalGore/comments/h7bmi8/a_lung_removed_from_a_covid19_survivor_the/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2015432
What’s interesting here is that PEG comes wit the lipid nanoparticle that is going inside each and every cell where it’s triggering the body to also make spike protein. So maybe it’s a double whammy?
PEG (polyethylene glycol) is not in vape liquid, it's propylene glycol and glycerin. PEG comes in various molecular weights and is (usually?) a powder. It's also used as a laxative.
Ugh. I feel like a dope! Thank you so much for pointing out one is PEG and one is PG. What’s weird is the current advice to people who are concerned about allergic reaction to vax, that one way of knowing if it’s a concern is are you allergic to Miralax,a powdered laxative? Which I feel is weird because wouldn’t injecting PEG into your muscle or veins be even MORE dangerous? I have a friend who’s doctor told her, most people who have allergic reactions are fine if they take a Benadryl. 😳🙄
Don't feel bad, I've made the same error myself. We're all just here trying to help each other put the puzzle together, and you brought some interesting info. I was unaware of the clotting in the vaping victims. Yes, injecting PEG seems insane under any circumstance, no matter how dilute, and it is in a lot of processed foods, so is PG. I imagine that's one of the reasons the incidence of GI disorders are so high these days, people can develop a sensitivity to it and it starts causing inflammation. I developed a sensitivity to PG where my vape liquid was leaking on my skin. When I figured it out I switched to glycerin and stopped taking an oral medication which had a lot of PG in it. I had 40 stubborn, excess pounds which disappeared after I did that, with no change in diet.
And there's the opinion that the mystery vaping sicknesses may have actually been an early incidence of "COVID", though it's odd it was occurring in young people, and I believe it was ultimately attributed to some vitamin supplement they were putting specifically in cannabis vapes. Pop in to any online vaping community and they'll all tell you their health has never been better since switching to vaping. There may be an instance where PEG has found its way into vape liquid, but it's not something that would be deliberately added.
It could have been a trial with a none-airborne version of the virus. The widely accepted explanation was that cannabis often gets treated with an anti-fungal stuff that creates cyanide under some conditions.
I am curious, if you have any links referring directly to PEG in vape juice, please share them, but in general I think you're conflating PEG with PG. Understandable given how monstrously un-pronouncable many chemicals can be.
That Li paper is disturbing, to say the least. However, I'm not sure that the dosages they used aren't enormous compared to the normal human dosages. They are injecting the mice with 5ug of vaccine, while the dose/fatality plot seems to show only 30ug or 100ug doses for humans. I think maybe I'm comparing apples to oranges with these numbers, but if not, the Li paper isn't as scary.
They pumped the mice full because they wanted to see where the stuff accumulates so they can then look closer at exactly these organs in the follow-up studies with humans. They claim that they have found nothing then.
It is important to understand the doses, for sure. That can scale by mass, with an adjustment, most but not all of the time. Regardless...we see the same problem. Maybe in a more advanced stage, but it is the same problem. Combining that with the lognormalize mortality curve is what becomes so compelling.
Houston, we have a problem.
Pete, also remember that the "Kamal curve" is lognormalized. Don't think of the rat doses as huge, but the human doses as small relative to weight. Then realize that the rats are just further along the linearized curve. What would be interesting is to inject a few thousand rats with four different mRNA doses. That would answer the question very quickly.
We should let authorities know this is now their responsibility.
Do we know why he pulled that article down today?
True enough. The vet had me give my pet a half dose of human medicine, despite being only a fraction of the weight. I wish they had explained their rationale.
Not sure where to put this Matthew, because I’m a new reader, but here’s an idea for future reporting. As far as a timeline goes, check this out:
April 2018: https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2018/04/new-sars-virus-bats-implicated-china-pig-die
Peter Dasak and Eco Health Alliance are all over this story and quoted. Could they have used the aerosolized version of the virus Dasak wanted to partner with DARPA on? Which DARPA turned down but Eco health alliance got funding for elsewhere?
Here are some interesting quotes from that April 2018 article above:
“To see if the virus had the capacity to jump to humans, the investigators conducted tests on the blood of 35 farm workers who had close contact with the sick pigs, and none were positive for SADS-CoV exposure.”
“They also said that new technological tools, such as next-generation sequencing, (PCR tests using genomic sequence databases?) can be performed rapidly
👉before👈 the virus is isolated.” [in this doc, the FDA admits that sars cov-2 virus wasn’t (still hasn’t been) technically isolated. https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download]
Next in the timeline is this May 2019: https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Coronavirus/China-PCR-test-orders-soared-before-first-reported-COVID-case
Then June 2019: humanized mice funding stopped by Trump: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/breaking-trump-hhs-ends-another-humanized-mice-contract-pledges-new-fetal-tissue-safeguards/
Then there’s this, Summer 2019: “Chinese military researchers were part of a project that created mice with “humanized” lungs — apparently to test the infectiousness of various viruses.” But when the NSC investigators worked backward to establish a timeline for the study, they realized that the critters were created sometime during summer 2019 — before the coronavirus pandemic exploded, according to Vanity Fair.
https://nypost.com/2021/06/03/chinese-military-helped-create-humanized-mice-to-test-viruses-report/
To recap, Fauci gave money for years to groups to make humanized mice to do experiments to see how the human immune system responds to immune challenges. This was largely shut down in June 2019 by Trump. Then China, again, picks up the baton to do similar off-the-books research on humanized mice. Previously, this was the kind of research being done in the USA: “From the aborted fetuses, thymus, liver, spleen and full-thickness skin were transplanted and grafted onto the rodents and allowed to grow. Then the rodent models were given a staph infection on the skin to study how the internal organs responded,” she added. The human skin grafted over the rib cages of rodents grew blood vessels and immune cells, and human hair grew on the grafted fetal scalps. As Trasancos notes, “Images literally show a patch of baby hair growing on a mouse’s back.”
The research was supported by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), which has been headed by Anthony Fauci, M.D., since 1984. NIAID has partnered this year with Pharmaceutical giant Moderna to develop a COVID-19 vaccine.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/us-university-grafts-scalps-from-aborted-babies-onto-humanized-mice/
Lots more on humanized mice here: https://www.lifesitenews.com/archives/?s=Humanized+mice&date_after=&date_before=&post_type=&search_tags=
I’d love to hear anyone’s comments on this post. I apologize in advance if I placed this in the wrong place. Thank you!
So much of this article is over my head, but when I went to the Li study (the abstract) it suggested to my layman mind that myopericarditis (which I assume to be heart issues) was not a problem:
"Methods
We compared the clinical manifestations, histopathological changes, tissue mRNA expression, and serum levels of cytokine/chemokine in Balb/c mice at different time points after intravenous (IV) or intramuscular (IM) vaccine injection with normal saline (NS) control.
Results
Although significant weight loss and higher serum cytokine/chemokine levels were found in IM group at 1–2 days post-injection (dpi), only IV group developed histopathological changes of myopericarditis "
My understanding is that the J&J, etc., vaccines are given in the muscle, not by IV. The Li study says only the IV group had issues.
I so wish someone could translate Matt Crawford's terrific articles into laymen terms.
Great Piece, Mathew. Interesting that the Kamal Mokeddem Medium article has been "removed by the author"...
I have been running with a similar, but different theory of etiology. It is not that teen and younger adult men have more muscle mass overall, but that the *portion* of capillary blood-flow in the heart, even though it is small, is not nearly as small as it will be after later fat / muscle gain that occurs with aging. The lower incidence among older men is just a statistical artifact of overall population body mass.
In other words, teen males are selected into the vulnerable group as their hearts grow larger with puberty and then selected back out of it as the rest of their body grows with age (leading to proliferation of vessels / capillaries in added fat and muscle).
This would predict that it is *leaner, less muscular* young men who are more affected, which could be looked into if anyone was actually trying to clinically and systematically examine Covid vaccine recipients (but that's crazy talk!). You could also say that the inadvertent intravenous injection problem selects for leaner shoulders as well - but not if lots of injections are actually going into the arm anyway. For all we know for now, dispersion of the spike script throughout the body is either universal or random across all body types.
I think there is also more subclinical myocarditis among women than men, as women seem to experience cardiac distress as diffuse pain, sometimes not even near the heart, more often than men.
As you acknowledged, there is still the hope that the Covid vaccine-induced myocardial inflammation is not tethered to the same actual tissue destruction as normal myocarditis, and doesn't have the same prognosis. But it it's from spike expression, those cells are toast. I don't peg the likely final value of additional deaths in 5 figures. I fear it's 8 at least (or, would be if not for the "discount" from all the other mortal harms).
Something odd is going on with Mokeddum's data. He identifies a total of 2554 deaths from the mRNA vaccines, through Sept. 13. This seems too small compared to other reports about VAERS contents. There's a dialog about this in the comments section at the article, and Mokeddum posted his code, but I don't feel the issue is resolved.
This "The Li animal model study and others such as Payvandi et al (2021, N = 30) do not include enough individuals to observe whether 1% or 0.1% or 0.01% of the vaccinated population (intramuscular injection) are likely to see mRNA create spike protein that leaks into the blood"
Made me think for the first times.in terms of risk/benefit analysis for younger people in terms of a very particular thing. Meaning, if risk of serious harm from covid is LESS than the chance of Myocarditis if given the injection, then that should be a no brainer that these vaccines should not be given to anyone who's physiology makes them more at risk. Especially when, whatever protection is granted (i am still doubtful that it is ANY to be honest because of the narrow focus on just spike in the vaccines) is so poor.
Under these circumstances it sounds like we are weaking part of the body that makes Covid more deadly in youths, through the use of vaccines made to protect against covid, which are themselves non sterilizing and weak and grant no immunity.
Youth gets shot, gets myocarditas (at any percent higher than risk from covid) and THEN catches a breakthrough case of covid. Effectively caused a significant portion of people to become weaker, not stronger.
Quite the opposite of "do not harm."
Hopefully what I wrote makes sense... I'll revisit it tomorrow.