Study claims harms of COVID-19 vaccines 'profoundly outweighed' benefits; calls for moratorium on mRNA shots



A new peer-reviewed study in a Springer Nature Group journal has painted a damning picture of the global COVID-19 vaccination campaign along with the novel mRNA products at its core — vaccines millions of Americans were compelled to take if they wanted to keep their jobs, eat in public, stay in school, remain in uniform, or visit their loved ones.

According to the study, published on Jan. 24 in the PubMed-listed open access journal Cureus, standards were dropped, corners were cut, and red flags were missed in the testing, authorization, and ultimate deployment of the COVID-19 vaccines. The result: a product with an "unacceptable harm-to-reward ratio."

Impurities

Extra to hinting at possible ulterior motives driving the decision to rush out the vaccines in a fraction of the time conventionally figured appropriate, epidemiologist M. Nathaniel Mead and his co-authors — including Texas cardiologist Peter McCullough — wrote that the vaccines "evaluated in the trials were not the same products eventually distributed worldwide."

Whereas the mRNA products from "clinical batches" in the registration trials were ostensibly free of process-related impurities, the doses made with "a method much more suitable for mass production known as Process 2 ... showed significantly reduced mRNA integrity," claimed the researchers.

"All of the COVID-19 mRNA products released to the public were produced via Process 2 and have been shown to have varying degrees of DNA contamination," said the study. "The failure of regulatory authorities to heretofore disclose process-related impurities (e.g., SV40) has further increased concerns regarding safety and quality control oversight of mRNA vaccine manufacturing processes."

Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo noted the detection of "Simian Virus 40 (SV40) promoter/enhancer DNA" in the vaccines in a Dec. 6 letter to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Peter Marks, director of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said in reply, "No SV40 proteins are encoded for or are present in the vaccines," and emphasized that the shots were safe and effective.

The European Medicines Agency, which regulates vaccines in the EU, indicated that "non-functional" fragments of SV40's DNA sequence are used in the manufacture of the COVID-19 vaccine, reported the Associated Press.

Pfizer indicated the SV40 sequence is commonly used in developing vaccines.

Regardless of whether elements of SV40 were specifically of any consequence, Mead and his coauthors underscored that the mRNA vaccines were not as advertised.

Harms and unintended consequences

"Re-analysis of the Pfizer trial data identified statistically significant increases in serious adverse events (SAEs) in the vaccine group," wrote Mead and the other researchers. "Numerous SAEs were identified following the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA), including death, cancer, cardiac events, and various autoimmune, hematological, reproductive, and neurological disorders."

According to the study's authors, many of these serious SAEs "have often been wrongly ascribed to COVID-19 rather than to the COVID-19 mRNA vaccinations."

"Misattributions of SAEs to COVID-19 often may be due to the amplification of adverse effects when mRNA injections are followed by SARS-CoV-2 subvariant infection," said the study. "Injuries from the mRNA products overlap with both [post-acute COVID-19 syndrome] and severe acute COVID-19 illness, often obscuring the vaccines' etiologic contributions."

The study suggested not only that the vaccines are likely responsible for a host of devastating side effects that have been conveniently blamed on the virus but also that boosters have actually had a paradoxical impact.

"Multiple booster injections appear to cause immune dysfunction, thereby paradoxically contributing to heightened susceptibility to COVID-19 infections with successive doses," wrote the researchers.

The researchers suggested further that the vaccines are perpetuating the emergence of new variants.

"Mass mRNA inoculations result in the natural selection of highly infectious immune-evading SARS coronavirus variants that successfully bypass vaccine-induced immunity, leading to a dramatic rise in the prevalence of these variants," said the study.

On the basis of their review, the researchers concluded that for most adults under the age of 50, "the perceived benefits of the mRNA boosters are profoundly outweighed by their potential disabling and life-threatening harms. Potential harms to older adults appear to be excessive as well."

In addition to calling for COVID-19 vaccines to be removed from the childhood immunization schedule along with the suspension of boosters, the researchers urged "governments to endorse and enforce a global moratorium on these modified mRNA products until all relevant questions pertaining to causality, residual DNA, and aberrant protein production are answered."

Regarding possible conflicts of interests, the authors indicated that no financial support was afforded them by any organization for the study.

Stephanie Seneff, one of the authors, nevertheless declared a grant from Quanta Computer Inc., a Taiwan-based computer manufacturer. Entrepreneur Steve Kirsch, another author, noted that he is the founder of the Vaccine Safety Research Foundation but "receives no income from this entity." McCullough, who supervised the study, highlighted his employment and stock options from the Wellness Company.

McCullough was involved in another troubling study that was recently published.

His peer-reviewed study published last month in the pharmacotherapy journal Therapeutic Advances in Drug Safety stressed that "COVID-19 vaccination is strongly associated with a serious adverse safety signal of myocarditis, particularly in children and young adults resulting in hospitalization and death."

"COVID-19 vaccines induce an uncontrolled expression of potentially lethal SARS-CoV-2 spike protein within human cells, have a close temporal relationship of events, and are internally and externally consistent with emerging sources of clinical and peer-reviewed data supporting the conclusion that COVID-19 vaccines are deterministic for myocarditis, including fatal cases," claimed the study.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

AOC Is the Latest Victim of a Racist Culture

AOC Is the Latest Victim of a Racist Culture

GOP Rep. Blasts Big Tech Oligarchs For Exploiting Children: ‘Your Platforms Are My Biggest Fear As A Parent’

Republican Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington rebuked Big Tech companies for using their power “to manipulate and harm our children,” in a joint hearing with Read More

Kamala Harris’ ‘Do No Harm Act’ would do plenty of harm to religious freedom

Congressional Democrats are coming after a decades-old law that protects people’s religious practices from the government with a new bill proposed by members of the House and Senate.

The bill, called the “Do No Harm Act,” was originally introduced in 2017 in response to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Hobby Lobby v. Burwell, which exempted religious employers from the Obamacare contraception mandate. It was reintroduced at the end of February by Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., and Reps. Joe Kennedy III, D-Mass., and Bobby Scott, D-Ill., and it puts the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (and the religious practitioners protected by it) directly in its crosshairs.

What does this bill propose to do? According to the press release from Kennedy’s office, the bill “would clarify that no one can seek religious exemption from laws guaranteeing fundamental civil and legal rights” by “limit[ing] the use of RFRA in cases involving discrimination, child labor and abuse, wages and collective bargaining, access to health care, public accommodations, and social services provided through government contract.”

How does it plan to do this? According to the bill’s text, it would change the Religious Freedom Restoration Act by saying that the 1993 law no longer applies to “protections against discrimination or the promotion of equal opportunity.” This includes “access to, information about, referrals for, provision of, or coverage for, any health care item or service.”

Why is all that bad for the First Amendment? Under the bill, “Government laws or regulations in many areas would be completely exempt from the RFRA standard,” explains Heritage Foundation legal fellow Thomas Jipping in an op-ed. “Government could, and almost certainly would, completely ignore any impact on religious freedom. Not surprisingly, one of those areas involves ‘access to, information about, a referral for, provision of, or coverage for, any health care item or service.’”

Basically, if this passed, Hobby Lobby and the Little Sisters of the Poor would be right back under the next Democratic administration’s legal crosshairs, as would any other employers whose faith prohibits them from paying for abortion or contraception under the guise of medical insurance.

Additionally, federal contractors with religious beliefs that run against the Left’s orthodoxy on sex, marriage, abortion, or contraception would also be in trouble, according to the text of the bill, and it would also overturn a recent waiver from the Trump administration that allows faith-based adoption organizations to facilitate adoptions in line with their views on marriage.

Furthermore, by removing one of the strongest safeguards people of faith have against federal encroachments on their free exercise rights, the bill would leave American believers open to any number of future violations, so long as those violations are framed in terms of a class or cause somehow hurt by their religious beliefs.

“The freedom to worship is one of our nation’s most fundamental rights,” reads a statement from Harris. “That First Amendment guarantee should never be used to undermine other Americans’ civil rights or subject them to discrimination on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, or gender identity.”

Anyone who has covered the fight over religious liberty over the last few years has heard multiple variations of this talking point before. Translated for the 21st century, the sentiment pays lip service to the First Amendment, but ultimately conveys that millennia-old religious convictions should never be allowed get in the way of the progressive agenda.

Religious free exercise is not limited to speech alone, and it’s not geographically confined to the four walls of a church, synagogue, mosque or meeting house. It’s the freedom to live out one’s beliefs in daily life, including in how one conducts business, even when those beliefs come into conflict with the Left’s ever-evolving dogmas.

This bill claims to “do no harm”, but it certainly would do a great deal to the conscience rights of believers all across this country.

Keep reading...Show less