© Corbett Report
In case you didn't see the big news this week, Pfizer has announced that the preliminary results from the "Phase 3, late-stage study" of their COVID-19 vaccine show that it is "more than 90% effective in preventing COVID-19 in participants without evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection in the first interim efficacy analysis."
Glæd dig! Vaccinen er næsten klar!
Hvis du ikke så de store nyheder i denne uge, har Pfizer meddelt, at de foreløbige resultater fra 'fase 3, sen-fase-undersøgelse' af deres COVID-19-vaccine viser, at den er 'mere end 90% effektiv til forebyggelse af COVID -19 hos deltagere uden bevis for tidligere SARS-CoV-2-infektion i den første midlertidige effektivitetsanalyse. '
Yay! Som Dissembler-in-Chief Trump bemærker, er dette en STOR GEVINDST, der kun blev mulig takket være hans ROLIGE LEDERHJÆLP til at hjælpe med at øge hastigheden [Eng,. WARP SPEED] af de vidunderlige vacciner direkte ind i alles blodårer (med hjælp fra det amerikanske militær, selvfølgelig):
Oh yes, Mr. President, sir! SUCH GREAT NEWS!
. . . Except for just a couple of teensy-weensy little problems. Like the fact that this announcement is just that: an announcement. There is no data to scrutinize here, nothing presented for public review (let alone peer review). This is a press release, literal corporate PR and nothing more.
Åh ja, hr. Præsident, sir! SÅ STORE NYHEDER!
. . . Bortset fra bare et par bitte små problemer. Som det faktum, at denne meddelelse netop er det: en meddelelse. Der er ingen data at undersøge her, intet præsenteret til offentlig gennemgang (endsige peer review). Dette er en pressemeddelelse, bogstaveligt talt firma PR og intet mere.
Og det faktum, at selv deres egen 'tro os, det virker' erklæring fortsætter med at bemærke (begravet 310 ord i denne lektion i propaganda), 'Når undersøgelsen fortsætter, kan den endelige procentdel af vaccineffektiviteten variere.' Med andre ord: 'Vi frigør uansvarligt foreløbige resultater, der ikke fortæller os noget, fordi de får vores fremtidige produkt til at se godt ud og vil generere mange spændte medieoverskrifter i de almindelige virksomhedsmedier, som vi finansierer med vores reklamedollar.'
Og der er det faktum, at Pfizers CEO og administrerende vicepræsident lige efter meddelelsen (og efterfølgende medieekstravaganza) begge solgte aktier for millioner dollars i virksomheden. Intet mistænkeligt her overhovedet, I skøre sammensværgelsesteoretikere!
And then there's the fact that the coronavirus vaccine trials themselves are a documented sham. As I discussed with James Evan Pilato on New World Next Week recently, the vaccine candidates are not even being measured on the basis of whether or not they can prevent infection, but whether they can reduce symptoms such as coughs and headaches in patients who have already tested positive. As even Forbes.com contributor Walter Hasseltine notes: "These trials seem designed to prove their vaccines work, even if the measured effects are minimal."
But disregarding all of that, there's one other major issue that has been glossed over in all the breathless coverage of this new miracle cure that is about to deliver us from the COVID plague: This "vaccine" is not a vaccine in the traditional sense. It is an experimental injectable technology that has never been used before in humans.
You see, the Pfizer/BioNTech "vaccine" — dubbed "BNT162b2" — is an mRNA vaccine.
Alright, let's start at the ground floor: What is an mRNA vaccine?
Excellent question! Here's how the New York Times describes this little miracle of modern science:
Pfizer's vaccine consists of genetic material called mRNA encased in tiny particles that shuttle it into our cells. From there, it stimulates the immune system to make antibodies that protect against the virus.If, after reading that, you're left wondering exactly what any of that means, why it's important, or how it's different from an ordinary vaccine, don't worry; you didn't miss anything. They just didn't tell you.
To understand what's really happening here, it's important to understand that the terms "inoculation," "immunization," "vaccination" and "mRNA vaccination" tend to be used interchangeably by laymen, but they are in fact distinct concepts.
Historically speaking, the word "inoculation" is used to describe the process of deliberately infecting someone with smallpox virus in order to achieve immunity from that disease. The practice originated in China several centuries ago, where dried out scabs of lightly infected smallpox sufferers were powdered and then blown up the nostrils of healthy people. The procedure infected the patient with a (hopefully mild) strain of smallpox, thus conferring immunity on them. This practice was brought over to Europe via Turkey and was eventually adopted around the world.
"Vaccination" was originally used to refer to a slightly different process. It was developed in the late 18th century by Edward Jenner, who discovered that those who had been exposed to cowpox — a less virulent relative of smallpox — were themselves immune from smallpox. He "vaccinated" a boy with a cowpox vesicle from a milkmaid and then inoculated him with smallpox two months later. The boy did not develop smallpox, and the procedure was hailed as a breakthrough of medical science. The term "vaccination," derived from the Latin word for cow, eventually came to refer to the general process of introducing immunogens or attenuated infectious agents into the body in order to stimulate the immune system to fight infections.
"Immunization," meanwhile, refers to any process by which the immune system is stimulated in order to achieve immunity to an infectious disease. Of course, this is generally done today by vaccination, but the concept of "immunization" refers to the broader idea of inducing an immune response in order to acquire immunity to a given pathogen.
So now we arrive at mRNA vaccines. In contrast to vaccination, which involves introducing an immunogen into the body, mRNA vaccines seek to introduce messenger RNA into the body in order to "trick" that body's cells into producing immunogens, which then stimulate an immune response. In order to understand any of this, you need to know about chromosomes, DNA strands, genes, RNA polymerase, ribosomes, amino acid and protein production.
Luckily, this is the 21st century and there are no shortage of handy-dandy visual guides to the whole process on the controlled information platforms and mainstream government science sites. Long story short: ribosomes synthesize proteins in your cells by "reading" free-floating messenger RNA. So where does this mRNA come from? In nature, this mRNA is created inside your cells' nucleus using your genes as a blueprint. In essence, your mRNA is reflective of who you are as a genetically unique individual.
All of this led scientists to a "What could possibly go wrong" idea: if we artificially insert mRNA into a cell, we can get that cell to produce a specific protein! Thus, if we want to train your body how to fight the dreaded SARS-CoV-2, we insert the mRNA that will cause your own cells to start producing the infamous "spike" protein that makes this "killer" virus so unbelievably "deadly." Your immune system will then learn to recognize and defend against these proteins so that when you're exposed to flying bat AIDS your body will be able to fight it off and you won't develop COVID-19.
Or, that's the narrative, anyway. Regardless of how much of that story you believe, the underlying mechanism is there: Pfizer and its Big Pharma brethren are going to start sticking mRNA into you in the hopes of tricking your own cells into producing proteins that are foreign to your system.
Hmmm. What could possibly go wrong?
But wait! Things get even creepier!
You may have heard good old Bill Gates himself in his many interviews on the subject of experimental vaccines referring not only to RNA vaccines, but DNA vaccines.
DNA vaccines, as the name might suggest, involves injecting not mRNA but DNA into the body. Once the DNA is taken up, the cells' natural metabolic processes begin synthesizing proteins based on the genetic code contained in the DNA.
Even mainstream science admits that there are potentially catastrophic risks to this process, however.
First, the DNA has to make it all the way into the nucleus, so DNA vaccines require more invasive means of delivery, such as jet injection (which may cause "Significant shearing of DNA after high-pressure expulsion") and liposome-mediated delivery, which may be toxic or itself cause disease.
Second, Wikipedia lists one of the potential adverse effects of DNA vaccines as "inducing antibody production against DNA" which from my (admittedly laymen's) perspective sound rather severe.
And last but not least, even the Gates-championed, Gavi-supported Moderna admit in their own materials that "DNA vaccines have a risk of permanently changing a person's DNA."
Yes, these DNA and RNA vaccines are the incredible new technologies being touted by esteemed microbiologists like Bill Gates as the way to "warp speed" these "vaccines" directly into our arms in a matter of mere months.
But make no mistake: these are not your grandma's vaccines (let alone your great-great-great-grandma's inoculations).
And guess what? This is only the beginning. As radical as these "vaccine" technologies are, they represent only the thin edge of the wedge of what will soon be injected into our bodies in the name of saving us from the next killer (or utterly banal) virus that is unleashed from the government's laboratories.
So, what else do they have in store for the future of what we commonly (but erroneously) refer to as "vaccines?" Good question. I have a lot more to say about that in a report that will be appearing in the near future. For now, perhaps these research articles will give you a sense of where this is all going.
Microneedle coronavirus vaccine triggers immune response in mice
Viral assembly of oriented quantum dot nanowires
Engineering tailored nanoparticles with microbes: quo vadis?
Ordering of Quantum Dots Using Genetically Engineered Viruses
With a 'hello,' Microsoft and UW demonstrate first fully automated DNA data storage
Intrigued? Stay tuned.
Læserkommentarer
dig vores Nyhedsbrev