Our famous “viral immunologist” and nudger-in-chief on twitter, Dr Graham Bottley, put out this tweet this week using his apparent business account (which we have covered previously). It was a pretty straightforward challenge, and - unlike Graham’s tweets - every point made below is referenced with sources.
Oct 26, 2022·edited Oct 26, 2022Liked by Dr Ah Kahn Syed
This is excellent!! One of the hardest questions for me to answer when attacked by family and friends was how these vaccines are any different from all the other ones we have taken. I used to just answer they are experimental and it’s new technology. This reply always fell on deaf ears.
This is the informed consent information everyone should have had access to before deciding to agree to be experimented on!!
Thank you so much for putting this paper together. I will be sharing with many!!!
Bloody hell, how can that guy be a doctor and still not see the blindingly obvious differences in the technologies. The risks both known and unknown associated with intracellular therapies. The bio-distribution difficulties associated with nonlipids and intramuscular injection. The ability to cross barriers traditionally not at risk of being breached. The uncontrollable dosage being produced which will vary widely from person to person.
In all fairness, most of the points raised in your post are way beyond the comprehension of most general practitioners. None of this stuff is taught in undergraduate medical schools. Ever the topic of vaccines is only covered briefly in the study of immunology.
Thank you for giving the "viral immunologists" and other sheep lords something to think about. And then forget all about it and stay in denial.
I'm a Finnish person whose profession isn't even near the injectables but during the 2.5+ yrs. I've learned more about them than I never wanted (and I can trust no doctor over here anymore, which I used to be able to do. Now it's easy to spot to most lunatic ones though, they're wearing masks).
I have a work in progress which is strongly related to ARK's latest article and it could be translated to "state as the misinformation superspreader". I'll use/translate parts of this and your earlier article about the cancer risk (Welcome to Gilead) but keep it simple enough (as I'm not a pro in this field and don't want to be the same as Botley but on the opposite side).
Thank you for everything you do to keep the world (that cares) informed!
PS. I'm no biologist*, nor a viral immunologist. Just a mouse with more than two cells and some experience and analytical skills from another field where a tiny mistake can kill masses (and has done so).
*) Besides that, I do know what a woman is and don't want their bodies and genetics messed with the "magical science sauce". Take care people, I love you as you are!
Leaked EU-Pfizer agreement reveals cover-up of bacterial proteins, endotoxins, DNA, dsRNA, other contaminants and up to 50% truncated, modified, recombined, junk mRNA in the vaccine
Thank you for an excellent run dish of major differences.
I knew without much work that there was no way safety could have been determined let alone expected given the embarrassingly short developmental timeline.
A decade might have been enough though we are now certain that mRNA vaccines can never be safe enough for widespread public health applications especially if the alleged health risk varies tremendously. The risk / benefit even if they worked, which they don’t, would vary a thousand fold & possibility more.
What an appalling liar that fellow is. Nobody believes these are the same as previous vaccines.
1. Traditional vaccines deliver a unit dose of attenuated or killed pathogen. Essentially the dose is set.
2. Genetic vaccines theoretically contain a unit dose of genetic information. In practise, the makers are hopelessly unable to manufacture consistently & EMA arbitrarily lowered the acceptable amount of intact mRNA at the last minute to permit EUA. Subsequently independent examination has shown extraordinary variation in mRNA amounts in notionally the same vaccine. EVEN IF they’d managed to manufacture consistently, there’s a large difference between this & traditional vaccines. Some recipients efficiently take up the LNP-coated vaccine & transcribe it well & for extended periods of time. Others take it up poorly, and make lesser amounts of spike protein for a brief period. INEVITABLY recipients experience very large variation in exposure to antigen. This grossly impacts safety & is almost certainly the reason why there have been unprecedented numbers of AEs, SAEs & deaths. Deaths are commonly due to thromboembolic events, predicted by independent experts.
3. The uptake of LNP-coated mRNA is very different from uptake of traditional vaccines. This was also predicted not only by independent experts, but by the manufacturers own studies filed with regulators & accessible to the public under FOIA. Non-clinical studies showed accumulation of LNP into sensitive tissues including ovaries in all species tested, matching predictions made ten years earlier in peer reviewed journal articles, concluding that this formulation technology represented an unappreciated reproductive toxicity risk.
That’s just for starters. Anyone claiming these gene based agents are “identical” to traditional vaccines on safety are ignorant or lying.
The short answer is: "Vaccines carry (weakened) pathogen by themselves. In contrast, novel genotoxic substances genetically transform healthy tissues of your internal organs into pathogen. This is the difference"
Let's also add that a mRNA transfection shares little in common with a natural infection which starts at the mucosa, stimulating a highly individual NK cell and T-cell activity and recognition of early expressed, functionally-constrained viral proteins (shared across similar viruses) displayed by infected cells which cascades (depending on severity) into B-cell activation (igG recall or igM) and finally linked recognition of B-cell with T-cells to solidify any new immune memory, if necessary. Hence, natural infections do not always present ANY or many antibodies in response to a coronavirus. The transfections on the other hand stimulate heaps of antigen specific antibodies (spike). This makes for a great selling point but is CONTRARY to the immune system's conservative approach to a highly mutable virus.
This is excellent!! One of the hardest questions for me to answer when attacked by family and friends was how these vaccines are any different from all the other ones we have taken. I used to just answer they are experimental and it’s new technology. This reply always fell on deaf ears.
This is the informed consent information everyone should have had access to before deciding to agree to be experimented on!!
Thank you so much for putting this paper together. I will be sharing with many!!!
Bloody hell, how can that guy be a doctor and still not see the blindingly obvious differences in the technologies. The risks both known and unknown associated with intracellular therapies. The bio-distribution difficulties associated with nonlipids and intramuscular injection. The ability to cross barriers traditionally not at risk of being breached. The uncontrollable dosage being produced which will vary widely from person to person.
Is he really a doctor and immunologist?
In all fairness, most of the points raised in your post are way beyond the comprehension of most general practitioners. None of this stuff is taught in undergraduate medical schools. Ever the topic of vaccines is only covered briefly in the study of immunology.
Bloody brilliant :)
Thank you for giving the "viral immunologists" and other sheep lords something to think about. And then forget all about it and stay in denial.
I'm a Finnish person whose profession isn't even near the injectables but during the 2.5+ yrs. I've learned more about them than I never wanted (and I can trust no doctor over here anymore, which I used to be able to do. Now it's easy to spot to most lunatic ones though, they're wearing masks).
I have a work in progress which is strongly related to ARK's latest article and it could be translated to "state as the misinformation superspreader". I'll use/translate parts of this and your earlier article about the cancer risk (Welcome to Gilead) but keep it simple enough (as I'm not a pro in this field and don't want to be the same as Botley but on the opposite side).
You can see why I want to inform the people (who care) that they are being lied to by checking out the "covid vaccine FAQ" which our national health service (THL) spews out in three languages. See the English one here: https://thl.fi/en/web/infectious-diseases-and-vaccinations/what-s-new/coronavirus-covid-19-latest-updates/vaccines-and-coronavirus/mrna-vaccines-faq
Thank you for everything you do to keep the world (that cares) informed!
PS. I'm no biologist*, nor a viral immunologist. Just a mouse with more than two cells and some experience and analytical skills from another field where a tiny mistake can kill masses (and has done so).
*) Besides that, I do know what a woman is and don't want their bodies and genetics messed with the "magical science sauce". Take care people, I love you as you are!
Traditional vaccines maim and kill. mRNA vaccines are way better at maiming and killing.
Vaccines and Biologics injury table based on mechanistic evidence – Feb 2020 Covering over 125 conditions
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2582634
Leaked EU-Pfizer agreement reveals cover-up of bacterial proteins, endotoxins, DNA, dsRNA, other contaminants and up to 50% truncated, modified, recombined, junk mRNA in the vaccine
https://vinuarumugham.substack.com/p/leaked-eu-pfizer-agreement-reveals
And people want to compare this to seatbelts 🤦🏼♀️
Thank you for an excellent run dish of major differences.
I knew without much work that there was no way safety could have been determined let alone expected given the embarrassingly short developmental timeline.
A decade might have been enough though we are now certain that mRNA vaccines can never be safe enough for widespread public health applications especially if the alleged health risk varies tremendously. The risk / benefit even if they worked, which they don’t, would vary a thousand fold & possibility more.
What an appalling liar that fellow is. Nobody believes these are the same as previous vaccines.
1. Traditional vaccines deliver a unit dose of attenuated or killed pathogen. Essentially the dose is set.
2. Genetic vaccines theoretically contain a unit dose of genetic information. In practise, the makers are hopelessly unable to manufacture consistently & EMA arbitrarily lowered the acceptable amount of intact mRNA at the last minute to permit EUA. Subsequently independent examination has shown extraordinary variation in mRNA amounts in notionally the same vaccine. EVEN IF they’d managed to manufacture consistently, there’s a large difference between this & traditional vaccines. Some recipients efficiently take up the LNP-coated vaccine & transcribe it well & for extended periods of time. Others take it up poorly, and make lesser amounts of spike protein for a brief period. INEVITABLY recipients experience very large variation in exposure to antigen. This grossly impacts safety & is almost certainly the reason why there have been unprecedented numbers of AEs, SAEs & deaths. Deaths are commonly due to thromboembolic events, predicted by independent experts.
3. The uptake of LNP-coated mRNA is very different from uptake of traditional vaccines. This was also predicted not only by independent experts, but by the manufacturers own studies filed with regulators & accessible to the public under FOIA. Non-clinical studies showed accumulation of LNP into sensitive tissues including ovaries in all species tested, matching predictions made ten years earlier in peer reviewed journal articles, concluding that this formulation technology represented an unappreciated reproductive toxicity risk.
That’s just for starters. Anyone claiming these gene based agents are “identical” to traditional vaccines on safety are ignorant or lying.
Dr Mike Yeadon
Where’s the “Fuck” button when you need it?
Great work Doc. A nice rebuttal to the mutton muppets… :~)
The short answer is: "Vaccines carry (weakened) pathogen by themselves. In contrast, novel genotoxic substances genetically transform healthy tissues of your internal organs into pathogen. This is the difference"
Yes, we need to separate politics from medicine. The threat of losing your livelihood overnight obviously has a very coercive effect.
Let's also add that a mRNA transfection shares little in common with a natural infection which starts at the mucosa, stimulating a highly individual NK cell and T-cell activity and recognition of early expressed, functionally-constrained viral proteins (shared across similar viruses) displayed by infected cells which cascades (depending on severity) into B-cell activation (igG recall or igM) and finally linked recognition of B-cell with T-cells to solidify any new immune memory, if necessary. Hence, natural infections do not always present ANY or many antibodies in response to a coronavirus. The transfections on the other hand stimulate heaps of antigen specific antibodies (spike). This makes for a great selling point but is CONTRARY to the immune system's conservative approach to a highly mutable virus.
A slight suggestion to add to point 1: synthetic mrna that does not break down in the body like natural mrna does.
Great compilation!
A brilliant and much needed synthesis Arkmedic; we all benefit from your priceless work. Thank you.
Excellent list and I'll certainly be sharing it.