22 Comments

This article needs to be spread far and wide, especially to parents of young children and would-be parents. Too often, they are way too trusting when it comes to this. They all grew up injected multiple times and think all this has been thoroughly investigated, which it is NOT. Thank you for posting this.

Expand full comment

Thank you. We are developing this concept into a book that will complement our first book, Unavoidably Unsafe.

Expand full comment

Even under the best of circumstances, vaccines will never approximate the protection afforded by natural immunity and will always induce a toxic immune response.

Expand full comment

No more vaccines. As proven many times, they do more harm to a naturally whole man, woman and child. Their purpose is to maximize pain and suffering and eventually totally disrupt the natural wholeness of the human. Always under the guise and lies of protection. If protection is against unprovable diseases, we would need a daily protection against government and religion and controlled media that has been pushing for human extinction for a long time.

Expand full comment

Karen...🎯

Expand full comment

At the very least the haplotype should be tested (a simple blood test). Dr. Ritchie Shoemaker identified half a dozen problematic haplotypes which should never be vaccinated for anything. The two worst were HLA DR4, DQ3 (8) and HLA DR3, DQ2. These haplotypes are particularly prone to autoimmune disease. The NIH even confirmed the DR4, DQ3 issue in a lengthy paper.

Expand full comment

Good point, but as an adjunct to or component of the clinical trials. Frankly, I think we can get enough data about vaccine injury from studies drawn from existing databases comparing vaxxed vs unvaxxed kids. I don't think any of the shots will stand up to scrutiny.

Expand full comment

For those of us whose kids are Guinea pigs for all these shots and are grown, we can now educate those of childbearing age. Hopefully they’ll make different choices!

Expand full comment

Amen

Expand full comment

The primary consideration about which injections and 'genuine vaccines' are SAFE & EFFECTIVE must be to rule out EVERY injection which is based on the DEADLY mRNA concept. It's lethal by design.

Suicidal 'Complacency' describes those with no desire to investigate the facts about the mRNA Death Shots! Those with no backbone to question the insane suicide by injection (called mRNA vaccine). The 99% (well probably 75% = all those that accepted the Death Shot) seem happy in their ignorance.

Unjabbed Mick (UK) Living longer by avoiding corrupt Doctors and the even more corrupt Big Pharma!

Expand full comment

👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👊🏻👍🏻✊🏻

Expand full comment

I certainly cant be the only one here wondering what extraordinary situations could possibly exist where a vaccination would be appropriate?!

Expand full comment

Very few. Perhaps Hep B for a baby born to a Hep B + mother (rare event) and Rabies vaccine post-exposure (also fortunately rare). Maybe PCV for sickle cell carriers who are functionally asplenic. Not many.

Expand full comment

I was late to the realization. Covid woke me up. I refused mRNA jabs for me, my wife, and 3 kids. But I was only able to keep my youngest from getting the HPV jab. That doc gaslighted me so hard. When I told her I was concerned that no placebo control studies were ever done, she told me I "don't understand science."

I avoid docs like the plague now. I suspect some are waking up. How would I be able to find a non-zombie doc?

Expand full comment

Best shot at finding a patient-centered doctor is one who has a direct primary care practice. The vast majority have broken out of the mold and will put your needs first. Typically you pay a monthly fee for all outpatient visits and can get discounts on diagnostic tests.

Expand full comment

Tom, you are doing the right thing for your family, 100%...don't let anyone gaslight you.

Expand full comment

Informed consent, in the context of medical treatment or medical research, transcends the unspoken ethical responsibilities of the patient-physician relationship. It is, in fact, a legal obligation.

Seen from the legal perspective, informed consent in a medical setting entails the bodily integrity of the individual patient or research subject. It is grounded in the idea of an individual’s personal autonomy—that is, their capacity for self‐determination and self‐governance.

What this means in practice is that a patient or research subject must be given sufficient information about any and all pending treatments, including the risks and benefits of those treatments, the existence and availability of any alternative treatments, the patient’s role in treatment, and the patient’s right to refuse treatment.

The problem we currently have is that informed consent in the current climate is virtually impossible due to the iron wall of Pharma control over the information flow and their front line soldiers aka pediatricians/doctors who stand in the way of anything resembling informed consent and actively work to deceive the public and do so in order to receive the fat kickbacks.

What is regularly portrayed as a medical issue or a knowledge issue is in fact, as is the case with most things, a political issue and until the forces that control the political landscape are overturned one can expect business as usual.

Expand full comment

Allen, you are 100% correct. Thank you for stating these facts so eloquently.

Expand full comment

Great contribution, thank you!

Expand full comment

After more than 30 years of clinical practice plus the shocking scandal of mandated EUA products during the lockdown era I have come to the same viewpoint. Vaccine avoidance should be a conscientious physicians default advice to patients with few if any exceptions for extraordinary situations.

Expand full comment

Egerton Y. Davis, MD's explanation is easy to understand even for laymen. If you don't understand the dangers of vaccines from his explanation, I would like to tell you to just die or get sick.

In Japan, there is an old saying that says, "Avoid being stung twice by a bee." This applies not only to hornets but also to bees with weak venom like honeybees.

Charles Robert Richet medically demonstrated this in 1913.

Sasha Latipova explains it in an easy-to-understand way. This law, which is not quantitative, applies not only to vaccines but also to biotech medicines.

https://sashalatypova.substack.com/p/the-second-shot-or-what-do-vaccinators?publication_id=870364

https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/medicine/1913/richet/lecture/

Another thing is that most doctors are not aware of the difference between the relative effectiveness rate (RRR) and the absolute effectiveness rate (ARR).

I have a relative who is an internist, but he didn't know about it.

I realized this after reading the Phase I paper on BNT162b2, and I have been uninfected without vaccination.

https://bestpractice.bmj.com/info/toolkit/learn-ebm/how-to-calculate-risk/

In clinical trials of medicines for patients, all subjects are infected with the disease, so the ARR is approximately equal to the RRR.

However, there is no disease (infectious disease) that infects the entire population, so the ARR of the vaccine is << RRR.

It's a good idea to remember the following basic image!!!

For example, suppose there are 1 million people, and 10,000 of them become infected if none are vaccinated.

If all 1 million people are vaccinated and the number of infected people decreases to 1,000, the relative efficacy rate RRR will be 90%, or (10,000 - 1,000)/10,000.

However, even if everyone is not vaccinated, 990,000 people will not be infected in the first place, so if vaccinated, 9,000 out of 1 million people will not be infected, so the absolute effectiveness rate ARR = 9,000/1,000,000 is just under 1%.

This is the effectiveness rate (probability) that is meaningful to individuals within a group.

I also sent an email to the CDC asking them to stop falsely displaying results based on the RRR, but have not heard back at all. The CDC, WHO, and MSM are also intentionally deceiving the public with effectiveness rates based on the RRR.

The results of my numerical calculations based on several clinical trial documents are shown below.

①Pfizer's BNT162b2 ARR = 0.716%, RRR = 95% (However, this is clearly a gene therapy drug

Considering that doctors and scholars around the world later uncovered the fake parts, the ARR and RRR are even lower)

②SK-Zooster (Shingrix) (shingles) ARR = 0.9%, RRR 94.2%

③Meiji Replicon (Sarscov2) ARR = 0.5%, RRR = 95.5% (This is a very dangerous gene therapy drug)

④Sequirus Flucelvax® Quad (for influenzaA,B) ARR = 17.5%, RRR = 51.9%

However, Placebo is administered meningococcal ACWY-vax instead of saline

Meningococcus can cause pneumonia when it is secondarily infected in influenza patients,

In short, it was a fake clinical trial, and all I can say is that Flucelvax is slightly more effective against influenza than ACWY-vax.

⑤GSK's Arexvy (RSV) ARR = 0.26%, RRR = 82.5%

⑥Moderna's mRNA-1345 (RSV) ARR = 0.53%, RRR = 68.4% (also a gene therapy drug)

⑦-1 Gardasil: HPV uninfected: ARR = 0.7%, RRR ≒ 50%

⑦-2 Gardasil: HPV already infected: ARR = 3.07%, RRR ≒ 70%

Girdasil contains 416±75μg of the neurotoxin ALuminum per dose.

1μg of pure AL would be 4.6 quadrillion units. The molecular formula of AL-Adjuvant has not been confirmed, but 416μg would result in thousands of trillions of AL entering the bloodstream.

Quantity is very important in the material world.

Expand full comment

Thank you Masami F for the extra excellent and very useful information you have carefully provided here. Avoidably unsafe toxicity without doubt.

Expand full comment