COVID-19 Vaccines - The Undeclared Contents

With much of the Western world being coerced by their governments into accepting the "safe and effective" COVID 19 vaccines, recent research that appeared in the International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research is rather, to put it mildly, eye-opening particularly given that many of the vaccines use technologies contained in the mRNA and recombinant DNA products which had never been used in humans prior to the pandemic.

 

Here is the article: 

The researchers analyzed the contents of vials from COVID-19 vaccines from different lots of AstraZeneca/Oxford, CanSino Biologics, Pfizer/BioNTech, Sinopharm, Moderna and Sputnik V using Scanning Electron Microscopy coupled with Energy-Dispersive X-Ray Spectroscopy located at the National University of Cordoba in Cordoba, Argentina.

 

The authors open with this:

 

"What can possibly be causing the long list of symptoms and clinical morbidities of extreme diversity that have followed the worldwide distribution of the COVID-19 injectable products? The list includes fulminant cancers, autoimmune disorders, bilateral pneumonias, arrhythmias, hepatitis flare ups, kidney failures, aggressive forms of arthritis, thrombosis, thrombocytopenia, heart disease, strokes, paralysis of various sorts, spontaneous abortions, perinatal deaths, infertility reported on a wide scale, neurodegenerative diseases, and many other debilitating and life-threatening conditions...

 

Strikingly, the symptoms often involve comorbidities that had never been seen until after the administration of COVID-19 vaccines."

 

They also note that there was a near total lack of quality control over the production the vaccines during the manufacturing processing that the most basic safety protocols were dangerously circumvented.

 

The researchers go on to list a history of contents that were discovered in some of the COVID-19 vaccines including graphene oxide, metallic contaminants, flocs of whitish material and various chemical elements including but not limited to carbon, oxygen, fluorine, sodium, magnesium, potassium, calcium, 

antimony, lead, titanium, vanadium, iron, copper, and silicon.

 

The authors of the study analyzed thirteen vials of COVID-19 vaccines from different lots in duplicate as shown on this listing:

 

This table shows the components that were declared publicly by each manufacturer:

 

For brevity's sake, let's look at what was found in three of the most commonly administered vaccines with the declared components marked with a † symbol for each lot of the vaccines noting that the different lots of the same vaccine contained different components which may be due to the time lapse between the drawing of the samples due to the changing structure of the self-assembling entities in the vaccines:

 

1.) AstraZeneca/Oxford: one lot contained 21 chemical elements with 20 being undeclared

 

2.) Pfizer/BioNTech: one lot contained 26 chemical elements with 23 being undeclared

 

3.) Moderna: one lot contained 21 chemical elements with 29 being undeclared

Here is a quote from the paper outlining the elemental composition of the components:

 

"Many heavy metals was detected in the analyzed samples and all of those metals are associated toxic effects on human health. The European Union recognizes eleven toxic elements as heavy metals; arsenic, cadmium, cobalt, chromium, copper, mercury, manganese, nickel, lead, tin, and thallium. All these elements were found in the different lots with different frequencies of occurrence in the sampling: chromium (100%), arsenic (82%) and nickel (59%), followed by 40% cobalt and copper; with 35% tin, with 18% cadmium, lead and manganese; and finally 6% of the samples contain mercury.

 

The samples contain 11 of the 15 lanthanides of the periodic table of chemical elements. The percentage of the frequency with which they were found is shown in Table 9: lanthanum (35%), cerium (76%), neodymium (18% ), samarium (18%), europium (18%), gadolinium (35%), terbium (29%), dysprosium (24%), holmium (18%), erbium (29%), and ytterbium (18%). These elements have luminescent and magnetic properties (Echeverry & Parra, 2019); until now, their safety for use in the human body has not been demonstrated. In fact, the ICH Q3D guide (ICH, 2022) does not mention lanthanides among elemental impurities. It should be noted that this guide does not cover biological products, such as vaccines. Lanthanides are frequently used in the electronics industry and in no case as part of biosensors due to their cytotoxic effects."

Here is a screen capture of Table 9 which shows the frequency with which the various aforementioned chemical elements appeared in the vaccines sampled:

 

Here is a table which breaks down the chemical elements by vaccine manufacturer:

 

 

Finally, here are the authors' conclusions with my bold:

 

"Based on the identification and ranges of the quantities of the chemical elements discovered, and on the physical and chemical characteristics of the content of the vaccines studied, it is of utmost importance to highlight the great similarity that exists between the products of the different brands.  The observed differences in chemical elements found in the different brands, we believe, are due to the time lapse between drawing of samples on account of the changing structure of the self-assembling entities in the fluids contained in the vials. We do not believe the observed differences are because of manufacturing processes specific to any given brand or to differences between lots because of stochastic variations in the production processes. Despite the small size and few samples analyzed in this exploratory study, we believe that analysis of a larger number of samples and lots will confirm the trends we have pointed out. We believe that the various and diverse pathologies in the inoculated population are not due to fortuitous problems in manufacturing or distribution, but rather to the technology that seems to be common to all these products which appear to be universally harmful to humans."

 

COVID-19 vaccines would appear to be like Cracker Jacks with their toy surprise in every box except in this case there's a chemical element surprise in every vial!

  vials from different lots of the brands AstraZeneca/Oxford,

CanSino Biologics, Pfizer/BioNTech, Sinopharm, Moderna and Sputnik V were analyzed.

The Healthy Vaccinee Effect - How Did It Impact COVID-19 Statistics?

A recent study from the Czech Republic has added to our understanding of the impact and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines and their relationship with the "healthy vaccinee effect".  

  

The healthy vaccinee effect also known as the healthy vaccine bias is observed when better health among a vaccinated population results in a vaccine appearing to be more effective than it is.  The term was originally applied to influenza vaccine research by Jennifer Nelson in 2005:

 

...which found that the reduction in risk of death from influenza in vaccinated American seniors was related to preferential receipt of the influenza vaccine by relatively healthy seniors.  Here's a quote from the summary of the study:  

 

"In this study, the reductions in risk observed in the before influenza period suggest the presence of bias due to preferential receipt of vaccine by relatively healthy seniors."

Other studies in Canada, Sweden, Germany, Spain and a 40 nation analysis have also researched healthy vaccinee effects for influenza vaccines over the past twenty years. 

  

In the aforementioned Czech Republic study of the COVID-19 vaccines:

...the authors analyzed two data sets from two Czech health insurance companies consisting of a population of approximately 2.2 million people, representing more than one-fifth of the nation's population.  They examined the validity of claims of the healthy vaccinee effect by analyzing the association between all-cause mortality and COVID-19 vaccination status in subjects 60 years of age and older.  Each age group in the study was stratified according to their vaccination status; unvaccinated vs individuals vaccinated less than four weeks vs. more than four weeks from doses 1, 2, 3 and 4 or more doses of a COVID-19 vaccine.

 

When considering the raw data alone, it would appear that there is a higher level of all-cause mortality among the vaccinated seniors aged 60 and older which suggests that vaccination works remarkably well at preventing death.  That said, the authors note that the data shows that of the deaths over the study period, 37,000 of the 269,000 all-cause deaths (14 percent) were COVID-19 related.  In fact, during a low COVID period between June 2021 and September 2021, almost no COVID-related deaths were recorded in the Czech Republic (0.3 percent to be precise) meaning that almost all of the deaths during that period were non-COVID-related.  Here's a quote from the study:

 

"When comparing the two largest groups in that period, i.e., unvaccinated and those with the completed primary course, the unvaccinated population was more than twice as likely to die as the population with the completed primary course. This apparent “vaccine efficacy” in a period when no COVID was present is likely an artifact of the HVE (healthy vaccinated effect).

 

During the high COVID period from October 2021 to May 2021, there were almost 10,000 COVID-19-related deaths.  The vaccine effectiveness in preventing COVID-related deaths should have lead to an increase in the ratio of unvaccinated to vaccinated all-cause mortality.  In fact, the exact opposite happened; the all-cause mortality in the chart with a completed primary course more than doubled compared to the low-COVID period and the all-cause mortality of the unvaccinated chart rose by only one-third.  

 

The authors' conclusions are as follows with my bolds:

 

"The results of the presented analysis revealed several peculiar patterns of the relationship between all-cause mortality and vaccination status. The presented data obviate that vaccination status has a profound association with all-cause mortality, which goes far beyond the possible protective effect against COVID-related death, especially in the low-COVID periods. Using a simple model, we argue that this pattern can be, to a large degree, attributed to the healthy vaccinee effect....

 

...to the best of our knowledge, the presented study provides the best and most robust illustration of the healthy vaccinee effect in COVID-19 vaccination so far. The implications are huge—based on our results, we propose that the evaluation of the baseline frailty between vaccinated and unvaccinated populations (in our case, the differences observed in the low-COVID periods) should be taken into account when evaluating vaccine effectiveness in observation studies....

 

On two independent datasets, we demonstrated a paradoxical pattern of strong association between COVID vaccination status and all-cause mortality, even in periods when almost no COVID-related deaths were present in the population. Vaccinated individuals (especially those shortly after vaccination) exhibit much lower all-cause mortality than the unvaccinated, even in low-COVID periods. This pattern cannot be explained by the true effectiveness of the vaccines in preventing COVID-related deaths. We have demonstrated that the observed association can be explained by the healthy vaccinee effect (a bias in which individuals of poorer health have a lower probability of taking up the vaccine/its further dose) and present a very simple model of health vaccinee effect, which well replicates the pattern observed in the real data."

 

I would strongly recommend that you read the study if you wish to better understand how the researchers came to their conclusions about the impact of the healthy vaccinee effect on the apparent effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccines.

  

So, the next time that you hear a public health official tout the numerical advantages of vaccinations against the prevention of disease, perhaps you should consider the impact of healthy vaccinee effect on the efficacy statistics that are being touted by governments and their partners in crime, Big Pharma.

Vaccinating the World - The Link Between the Idiocracy and the Never-dying COVID-19 Pandemic Narrative

According to CNA formerly known as Channel NewsAsia, a leading Singapore-based news channel which is owned by the nation's national public broadcaster Mediacorp, the Senior Minister of the Republic of Singapore Tharman Shanmugaratnam made the following comments at a joint press conference held with World Health Organization's Director-General Tedros Ghebreyesus on August 25, 2023:

 

"We have to move away from thinking about funding for global health security in terms of foreign aid, towards thinking about it as a strategic investment that all nations must make, not only for the good of the global community but because it is in each nation’s self-interest."

 

To that end, he added this in light of the supposed ongoing COVID-19 pandemic:

 

"The first and most urgent priority is to implement the action plan set out by the WHO, IMF and their multilateral partners to vaccinate at least 60 per cent of every country’s population over the next year....

 

The resources that need to be mobilised are larger than nations have collectively been willing to commit in the past. But they are very small investments compared to the costs of prolonging the current pandemic, and tiny compared to the costs of the future pandemics that we can avoid."

  

Now, you may think that, outside of Singapore, one of the world's smallest and least influential nations, Mr. Shanmugaratnam would have no influence.  You would be wrong in making that assumption given this:

 

 

...and this:

 

So, the man who wishes to see 60 percent of every nation in the world vaccinated against COVID-19 over the next year is a World Economic Forum insider and just happens to be the Co-Chair of the G20's panel Financing the Global Commons for Pandemic Preparedness and Response which was established in January 2021 as shown here:

 

 

The panel that he heads has made the following recommendations:

 

https://pandemic-financing.org/report/high-level-summary/

 

1.) nations must commit to a new base of multilateral funding for global health security based on pre-agreed and equitable contribution shares by advanced and developing countries. This will ensure more reliable and continuous financing, so the world can act proactively to avert future pandemics, and not merely respond at great cost each time a new pandemic strikes. 

 

This must include a fundamentally new way of financing a reformed and strengthened WHO, so that it receives both enhanced and more predictable resources. The Panel joins the call by the IPPPR for assessed contributions to be increased from one-quarter to two-thirds of the budget for the WHO’s base program, which will effectively mean an addition of about US$1 billion per year in such contributions.

 

2.) global public goods must be made part of the core mandate of the International Financial Institutions (IFIs) – namely the World Bank and other multilateral development banks (MDBs), and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). They should draw first on their existing financial resources, but shareholders must support timely and appropriately sized replenishments of their concessional windows and capital replenishments over time to ensure that the greater focus on global public goods is not at the expense of poverty reduction and shared prosperity. 

 

3.) a Global Health Threats Fund mobilizing US$10 billion per year should be established, and funded by nations based on pre-agreed contributions. This new Fund, at two-thirds of the minimum of US$15 billion in additional international resources required, brings three necessary features into the financing of global health security. First, together with an enhanced multilateral component of funding for the WHO, it would provide a stronger and more predictable layer of financing. Second, it would enable effective and agile deployment of funds across international and regional institutions and networks, to plug gaps swiftly and meet evolving priorities in pandemic prevention and preparedness. Third, it would also serve to catalyze investments by governments and the private and philanthropic sectors into the broader global health system, for example through matching grants and co-investments. The Fund’s functions should be defined to ensure that it complements rather than substitutes for financing of the MDBs’ concessional windows and the existing global health organizations.

 

4.) multilateral efforts should leverage and tighten coordination with bilateral ODA (Official Development Assistance), and with the private and philanthropic sectors. Better coordination within country and regional platforms will have greater impact in reducing pandemic risks, and enable better integration with ongoing efforts to tackle endemic diseases and develop other critical healthcare capabilities. It will be important to ensure that ODA flows mobilized for pandemic preparedness add to and do not divert resources from other priority development needs. 

  

In addition, the group states the following:

 

"Governments must collectively commit to increasing international financing for pandemic prevention and preparedness by at least US$75 billion over the next five years, or US$15 billion each year, with sustained investments in subsequent years. 

 

The Panel assesses this to be the absolute minimum in new international investments required in the global public goods that are at the core of effective pandemic prevention and preparedness. The estimate excludes other investments that will contribute to resilience against future pandemics while benefiting countries in normal times. These complementary interventions – such as containing antimicrobial resistance, which alone will cost about US$9 billion annually, and building stronger and more inclusive national health and delivery systems – provide continuous value. Furthermore, the estimated minimum international investments are based on conservative assumptions on the scale of vaccine manufacturing capacity required in advance of a pandemic. Larger public investments to enable enhanced manufacturing capacity will indeed yield much higher returns. 

 

The minimum additional US$15 billion per year in international financing for pandemic preparedness is still a significant increase. It is a critical reset to a dangerously underfunded system. "

 

So there you have it.  The G20 affiliated group which is charged with dealing with pandemics is headed by a man who plays a leadership key role at the World Economic Forum.  He is only too willing to spend your tax dollars to ensure that the response to the next pandemic follows the recommendations of the World Health Organization and the G20 panel for Financing the Global Commons for Pandemic Preparedness and Response.  This man is recommending that over the next year, 60 percent of the world should be vaccinated against COVID-19.  Given that only 32.5 percent of people in low-income nations have received at least one dose of the vaccines which have proven to be only marginally effective and that daily new confirmed COVID-19 cases have done this:

 

....the 60 percent vaccination target for all nations in the world is a tall and likely ineffective/unncessary order but one that the global ruling class wishes to impose on the rest of us. After all, the globalists including those affiliated with the World Economic Forum just can't let the COVID-19 narrative die a much-deserved death.

The global idiocracy is alive and well.

Pfizer's COVID-19 Vaccine Biodistribution - Where is the Vaccine Going?

Throughout the vaccination phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, authorities have been assuring us that the  mRNA used in the vaccine products remain in the arm or, at most, travel to nearby draining lymph nodes.  Thanks to a Freedom of Information request made to Australia's Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), the nation's equivalent to the United States Food and Drug Administration, we now have proof of the biodistribution of the lipid nanoparticles which act as the delivery system and as protection for the vaccine's fragile active ingredient, the mRNA that stimulates cells to create the spike protein which results in an immune reaction.  I'm hoping that, in its infinite wisdom, Google doesn't decide to censor this posting given that the data contained within is sourced from a Western government document and Pfizer's own research, however, if there's anything that the past three years have taught me it's that we live in the post-truth era.

  

In case you aren't aware of the mechanism behind the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, here is a video from John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health explaining the process:

 

Lipid nanoparticles or LNPs are critical to the functioning of mRNA vaccines since mRNA is very fragile and has a very short life in the human body without the protection of lipids which act as a delivery system for the vaccine's active ingredient.

Here is one example of an expert, Dr. Bryn Boslett, an Associate Professor of Medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, weighing in on what happens to the vaccine when it is injected into a human body:  

 

Here's a "fact check" on the issue from Reuters which addresses the issue of vaccine-created spike proteins and their ability to travel throughout the human body:

 

 

Here is another example which, in the interest of keeping this posting to a reasonable length, you can read through on your own.

 

Now, let's look at the Therapeutic Goods Administration document dated January 2021 (i.e. just after the initial rollout of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine (Comirnaty) in Australia) keeping in mind that this document contains the data that the TGA used to approve the vaccine for use and that the data was provided by Pfizer and was peer-reviewed:

 

For the purposes of this study, we're going to focus on the biodistribution aspect of the vaccines from data supplied by Pfizer.  To track the vaccine, Pfizer's researchers injected a radioactive lipid marker into 63 Wistar Han rats which was used to track the progress of the lipid nanoparticles containing the mRNA throughout the rats' bodies as quoted here:

 

"The distribution of lipid nanoparticles (containing ALC-0315 and ALC-0159) encapsulating mRNA encoding luciferase, was investigated by monitoring of a radiolabelled (3H-) lipid-marker after IM administration to Wistar rats."

 

The lipid nanoparticle formulation size and composition (relative to mRNA concentration) and encapsulation efficiency was similar to the LNP used in Pfizer's Comirnaty vaccine.  In total, 42 of the rats were injected with a target dose of 50 micrograms of mRNA per animal and 21 were injected with 100 micrograms of mRNA per animal.  Total radioactivity was measured by liquid scintillation counting of blood, plasma and tissue samples collected at 15 minutes, 1, 2, 4, 8, 24 and 48 hours after dosage was administered.  Keep in mind that the study ended after 48 hours so we have no idea what the long-term distribution of lipid nanoparticles looked like.

  

Here is a table showing the widespread distribution and concentrations of the lipid nanoparticles (and, by extension, the mRNA) of the "vaccine that would stay in your arm" with my highlights showing some of the highest concentrations:

 

Here's what Pfizer saw:

 

"Mean total radioactivity was greatest at the injection site followed by the liver with much lower total recovery in spleen, adrenal glands and ovaries (Table 4-2). The total radioactivity recovery was less than 100% at all time-points (range = 20 – 60%) probably due to difficulty in collecting entirety of injection site samples and the presence of radioactivity in the carcass, faeces and urine, which were not analysed.

 

The tissue distribution pattern was similar in 100 μg mRNA/animal dose group as noted above for 50 μg mRNA/animal dose, with highest distribution into liver, adrenal glands and spleen.

 

Draining lymph nodes to the site of injection should have been collected and analysed for radioactivity, given the increased size of draining lymph nodes seen in other nonclinical studies after dosing."

 

This begs the question - why weren't the draining lymph nodes at the site of injection collected and analyzed?

 

Here are the conclusions of the biodistribution study according to Pfizer's researchers:

 

1.) Slow but significant distribution of lipid nanoparticles from the site of injection with major uptake into liver.

 

2.) Minor distribution in spleen, adrenal glands and ovaries over 48 h.

 

3.) Mean blood:plasma ratios of 0.5-0.6 indicating nanoparticles mainly present in plasma fraction of blood with peak concentrations in plasma at approx. 2 h post-dose.

 

As I mentioned above, the study ended with the sacrificing of all animals in the trial after 48 hours; what is important is that the concentration of lipid nanoparticles was still rising in the majority of the samples/organs so we have no idea when the peak would have occurred or what the peak level would have been.

Just in case you were curious, here is a study by Katharine Roltgen et al which shows that the vaccine mRNA and spike antigen remain in the germinal centers (in the lymph nodes) for up to 8 weeks after vaccination:

 

It is quite apparent that Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine does not remain at or near the injection site or, at most, travel to the nearby draining lymph nodes.  It is distributed throughout the human body, unlike what we have been told by "the experts".  What is of greatest concern are the higher levels of concentration in the liver, ovaries, spleen, adrenal glands (hormone producing glands that control heart rate, response to stressors, blood flow and metabolism) and bone marrow (produces white and red blood cells).  We don't know or aren't yet privy to the information regarding the impact of multiple COVID-19 vaccinations on the human body and given the short 48 hour timeframe of the biodistribution study released by the TGA, we can't be certain of the medium- and long-term impact of the vaccines on human health.  What is particularly galling is that this information was available to regulators and yet, they approved Pfizer's vaccine.

Pfizer and Directed Evolution of COVID Viruses - Why Are We Trusting Big Pharma?

Thanks to the journalists at Project Veritas we have a fascinating confessional from Dr. Jordon Trishton Walker, Pfizer's Director of Research and Development - Strategic Operations and mRNA Scientific Planning

  

As background and thanks to Brian O'Shea, here is some information on Dr. Walker:

  

1.) New York State licence:

 

2.) Profile on Doximity:

 

 

3.) UT Southwestern Medical Center Match Day 2018 webpage:

 

 

4.) University of Texas Southwestern Medical School Class of 2018 Academic Hooding Ceremony (found under Cary College/Andrian Salazar, M.D.:

 

 

5.) U.S. News Health website:

 

 

6.) C.V. noting the following:

Director, Worldwide R&D Strategic Operations and mRNA Scientific Planning (Pfizer, Oct 2019 - Present) 

 

7.) Apollo:

Here's the video from Project Veritas which has been Archived for posterity:

 

Let's look at some quotes:

 

PV - Pfizer ultimately is thinking about mutating COVID?

 

JTW - Well that's not what we say to the public. No.  We're exploring like you know, how the virus keeps mutating. Well, one of the things we're exploring is like, why don't we just mutate it ourselves so we could, we could create preemptively develop mew vaccines, right?  So, we have to do that.  If we're gonna do that though, there's a risk of like, as you could imagine, no one wants to be having a pharma company mutating fucking viruses.  You have to be very controlled to make sure that this virus that you mutate doesn't create something like, you know, goes everywhere."

 

PV - It sounds like Gain-of-Function to me.

 

JTW - I don't know, it's' a little bit different.  I think it's different. It's like this, it's definitely not Gain-of-Function.

 

PV - It sounds like it is, I mean, it's okay.

 

JTW - No, no, no.  But directed evolution is very different.  Well, you're not supposed to do Gain-of-Function research with the viruses.  They'd rather we not but we do these selected structure mutations to try to see if we can make them more potent.  So there is research ongoing about that.

A distinction without a difference.

 

At the 6 minute and 17 second mark, we find this exchange:

PV - What's the goal for Pfizer doing that (COVID mutations)?

JTW - So, part of what they want to do is try to figure out, to some extent, try to figure out like you know how there's all these new strains and variants that just pop up?   Why don't we try to like catch they before they pop up in nature and we can develop a vaccine prophylactically  before like new variants...so that if it comes out later on, in the public, then you already have a vaccine kind of working.  

PV - Oh my God, that's perfect.  Isn't that the best business model though?  Just control nature before nature even happens itself, right?

JTW - Who knows?  I mean either way it's going to be a cash cow.  COVID will probably be a cash cow for us for a while going forward."

Here is a link to the entire story from Project Veritas.

  

And to think that the vast majority of us trusted Big Pharma with its unprecedented and experimental response to the COVID-19 pandemic?

Addendum:

Here is a tweet from Project Veritas' Twitter account with a video that shows a followup to the video that was posted in the first part of this posting:

Here is the video since Twitter's embedding code seems to not be working properly for me:

Here is the link to an archived version of the video.

And, here is an article co-authored by Jordon Walker entitled "The Near-Term Outlook for COVID-19 Therapeutic Treatments" from May 2020 showing that he is familiar with COVID-19 therapeutics:

Addendum 2:

Here is Pfizer's rather weak response which appeared nearly 48 hours after the "allegations" were made, noting that they say nothing about their employee (or former employee) Dr. Walker but plenty about their COVID-19 product line:

Trust us, we'd never lie to you.