Covid-19 vaccine is gene therapy, not a vaccine


May 26, 2021 (1242 words)

The powers that be and media have got us all thinking about the problem of vaccine safety and efficacy in the wrong way.

Pediatricians, and many from the mainstream medical establishment, have got many of us on the defensive, (fraudulently) claiming that the vaccines are safe and effective and challenging us to disprove that. The burden of proof however, under the precautionary principle, is on the doctors, and their medical system must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the safety and efficacy of the vaccine. It is not the consumer's job to discover the science: it is the medical practitioner/medical system's job. That's what they are there for -- to have that expertise.

To consent to the vaccine, practitioners/public health officials ethically should be held responsible for the following:

1] providing evidence that the vaccine is in fact a vaccine. The truth is, and I don't think anyone disagrees with this, that the injections are not actually vaccines. They are gene therapies.

2} providing evidence that the vaccines are safe. The VAERS data indicate that side effects do occur. Whether you want to call them uncommon or rare, they still exist. Because the vaccine is still in an experimental stage, no-one knows the precise risk. What most people agree upon is that in terms of short-term effects, there is risk stratification according to underlying health status. In other words, the sicker you are, the more likely you are to have a bad reaction. Long-term effects are unknown since the vaccine has been available for less than 6 months. I'd insist on having scientific proof of safety and efficacy. Studies done by pharmaceutical companies are not admissible due to intrinsic bias. They must be done by independent researchers. Such studies to my knowledge do not exist.

3} Vaccine scientists have presented scientific evidence that the vaccines may be capable of neurologic damage, clotting disorders, auto-immune mediated fertility problems, and death due to Antibody Dependent Enhancement (ADE) and Immune Escape. I would require practitioners and public health officials to provide good scientific evidence that these are not legitimate concerns, even in the face of known menstrual irregularities seen after vaccination. To my knowledge, such research does not exist. Saying it doesn't happen is a complete fabrication.

4)}The vaccine companies themselves and Dr. Fauci have said that the vaccine doesn't prevent one from contracting the virus or transmitting it, once it is contracted. It only is there to reduce severity of mild symptoms. It is not known whether it prevents hospitalization or death from COVID-19, as that wasn't studied. Ask for evidence to be provided that the vaccine confers immunity, as vaccines are supposed to do. I don't think such research exists.

5} Even if the vaccine is presented as helpful, in terms of preventing mild symptoms of COVID-19 (which may be correct, although definitive studies are lacking) it needs to be proven to be superior to the alternatives, such as ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, Vitamin D, Zinc, Vitamin C, Budesonide, Hydrogen Peroxide, Oxygen and the other treatments that have been studied. Practitioners and public health officials need to provide evidence that the vaccine is safer than the alternatives, as part of informed consent. Such comparative studies have not been done (you can guess why) so they will not be able to provide such studies.

6} Ultimately the battle over vaxxed/not-vaxxed is an emotional one.
Health practitioners and public health officials are responsible to inform the public of the many reported side effects of the vaccine, such as neurologic disorder, clotting disorders, anaphylaxis? You can tell her it's her job to convince you using quality science, not your job to convince her, and you aren't just going to take her word for it, since the experimental injections are by law voluntary.

7} Practitioners and public health officials don’t know about the safety and efficacy of the COVID-19 "vaccine". No-one does. We just have preliminary data coming from the early and middle portions of an experiment. The preliminary data is conflictual but certainly less than convincing that the vaccine is either safe or effective. Most of us would likely say that the bulk of the evidence at this time suggests that neither are true, although we might be accused of being biased. When it comes to children, guessing about safety and efficacy should never be the standard of care. It's a violation of the Hippocratic oath and the non-maleficence principle: First Do No Harm.

Independent Health Practitioner Who Requests Anonymity

Share this with your friends