NB: 'Genetic' includes: synthetic mRNA, and Adenovirus (which encloses synthetic DNA), or other synthetic DNA (if they exist) COVID vaccines, such as offered, at the time of this writing, from Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca, and Johnson & Johnson, for example.
Last Updated: 24 September, 2023
Informed consent is not blind consent, and it's not a question of trusting anyone. It's a question of having the complete pertinent information or not.
Below is why we recommend that COVID-19 vaccines, like any other act of suicide, be refused in all cases.
PART 1: The Stated Mechanism of Action of the Genetic Vaccines Should Have Been Considered Unacceptable:
The stated way these vaccines are supposed to work is that they deliver genetic material into our cells, causing those cells to produce spike protein, which triggers our immune system to recognize that as foreign and destroy those cells and remember it to react faster in case spike protein ever reappears (such as from the real virus).
Even if these vaccines work exactly like that, they should been unacceptable on these grounds:
There is no regulation of how much spike protein is made in the body. There is a saying in pharmacology that the only thing which separates a drug from a poison is the dose, so it's nice to be able to regulate that dose. Unfortunately this mechanism of action doesn't permit such regulation.
There's no mechanism to guarantee the eventual destruction of the synthetic genetic material by any timeframe.
In fact the genetic material is designed to persist. For the mRNA vaccines, although natural mRNA is usually degraded quickly in cells, the synthetic mRNA in the vaccines is engineered (with substitution for uridine with an unnatural nucleotide N1-methyl-pseudouridine, or 'fake uracil' for purposes of this discussion) for the synthetic mRNA to permit transcription but resist degradation by cellular enzymes, and therefore last much longer; plus there is a danger of reverse-transcription into DNA.
As for the 'adenovirus' (aka 'viral vector') vaccines, their mechanism of acion is to deliver DNA into the cells, and deliver it right into the cell nucleui (because that's how adenovirus works).
It's unpredictable what the 'fake uracil' will do to the body's biochemistry if freed from the mRNA moliecule it is introduced in. Indeed, it is already suspected to be the cause of the white fibrous clots showing up in deceased people since the COVID-19 vaccine rollout.
There is no regulation of how long spike protein is made in the body. Since the genetic information doesn't degrade quickly, patients could have spike protein in their body from this far longer than a COVID-19 infection would have caused.
There is no selection of where in the body the spike protein is made. Brain, heart, gonads: it's all the same to an unspecific lipid nanoparticle.
Not only is the mRNA delivery system not selective for any human cells, it can also program any other types of cells, from bacteria to mammals, it is exposed to however accidentally, and not just that individual, but all future generations. The potential harm is incalculable.
If something goes wrong with the genetic introduction, we don't have the technolgoy to undo it. This is something designed to create permanent alteration, and if there are is genetic harm, in the individiual and/or future generations, we don't have the technology to undo it.
Turning good (beneficial) cells into bad (spike-protein-producing) cells is wasteful. Some cell types, such as heart an brain, are never replaced.
It's very close to auto-immunity to teach our immune system to attack the body's own cells even if they are behaving strange because we forced them to. The idea of the immune system is our body learning to attack entirely foreign invaders, not our own cells. We don't understand immune system recognition system well enough that we should dare to tamper with it like this in anyone, much less everyone.
Incorporating foreign patented genetic information, even if temporary, makes us transgenic, ie. genetically modified organisms (aka GMO), and property of the patent holder. That's the law (more on this later in this article).
An altered genetic code definitely creates a new subspecies of humanity which is the start of a transhuman age. Our genetic information is the only thing which makes us human; direct modification of it would be a clearly separate category of humanity. To alter it should be considered a crime against humanity and whatever force which created us.
Humans don't have the moral authority to directly modify our genetic information, not even with our informed consent, because we do not have copyright on that software. It's not our creation. It's the Creator's.
PART 2: Reasons why genetic COVID vaccines shouldn't be distributed to the Public At All:
It's Designed to Force Your Body to Produce a Toxin within Itself:
The spike protein (which the genetic vaccines attempt to program patient cells to produce) isn't just an antigen for our immune system
to recognize. It's also at toxin, as this article reveals.
This other article, furthermore, discusses the spike protein even as "the real killing-agent in Covid". Why force our bodies to produce a poison inside us?
The official story behind the COVID-19 virus and/or vaccines is literally impossible.
It's too shady for anyone responsible to go along with it.
According to the official timeline, COVID-19 is a diseased cause by a 'novel' coronavirus given the unique name SARS-CoV-2, for which the first cases were seen in China in December 2019, and the virus was first revealed to the rest of the world in early January 2020. Considering that:
That there's something suspicious about the Ingredients List
If we look at the publicly available list of ingredients in the vaccines, we see that they are short. For example, in this list from the official Government of Canada website for the ingredients of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine, it shows only one medical ingredient (mRNA) plus twelve non-medical ingredients, four of which are water, sugar, and salts. This webpage from the University of Cincinnati explains the ingredients in all of the four (genetic) COVID vaccines as either being fats & oils, acids, salt, and sugars: it actually goes so far as to compare the lipid nanoparticles of the vaccines to avocado toast, since they both contain lipids.
If we look deeper, we find that, unlike avocado toast, the Pfizer vaccine requires 280 raw materials from 19 countries (see article here), and public experts can't explain why it needs to be stored at -70 degrees celsius because "the specific formulations are secret" (article here).
How confident are you that you know the secret ingredients (so that you can form informed consent)?
Strange things are being found in the vaccines for which there is no satisfying official explanation
There are numerous reports of scientists worldwide finding shocking and unexpected things in the vaccines, such as:
the Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare of Japan finding "contamination" in Moderna vaccine vials: a "substance that reacts to magnets". There's nothing in the public ingredient list that's magnetic. Moderna reacted to say it had found no "safety or efficacy" issues, without actually saying that what they found was not a deliberate ingredient (article: 1.6m Moderna doses withdrawn in Japan over contamination. Deliberate or not, how can contamination in a vaccine be OK? It wouldn't be allowed in food for example.
Normally when people die using a product Government stops its distribution whether people want it or not.
This time, no matter how many people die, Government continues to declare the COVID-19 'vaccines' (gene therapy injections) as 'safe and effective'.
It's a Dangerous Affront to our Human Origins:
Injecting ourselves with synthetic genetic material is a dangerous to break us from whatever force made us, in particular:
If we were created by a higher being (God), it is likely an offense to that higher being to directly tamper with our genetic
information which He formed us with, since our code is His intellectual property. In our society a similar law is called copyright or patent. The consequences to our relationship with God
If we were created by Evolution by Natural Selection, it is again a violation of and break from those natural forces which made us to tamper with our life code this way.
The consequences to human evolution are unknown.
You may surrender your divine birthright as a human on planet Earth
There is a theory discussed here that since the vaccines insert synthetic gentic code into you, and you become non-human from a legal and divine perspective, then you give up your divine birthright to have dominion over the Earth.
Anyone who takes this Corrupts their Divine-written Genetic Information with Corporate-written Genetic Information.
On a genetic level, you become a genetically modified organism (GMO).
On a protein level, you've just forced your body to start producing foreign proteins within and part of itself, which is transhumanism.
You forfeit your humanity, and the effects could be hereditary. Even if you have the right to kill yourself, you don't have the right to corrupt the human gene pool.
Due to Loss of Humanity, the Vaccinated Potentially have No Human Rights Under the Law:
Governments, and many employers with government support, have been encouraging and then coercing people to accept the vaccines on the appearance
that you will have more human rights with the vaccine than without. For example, in many places they've made it that, if you are vaccinated, you can go to places the unvaccinated are not permitted to,
and work jobs which the unvaccinated are not permitted to.
It is a deception. The astonishing truth is quite the opposite: rather refusing the COVID vaccines puts you on a stronger foundation to keep your human rights, and here's why:
if you accept these gene therapies, then you legally take responsibility for them (which is not true if you were forced).
these patented gene therapies can alter your genome (despite the oversimplified Government claims that they cannot, as discussed on our main COVID page).
Assuming that happens, then:
any integration of the synthetic genetic information into your human genome makes you a chimera, genetically modified organism (GMO), and transgenic organism, none of these being
not being legally human, you no longer qualify for any human rights
you become the legal property of the patent-holder. Supporting articles include:
It's true that Governments have been abusing the unvaccinated to the absolute limits the law can permit, even by the most imaginative definition,
but there are still limits. If you no longer qualify for human rights, there are no limits to what they can do if they want to. They may be generous to you now, to
award you more rights than the unvaccinated so much as even to make it appear that the unvaccinated have less rights,
but that is only at their whim; they are not obligated to give the vaccinated any rights.
There are no significant benfits, only significant promises of benefits which keep changing:
THEORETICAL Impossibiltiy of Effectiveness:
THEORY: Vaccines stimulate a different part of our antibody defense system than needed to defend the surface of our lungs from the COVID-19-causing virus (SARS-CoV-2).
The body has an antibody system to defend our body's surfaces, and one to defend our internal organs.
An injected vaccine, by its delivery, stimulates the one which defends our internal organs.
To defend against a respiratory (lung-surface-attacking) illness, we need to stimulate the antibody system which defends our body's surfaces, in this case the lining of our lungs. This means the antigen must be presented to the body at the surface, not within our bloodstream.
Therefore the injected COVID-19 vaccine (which stimulates the internal antibody defenses) cannot be effective against a the COVID-19-causing (SARS-CoV-2) virus (which attacks the lining of the lungs). It's the wrong line of defense we are fortifying.
This video explains this theory in more detail.
That's presumably why the flu vaccines never prevent the flu each year, but vaccines for viruses which come in through the blood, such as rabies, seem to work well.
However, as a business model for vaccine manufacturers, product failure is business success if it generates more demand for the same product, so long as vaccines are considered unquestionable.
Germ Theory is Not Supported in Evidence:
Conventional medicine, including the official COVID-19 response, is based on the theory that disease is due to the presence or absence of a germ. This is the 'germ theory' introduced by Louis Pasteur.
However a friend of Pasteur, Claude Bernard, proposed a more holistic theory, 'cellular terrain theory': that dangerous germs are a natural part of the environment and what matters in being immune to them is the overall health of the body.
Pasteur's theory was never properly supported in evidence, while cellular terrain theory was never disproven. Although it matters a little which germs we are exposed to, our bodies already have plenty of dangerous pathogens not only around us, but already INSIDE us (especially living in our gut and trapped in our lymph nodes), and it's the overall health of our bodies which is the dominant factor in both our defense and diagnosis.
Unfortunately, the medical industry has chosen to follow germ theory, at their profit and the Public's harm. It's just so profitable to abuse Public trust in experts to convince people there is something to fear, convince them that their body's innate systems are inadequate, and readily and cheaply available food or lifestyle changes also inadequate, but to accept the experts' for-profit product and/or service to supposedly save them from the feared thing.
The more experts are trusted, the more they can stoke a degree of fear so extreme that they will pay any money for the solution, and praise it even if it doesn't work, and praise it even if it harms them, and bully others wrongfully into accepting it also.
It's our overall health we should focus on, as our first and foremost physical defense to any germ crisis, and any other advice is deceptive no matter who it comes from.
Practical Failure: The world's battle with COVID has simply gone far worse,
medically and in terms of quality of life, for us than before the vaccines were rolled out.
The COVID situation has gotten worse, with infections still rising,
seemingly endless variants (appearing after the vaccine rollout coincidentally),
and not even the fully vaccinated allowed to stop social distancing or wearing masks in society (example article here),
and we're still threatened with lockdowns and travel restrictions endlessly.
Even the most vaccinated countries are not winning the battle.
It's illogical and wrong to blame the minority of unvaccinated people for the failure of the vaccine.
Failure in Progressive Admission: At first the vaccine was promised to stop infection and trasmission perfectly or almost perfectly, and thus represent a certain end to the pandemic for anyone who wanted it, on which thinking those who refused the vaccine were persecuted by the majority who accepted it as traitors. However the unvaccinated didn't break promises to them, and if the vacine actually worked then whoever was vaccinated wouldn't need to worry about who else was unvaccinated or even carried the virus. Rather the majority should have been offended that the claims on which they accepted the unreversible vaccination and its risks, and persecuted others, were gradually admitted by the authorities they trusted, to be false.
In fact at least the Pfizer vaccine wasn't even tested for stopping transmission before public distribution, even though that claim was the most important in its promotion including mandating. This also means that the deception was deliberate, ie. since claims were made by experts on something that actually was never checked. We were simply told to trust the experts, but the problem with trust is betrayal. Article: Pfizer admits to European Parliament they NEVER tested whether Covid Vaccine prevented transmission
If you can still be infected by the virus,
spread the virus, and die from the virus (example here), even if 'fully vaccinated' against the virus,
then that 'vaccine' is useless and not worth its cost or inherent risk.
Even Bill Gates confesses that the vaccine only 'slightly' reduces the risk of transmission.
Sure, officials might claim that your chance of getting the virus is lowered and if you do get it it's less
severe, if you are vaccinated, but that's easy to say and difficult to prove.
Once it becomes clear that 'fully vaccinated' can and are contracting, spreading, or dying from the same
virus they are 'vaccinated' for, the 'vaccine' is a failure.
In fact, the only reason there is a huge cry to get everyone vaccinated is to make the
vaccinated, who realize they are still vulnerable because of the vaccine's
ridiculous ineffectiveness, feel more safe about in their precarious position.
If the COVID 'vaccine' was effective, ie. conferred immunity like the traditional vaccine technology does,
then those who take it wouldn't have to care who else has the vaccine or even who has COVID.
For example, the rabies vaccine is like that: you vaccinate your dog against rabies and then
you don't care who or what else is vaccinated or even has rabies.
MINISCULE (<2%) Absolute Risk Reduction, for catching COVID, for being vaccinatedAs revealed in this video, Pfizer documented, in its initial trial report, that their vaccines only provides less than 1% of absolute risk reduction (change in risk of contracting COVID-19 for having the vaccine).
The virus isn't fatal for the vast majority of people, but with ADE it could easily be fatal due to lack of resistance from the immune system. Is it really worth the hassle, financial cost (OK the Government pays but that's the Public eventually), and other medical risks to make a potential future infection with a low-lethality virus (which SARS-CoV-2 is) less severe to that patient, at the risk of possibly making such an infection actually more severe, and therefore more lethal, to that patient than if they were never vaccinated?
Unknown Long-Term Effects: There is NO WAY anyone (but God) knows the effects of vaccines which existed for less than a year (from the time when the corresponding virus was discovered)
before they were released, and don't let anyone tell you different. To make matters even more unpredictable, they use a fundamentally new technology never approved for use in humans before.
Morally: If you are seriously harmed or die from the vaccine, you are harmed by your own decision, but if you are harmed by a virus, you are not guilty of self-harm. This moral consequence of your vaccination decision is one you'll have to live with.
Similarly it is possible for medical care funding providers to pay for COVID treatment, but not vaccination harm teratment, on the same argument (ie. that you chose the vaccine deliberately and unnecessarily despite publicly published harms).
Children are most vulnerable to mishaps from genetic alteration because their developing bodies heavily depend on that code being thoroughly correct to form their future body, and to eventually produce offspring.
Although Parents and Government have authority over children, morally that is to protect them not experiment on them and certainly not to play God with their genetic code.
There's no significant benefit to COVID-vaccinating children, although there is significant risk to doing so.
The System is set up to abandon those who are vaccine harmed:
Those Behind it have Many Layers of Shielding from Responsibility if You Get Hurt by It:
There is no direct test for vaccine harms. Vaccines can cause so many different effects, on the cellular level, that it's difficult to pick just one. If you are harmed by the vaccine, you probably won't be able to prove it.
The level of techology of the vaccines now exceeds the level of technology of our tests. If you are harmed by the vaccine, you might not even be able to prove that you are sick; you might be told it's in your head.
It goes against their incentive for physicians to diagnose a disease as vaccine harm. The same profession, even the same people, making the diagnosis is the same group encouraging and administering the vaccines. Is it in their best interest to declare that their advice and intervention caused the harm? No it's not. Rather putting them in position to make the diagnosis of the patient harmed after the vaccine they gave gives them an opportunity to obscure the cause away from the vaccine.
Vaccine harms can show up in so many different symptoms over such an extended timeframe that it's difficult to link the harm to the vaccines.
The vaccine ingredients are unclear, some being stated, some allegedly being obscured as 'trade secrets', and some being found by investigators without any such declaration on the labels. You can't trace harms back to ingredients you don't know.
Manufacturers are legally immune for any harms caused by their vaccines. This one fact alone should have made vacciens totally unacceptable by the Public, especially for an irreversible medical treatment. At the very least no one should trust those who refuse to take responsibiltiy, no matter their credentials or data.
The Scientists and Politicians Behind the Vaccination Program Don't Know Enough about Life that they should Attempt Genetic Editing on Living Humans, Nevermind Coerceing the Acceptance of Entire World's Population at Once
Scientists have exaggerated to the Public how much they understand about life as though they understand it all. Scientists don't even understand what life is, and although we understand the linear code of DNA we don't undersand many other aspects of it, like how genes are turned on and off. Our scientists don't understand what aging is. Heck they don't even know the difference between a dead cells and living ones until they start to decay. There is NO WAY they should be allowed to do synthetic genetic code insertion into the entire human population. Sources:
According to this article (here), our scientists don't know anything about 98% of our DNA.
What's the danger in interfering with the genetic code of humanity on a mass scale and not fully understanding what you're doing? Extinction is one risk. Permanent genetic corruption of humanity is another one. Example article: January 9, 2023: Can humanity survive the reckless biotechnology experiments?
There is a Suspicious Fight of Government and Mainstream Media to Silence Vaccine Criticism, which the Public should be Alarmed About:
Until citizens are allowed to see copies (without redactions) of the
contracts our Government have made with the vaccine manufacturers, or all the data the FDA used to approve the vaccines, or all of the vaccine ingredients including those protected as 'trade secrets', we shouldn't accept the vaccine even based on this secrecy alone. Hiding this information shows unacceptable contempt for both democracy and infomred consent.
Sharing information isn't a threat, or an 'infodemic' as the Establisihment calls it. The truth will eventually rise to the top if there is no restriction on the sharing of information and ideas. That's how we improve as a society. That's why freedom of expression is so important, especially to share unconventional views, so that we can improve beyond what is conventionally accepted specifically by that criticism. Only when the conventional narrative stands up to criticism from all sides, do we know it is reliable.
For authorities to restrict criticism of their narrative is dangerous and suspicious and the habit of totalitarian regimes. It is not a way to advance, but to control, especially to lead people towards decisions they might not make if they had the information from all sides.
Yes, sharing anti-vaccine information may stoke vaccine hesitancy, but vaccine hesitancy is a right, not a disease.
PART 3: Reasons Why the genetic COVID Vaccines Shouldn't Be Targetted for the Entire Human Population at Once:
Rollout of an Unproven Vaccine Targetted and Coerced for the Entire Population at Once is an Unnecessary Risk of Human Extinction:
When rolling out something in too short a timeframe to know long-term harms, and especially when it is a potentially herreditary genetic alteration, there is a real danger of extinction if there's anything wrong in the long-term effects because the plan is that everyone would be affected.
PART 4: Reasons why the genetic COVID-19 'vaccines' shouldn't be tested on or distributed to the Public in the manner that they are:
These are not 'vaccines',
in the traditional sense of the world, but gene therapy injections. They are a fundamentally different technology from traditional attentuated virus, (supposedly) designed to definitely change your genetic information and hopefully give you immunity to the virus as an indirect result.
They should not be as trusted as other 'vaccines' any more than a GMO tomato should be as trusted as an organic tomato. We should base our trust of products on types of kind or technology rather than mere definitions of words. Just because someone uses a word like 'vaccine' doesn't mean their definition of what it means is what you think it means.
Since even the Government publishes harms including deaths shortly following these vaccines, no one should be allowed to promote or present them as 'safe'.
The vaccines are not safe in the SHORT TERM as we can see from many casis of death and disability from their use as recorded even in the most official data (for example here for Canada).
Whether the vaccines are safe or not in the LONG TERM (many years) is something that OBVIOUSLY CANNOT BE KNOWN for vaccines which were formulated, tested, approved and distributed all in LESS THAN ONE YEAR after the corresponding virus was even discovered.
The scope of long-term effect is even greater, than it would be for most medical treatments, because when we are talking about possible genetic changes, 'long-term' effects need to be considered not only in the life of the patient receiving the vaccine, but in the lives of ALL OF THEIR FUTURE DESCENDENTS. We know that in less than a year? TOTALLY IMPOSSIBLE lies.
The manufacturers' own documents, publicly released with the vaccines, reveals many important risks, such as to pregnant women, as being totally unknown, yet Government failed to warn of that but instead assured us of 'safety'.
Let's consider the case of Canada:
Canada has gone to great lengths to assure the Public of supposed 'safety' of the COVID vaccines,
often hinting at absolute safety by not even mentioning any risks or unknowns whatsoever.
An official downloadable graphic-to-share from this webpage is:
And the official Health Canada video (from this webpage) on the safety
of the COVID-19 vaccines is:
The premise of all this is the dogma that the vaccines are so totally safe, and
so totally effective to protect individual and public health, and the only way out of the pandemic,
so that anyone who refuses them must therefore be evil,
even a public enemy, and therefore no pressure or punishment is too great for them.
The dogma is false. It's actually the Government which is putting the Public at
uninformed (or anti-informed) risk.
If we download the detailed 'Product Monograph' sheets from the same Health Canada website,
under the sheets 'For health care professionals',
those sheets reveal some critical unknowns and risks with these vaccines.
For example, for the Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine,
(the 'regulatory information' page is here),
from which anyone may download the Product Monograph (under the 'For health care professionals' tab in the middle of the webpage)),
that Product Monograph has these passages in it:
[Page 8 Section 7] "Reproductive Health
No data are available on fertility in humans following the use of Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine."
So if it makes everyone infertile after a few years, too bad for humanity and, if we all took it, humanity
So if it makes everyone infertile after a few years, too bad for humanity and, if we all took it, humanity
goes extinct. Maybe we should hesitate giving it to those who haven't reproduced yet? Instead the Public is assured
[Section 7.1.1 page 9] "Pregnant Women
The safety and efficacy of the Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine in pregnant women have not yet
Similar wording is found in the write-up for the other approved vaccines in Canada, specifically:
AstraZeneca: "7.1.1 Pregnant Women
The safety and efficacy of VAXZEVRIA in pregnant women have not yet been
The safety and efficacy of SPIKEVAX in pregnant women have not yet been established."
The safety and efficacy of COMIRNATY in pregnant women have not yet been established."
It's worth noting that these write-ups are current to early December 2021 (as of this writing), meaning if the risks are still unknown by that
date, then they were unknown before that date also.
So maybe we shouldn't be giving this vaccine to pregnant women?
Not only have officials been telling everyone that the vaccines are 'safe',
but they have actually been encouraging pregnant women specifically to take it, and
not exempting them from vaccine mandates either. Some example articles are:
Official Health Canada webpage on the subject of "Vaccination and pregnancy: COVID-19".
As of this writing (early December 2021), it actually says "The data shows that mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are safe for people who are pregnant or breastfeeding."
Well, that's not what the product monograph says.
But there's more. Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine product monograph goes on to say: "Pregnancy Exposure Registry There is a pregnancy exposure registry that monitors pregnancy outcomes in women exposed
to Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine during pregnancy. Women who are vaccinated with Janssen
COVID-19 Vaccine during pregnancy are encouraged to enroll in the registry by visiting
It's saying that, in other words, in place of doing controlled trials (of risk to a small number of people
which is the point of doing tests before mass release), they're doing mass release first, and then collecting
data second. This also means the population are actually part of first-time human data collection on the effects,
which means, human experimentation on the Public.
It means that those who call this injection 'experimental' are actually correct. It also suggests that
data collection for the product's sake may be a motive for the insistence that more pregnant women be vaccinated.
Don't think they care about people.
[Section 7.1.2] "Breast-feeding
It is not known whether the components of Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine or antibodies induced
by Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine are excreted in human milk. Human data are not available to
assess the impact of Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine on milk production or its effects on the
Government shouldn't be saying it's 'safe' for breast-feeding.
[Section 9] "DRUG INTERACTIONS
No interaction studies have been performed."
Nobody taking the vaccine is on any drugs? Let's hope not, because the possible adverse effects of
drug interactions are unknown.
"Carcinogenicity: Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine has not been evaluated for its carcinogenic
potential. The components of the vaccine are not expected to have carcinogenic potential.
Genotoxicity: Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine has not been evaluated for its genotoxic potential.
The components of the vaccine are not expected to have genotoxic potential."
How did they just justify foregoing actual testing and
replace it with what they expect to happen or not happen? Science is based on testing hypotheses, not
skipping the testinng part.
[pag 23] "This leaflet is a
summary and will not tell you everything about this vaccine."
OK yes, obviously it's a summary, but it should be a summary of all available knowledge on the product.
What do they mean 'not tell you everything'?
What is ommitted: immaterial details, risks, entire topics, or
ingredients? They don't say. Would you buy a box of cereal which had printed on it that
the ingredients 'don't tell you everything'?
[page 25] "A combination of blood clots and low level of platelets, in some cases together with bleeding,
has been observed very rarely in unusual locations (e.g., brain, liver) following vaccination with
Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine."
Exactly how rare is 'very rarely'?
Are we actually checking for liver blood clots and platelet counts
after vaccination, or are we winging it?
So the Canadian Government is coercing citizens into taking the vaccines,
knowing they are risky,
but telling the Public they are safe,
and punishing anyone who doesn't take them and rewarding those who do.
Guiding a living being into a mortal danger,
at the hands of your own agents,
which you are aware of but the victim is not, is like industrial slaughter.
Since the COVID vaccine products are distributed internationally,
with virtually identical product monographs,
and enjoying virtually identical Government promotion,
a similar story could likely be written concerning the COVID vaccine rollout in many if not
most other countries.
Patients Should Be Fully Informed of the Risks before Vaccination
Everyone considering taking COVID-19 vaccines should be presented with the full list of known risks, so that the patient can make an informed decision, rather than risks being hidden under a 'safe and effective' narrative. For example, everyone considering taking the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine should be presented with the almost 1300 adverse events of special interest officially reported by Pfizer to be associated with their vaccine. Once they listen to the adverse effects being read off, and had a chance to ask questions about them, then they are in a position to make an informed vaccine decision.
Government agencies have not attached any Public warning to emergency authorization
Risks for emergency use are more real and/or less understood than with full approval, and these products under emergency authorization shouldn't have been presented by Government agencies as having gone through just as thorough a regulatory scrutiny as other medical products.
Parents shouldn't be allowed to sign their children up for medical experitmentation
It was wrong to present the body as not being able to battle the COVID-19 virus without a vaccine.
The body fights SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19 virus) well without any vaccine, such that only those with a weak immune system, such as the very elderly or frail, were significantly vulnerable to it. In other words, our natural immune systems were nearly always effective to defeat COVID-19, plus there are natural and nutritive ways to fortify that system. Moreover, some people are naturally immune to COVID-19 due to recvery from prior exposure. How is it then we were told that a vaccine was our only way out of the pandemic?
It's wrong to ignore that there are natural or at least more natural ways to support our immune system before we resort to unnatural methods.
For example, how about some sunshine, fresh air, vitammin D, zinc, or vitamin C?
Mandating a Mortal Risk is Murder
Isn't it murder to compel someone to commit an act of suicide?
of course it is; this kind of thing was exposed in the movie The Deer Hunter (1978), where American prisoners of war were forced to play russian roulette against their will.
Nothing risky should be mandated, especially nothing life-threatening, or else the people who mandate it are at least morally responsible for what happens
to any victims.
In other words, if you support vaccine mandates, and anyone dies from those vaccines, you are an accessory to murder (morally whether or not legally). Similarly, if they are harmed in any other way for a mandate you demanded, you are partly responsible.
How dangerous are the vaccines? Dangerous enough that in France a life insurance company refused to pay the death benefit to the widow of a man who died from the COVID vaccine, based on
the argument that accepting the COVID vaccine was 'suicide', as shown in the many fatalities and wide array of harms caused by the vaccine which are
publicly published. The insurance company won in court. (Article: Life insurer refuses to cover vaccine death)
Here is a very brief mention of some of the harms:
The Human Rights Problem Exists Not Only for the Uncompliant, but the Compliant
The human rights issue surrounding vaccine mandates isn't just an issue for those who reject the vaccine which those who accept it can ignore or escape. If you aqcuiesce to coercion you are more vulnerable to further abuses of this kind in the future, for two reasons:
You embolden the coercers by showing them that a coercive approach works to control you to do anything easily, even if otherwies you woould refuse. Coercing you to do something by threats of punishment is certainly far easier and cheaper for those in a position of power than, for example, sharing information to convince you or giving you positive rewards. Once it succeeds, the incentive for them to use this tactic again is tremendous.
Even if you have no problem with accepting this dose of the vaccine, if for any reason (such as an adverse reaction to this one) you conceive a reason to reject the next mandated dose (and the number of doses required to be considered 'fully vaccinated' has kept increasing), you will find yourself threatened by the same punishments, if you don't comply, as if you rejected the first dose. Authorities have no obligation or incentive to be reasonable or compassionatein considering your appeal. Plus you need a physician to back you, and they have very little lincentive to do that in this highly politicized issue, which their industry is strongly in support of, and for which harm there is no obvious way to prove it; more likely they will be afraid to risk their license (example: Powerful! Canadian Woman Explains How She Got COVID Red Pilled). In other words, even if you had a serious reaction to one dose of the vaccine, you might be severely punished if you refuse the next dose, and your appeal cruelly dismissed, such that you'd be better off if you never took any doses. Think it's impossible? It's already happening, for example as in this article: Union College Student Booted for Rejecting Vaccine Booster After Having Serious Side Effects
Human Rights Must Be Unconditional (or else they are Not Rights)
Under the 'vaccine passport' system,
by our consent, we give up our inborn permanent human rights in exchange for
temporary human rights which expire periodicially
and are only renewable on condition of our ongoing submission of our bodies to more injections.
This is because the definition of 'fully vaccinated' keeps changing, at Government discretion,
to require more and more booster shots without any apparent end (we are already at the fourth dose as of this writing,
and who knows what else will be expected in the future to keep 'fully vaccinated' status).
It's like seizing someone's home only to allow them to live there for a certain rent every month and they
can be thrown out any time. Should we take a deal like that or just keep our house?
WARNING: There is no such thing as giving up human rights temporarily. You have them or you don't.
It's Wrong to Use a Medical Treatment for Government-Ordered Discrimination
Human society has worked for thousands of years to end discrimination, usually with the support of Government, and with much succss, so it is a shock that Government would order our societies to deny service to unvaccinated people and in other ways discriminate against them.
How severe is the discrimination? It has not yet found limits. Being forced out of your job for it has become common. As another example,
in April 2021, Ralph Gonsalves, the prime minister of St. Vincent and the Grenadines,
in arranging the emergency evacuation of people from an
island with an ERUPTING VOLCANO, as a matter of policy refused to allow anyone who was not COVID-vaccinated
to board the ships (article here).
Unnatural Treatments Should Not Be Mandated
Human beings are a product of nature, and our bodies are not designed (or evolved, if you believe that) to respond to synthetic chemicals, nevermind direct genetic reprogramming. Humans should have a right to keep their nature and not have that nature interfered with. Not everyone wants to be a science experiment and that should be respected. We should have the right to stay natural if we wnat to, especially when the artificial treatments have permanent and irreversible effects.
Put another way, we've never mandated sunshine, rest, or vitamins, respecting personal choice; how should we mandate experimental vaccines?
There Should be Some Level of Adverse Events which is too Much
yet the same Establishment that insists that human life is so precious that even one case of COVID is too much (and many populations have been locked down over a SINGLE positive test) show no sign that any level of vaccine-induced harm is unacceptable or that the program should ever be stopped due to vaccine adverse events.
We should be considered well past any sane tolerance of vaccine harm.
As of September 2021, The Vaccine Death Report
estimates millions killed and hundreds of millions suffering adverse effects, and that's only the first wave of short-term effects, never mind the long-term or generational ones.
Synthetic therapies should be tested for many years before allowing public use on the most vulnerable: pregnant women and children.
Normally they are. Why not for COVID?
PART 5: ISSUES WHICH ARE REASONABLE GROUNDS TO REJECT THE COVID 'VACCINES' BUT MAY BE LEFT TO THE FREE AND UNCOERCED CHOICE OF EACH PERSON:
ALL RISK NO REWARD to vaccinate the NATURALLY IMMUNE
In theory, and emerging in practice, for those who have already recovered from COVID-19, and thereby acquired natural immunity, there is only risk and no chance of reward for taking the vaccine. Example article: Vaccinating After Recovering From COVID-19
SUPPRESSION OF INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR INFORMED CONSENT
When the Goverment, regulatory bodies, and mainstream media are united in promoting the COVID-19 vaccines as 'safe', it's logically impossible to get information on risks from these people.
Trying to share information on the risks is labelled as 'misinformation' while the Public is referred to official sources for truth.
Therefore there is no way to form informed consent.
If you give your consent based on trust, that's your decision, but it's a blind and irreversible one.
We have other health options we prefer to rely on to protect ourselves,
starting with support of our natural immune system (which is free, is proven effective for millions of years, and
can attack any variant).
A vaccine is not the only way to stimulate our immune system to make a stronger attack against viruses.
There are also other prophylactics/treatments, such as ivermectin, which show promise.
In light of these powerful and available and some of them innate options, there is no sensible reason to accept the cost, bother, and
risk of vaccines based on new technology, for which long-term effects cannot be known yet, and
which do not confer immunity (ie. the COVID-vaccinated are now proclaimed to still be capable of contracting, spreading, and dying from
even the exact same virus strain they were vaccinated for).
The Practical Risk to Family
You may be willing to risk the ruin of your life, at your own choice, by accepting a vaccine, but you should consider the effect on your family in doing so. If you are vaccine injured there may be a great cost for your family to pay for years.
This is also why you should listen to family first, not last, in the sharing of information: officials may be experts but they usually won't be there for you if something goes wrong, even if it goes wrong following their directions, and often secure immunity from liabiltiy for your harm in advance.
The risk of being COVID-19 vaccine injured can leave you in a place of little or no social support.
Have you thought about how the two social sides of the COVID-19 vaccine controversy might react if, however rare, you do become vaccine injured?
The COVID-19 anti-vax side spends tremendous energy, usually for free out of a duty for humanity, to distribute information on the dangers of these vaccines. Officials instruct the Public to dismiss independent-source information without looking at it, based on the prejudice of the presenter being unofficial, as a false safety, since you are morally responsible for not only what you know but also what you refuse to be informed of. If you took the vaccine either despite or refusing knowledge of the risks then you accepted the associated risks and bear responsiblity for the outcome. Furthermore, some of the admittedly vaccine injured still promote vaccination of everyone else, apparently like the fox who lost his tail. Emphasizing informed choice, the COVID-19 anti-vax side has little reason to help you deal with the fallout of your vaccine decision once you've made your choice, although there has been some compassion and help coming from this side for those victims, especially those who regret it and are willing to warn rather than endanger others. In other words, to the COVID-19 anti-vax side, your vaccine harms are believable, and we might help, but don't forget that you chose this against everything we did out of love for free to try to warn you.
In contrast, it should be obvious that the COVID-19 pro-vax side, working hard to encourage you to vaccinate, typically but not always at their great profit, has no incentive to help you, if you are injured by that vaccine, because even though that's the side you chose, your 'vaccine-injured' existence is living evidence that their claims, ie. that the vaccines are 'safe', are false claims. Your presence is bad for business and might scare the other customers. You become their 'dirty little secret', whom they have an incentive to deny, marginalise, ignore, misdiagnose, and otherwise avoid helping, as much as they can. Even if you directly tell them you suspect the vaccine caused your harm they can refuse to investigate that. In other words, to the COVID-19 pro-vax side, even when they are the ones who lead you to accept the vaccine, and even when they not only did not tell you the risks but actually told you it was 'safe', your vaccine harms are unlikely to be acknowledged by them as such.
Being vaccine injured can be a lonely place of trust and abandonment. Stories:
As for being able to prove vaccine injury on your own, as a strategy to compel medical industry recognition or help, there are some problems: it is difficult to prove with any test, virtually all tests require a physician's order (whose cooperation to suspect the vaccine may be difficult to obtain, and who often must justify ordering those tests to whatever body is paying for them).
If the side you're on won't be supportive, if you do what they advise and it fails, it shows that you are on a side which doesn't care about you.
Many of the people associated with promoting these vaccines refuse to take it themselves.
Notions that vaccine adverse events are somehow acceptable because they are 'rare' use an inappropriate scope to present data to the consumer: the effect on many people rather than on one person. The notion is that if adverse effects occur in less than a certain percentage of people they are acceptable. However the consumer is not a god to decide what rate of death or harm is acceptable for millions of people. Rather the consumer is responsible for deciding for one person (and maybe their children). That's it. To make an informed decision, the consumer should be presented with whether or not the intervention is safe or not to their individual body and not presented with data framed as though they're deciding for all of humanity.
To distill the data down to one person, it becomes like this: if it's not safe for one person, it's not safe for anyone else.
The Public's emotional perception on COVID vaccine safety has been largely won by the mainstream media consistently failing to report on a single case of serious adverse reaction to them. Rarely they do mention that vaccines as having theoretical risks, but they have not preseted the stories of any person actually harmed by them.
When mainstream media is so persistent to report only good things about the vaccines, day after day for years, without a single mention of an actual case of serious adverse reaction, an emotional perception is propagated in the viewer that the vaccines must be safe.
They're not safe, and it takes a strong mind to realize that the casualties shown in the official data must be real people with real stories and real suffering, and that this is a real and valid warning of danger.
Therefore, in the absence of balanced emotional presentation, the decision to vaccinate needs to be made mentally and with all the data no matter how uncomfortable.
Fortunately, if you would welcome it, alternative media sources abound with stories of vaccine harm, to balance your emotional perception.
PART 7: Non-Medical Issues Against you for Vaccinating:
You may think that it's all benefits if you get vaccinated, because you will now be allowed-back the freedoms you once had just for being born human.
Unfortunately, although you may have some short-lived benefits, it's not that simple. Here are the other vaccinaion-related issues you might not be thinking about, but should:
If you're injured, the suffering and costs can be dire and yours alone to bear, by design of the vaccination program. The people advocating vaccinations are generally all legally immune if you get harmed, and it's very difficult to prove the vaccine as the cause for any harm and your physician might not want to pursue this politically unpopular viewpoint. Expect the suffering and costs of any new medical conditions to be your own.
Don't expect the people or groups or institutions who support the vaccine program to support you emotionally if you are injured by the same vaccine. If you are injured by the vaccine, your existence becomes an innate anti-vaccine argument, and they have incentive first to insist that your illness cannot possibly be related to the vaccine (which also resists you getting the correct diagnosis and thereofore correct treatment), and to completely ignore you if you persist in the idea that it's related to the vaccine.
You're expected to take the full vaccine series if you start. The compliance is not just about being vaccinated but 'fully vaccinated' and the difference of what 'fully' is keeps changing.
If you're taking the vaccine due to any kind of social pressure (such as mandates), you're surrendering human rights. By submitting, you're not only rewarding the terrorists, but collaborating with them. You're teaching them how to treat you and your descendents in all future issues: not to ask you but pressure you.
The idea that people should be vaccinated to protect everyone else is ignoring the facts that:
the COVID vaccines don't protect against contracting the virus, nor do they stop transmission of the disease, so they're not protecting anyone else. A sense of duty to protect others should never be used to promote this failed vaccine.
the election of COVID-19 as a crisis is arbitrary between many other crises including causes of death in the world. The only reason is a pandemic is because the WHO's definition was made so lax that a pandemic can be any new variant of any new or existing virus (as proven by them extending the emergency which every new variant to COVID). There are many other things you can do to protect others.
the right to choose one's own medical treatments should matter. The idea that Governments should be allowed to inject you whenever they want is an extremely dangerous trampling of one of the most essential human rights.
the ingredients of the vaccine should matter. The idea that you should not only not be allowed to choose your own medical treatments, but not allowed to question the ingredients, is another trampling of fairness in our society.
the fact that the same vaccine is widely reported, by the most official souroces, to be harming and even killing people should matter. It's actually murder to mandate something that kills: no less than if you forced someone to play russian roulette.
these vaccines are definitely harming including killing people as recorded by official data, and this should matter, rather then be dismissed as to rare to to be real or included in a vaccination decision
the long-term effects of these vaccines cannot be known yet, but since they are genetic and influence longstanding immunity, there are reasons to suspect not only long-term effects but hereditary ones
the emergency is not medical but political: it is a legal declaration. It does't stop when you do something medical but when you politically object to it.
There is no reason to believe the emergency can ever stop for medical compliance. We can always expect a new variant of the COVID virus, due to the tendency of mutation, and any new variant can be used to extend the emergency, including dictatorial powers, which Governments have a selfish but real incentive to renew.
PART 8: What about the non-genetic COVID-19 vaccines?
They avoid some of the above problems but still should not be considered wise or safe. Here's why:
They don't confer immunity and so do not meet the traditional definition of 'vaccine'.
Many of these vaccines also use bizarre mechanisms which do not resemble the traditional method of inactvated virus, we do not have long-term experience with in humans, and which should not be considered as safe. The details of how it actually works are very important. Example video:
There's no reason to trust the same Establishment which has been pushing the genetic vaccines despite so many terrible problems, with any other vaccine distriputed under the same program by the same people. For example, there are too many reports of unexpected inclusiions in the genetic vaccines to be confident in the others; actually some of these inclusions are reported in the non-genetic vaccines already, such as alleged graphene in the Sinopharm inactivated virus vaccine.
You might not get which vaccine you think you're getting at the clinic, if you're allowed to choose at all. You could get administered a different vaccine than you were promised (you find out when you get the certificate), since these vaccinations are usually done in a very large room and you don't get to read or see the bottle they are drawn out of. There are reports of people being promised one vaccine and given another one, as quietly as a pharmacist might substitute a generic drug for a brand name drug, apparently based on the Establishment insistence that all the vaccines are equivalent. Depending on your country, many clinics won't allow you to choose your vaccine, anyway, by Government order.
PART 9: Questions you Should Be Asking about the Vaccine Program and its supposed necessity
Is the vaccination program operating more by fear, coercion, or informed consent of people who actually understand how the vaccine works?
If the COVID-19 vaccine doesn't work out for you, can it be reversed?
Since the 'vaccine' doesn't stop transmission, how is getting vaccinated keeping other people safe?
Since the 'vaccine' doesn't stop contraction of the disease, how is getting vaccinated keeping you safe?
Why all this effort and coercion to vaccinate everyone if it protects no one?
Does anyone profit from vaccine manufacture and distribution?
If the vaccine effectiveness wanes, so that many more doses are recommended, does the manufacturer make more or less money than if only one vaccine was needed? Is it possible this is by design?
Are there any other ways (besides vaccines), literally any at all, to support our immune system to improve our resistance to pathogens?
Why is the COVID-19 pandemic no better after the vaccine rollout at vast majority acceptance?
Why didn't we hear about variants until after the vaccines were accepted?
Why were vaccines voluntary at first then mandated later (meaning houldn't everyone have the same right to choose)?
Will anyone follow-up with you to specifically test you for vaccine harms after your vaccination? Many medical conditions only show up as words on a page if you look for them with a specific test. Is someone going to do that?
If you are harmed by the vaccine, how will you know and be able to show it is not merely a coincidence?
Why does the Establishment invest so much focus on just this one threat to human life, when there are so many others which are ignored or even linked to things the Government makes money selling to the Public? For example: cigarettes/tobacco, alchohol, and marijuana (where legal).
Why are the 'vaccines' promoted in a way which portrays risk of harm dismissively or not at all?
If a patient is seriously harmed from a vaccine, and requires extra medical proucts and services for the rest of their life due to this harm, will the medical industry profit or lose from that? HINT: They are legally immune to being sued for harms.
At what level of harm or death, if it occurred, would the Government intervene to stop the vaccination program to protect the Public?
Is it moral to mandate something for others, at their own risk, which can and has been known to kill and/or permanently injure people? Isn't that like forcing someone to play russian roulette, like in the movie The Deer Hunter (1978), or was that also moral to mandate?
If the Government is allowed power to mandate vaccine doses, do you have any control over how many and which doses they mandate in the future?
Is it possible that there may be a type or dose number of any vaccine in the future which you would prefer the right to refuse if you so decide?
Do you want to live in a world where other people decide irreversible medical treatments for you against your will?
Do you accept genetic alteration or under-the-skin surveillance?
PART 10: If someone in your family is vocal in opposition to the COVID-19 'vaccine', but you are pro-vaccine, is sneaking out with dependent family members, to get them vacinated, the right way to end vaccine arguments?
You might get away with it, morally and practically, if it was always safe, but it isn't, and taking dependent family memers to do something which risks irreversible harms might not be the end of vaccine-related conflict in the home, but just the beginning (besides potential medical problems). Anything with irreversible risks should be agreed upon by all parties responsible and affected, and never hidden from these parties.
FINAL WARNING: The COVID-19 genetic 'vaccines' have nothing to do with healing, protecting, nor traditional vaccine technology. They are only weapons against life, with no reasonable prospect of any benefit. Beyond homicide they attack not only the patient but the very blueprint of their humanity. They seriously endanger not only the patient, but any organism even accidentally exposed to them, and not only that individual but potentially all future offspring. Their distribution represents the greatest holocaust in known history, on many levels, and one from which life on earth may never recover. The social acceptance of these injections being mandated represents a catastrophic moral failure in the majority of Governments, news agencies, religious organizations, workplaces, and voters worldwide. So great is the scale of this holocaust, that it is difficult to believe that any human could have conceived this plan against our own species. If after understanding all this you, as an adult, want to COVID-vaccinate yourself, or you have some other issue more important to think about, or you want to watch cat videos instead, go for it, but don't impose vaccines on any other person. In fact the unvaccinated should be protected, for they are humanity's last best hope now of preserving the species of humanity in its created form.
DISCLAIMER: This is not advice on any individual's medical situation but advice on a product. Venom is not fit for anyone to be injected with, and you don't need to be a physician to say that.