How does one go over the risks and benefits of the covid vaccines? Where do you begin? How do you choose what to share and what to pass over? What are the most important things to be aware of as we make decisions for our future and the future of our children?
Well, here is my list. I’ve decided to limit myself to 10 problems or concerns I have with these products because I know this will be incredibly long even if I limit myself, but please know that this is the tip of the iceberg and there is so much more I could say. I tried to be thorough but also concise. I have not strayed into “conspiracy theories”. All of this is easily verifiable, concrete, and based in the scientific data. If you want a glimpse at how much deeper I could have dived, check out these well written arguments here and here.
Small disclaimer: I will be talking mostly about the mRNA jabs and lumping things together instead of breaking down each one by type. For the sake of clarity (if you don’t already know this), there are two mRNA vaccines (Moderna and Pfizer), and two main viral vector vaccines (Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca). The mRNA jabs have the same formulation (for the most part) and certainly the same mechanism of action, as do the viral vector vaccines. I go over how they are made in connection to abortion here and have a little discussion on religious exemptions here.
1. They don’t work
First of all, the clinical trials were not designed to measure anything but mild infection. We don’t know if these products save lives, decrease hospitalization rates, or stop severe disease from the clinical trial data. They were designed to measure mild infection and were decided based on less than 200 people. 
And then we come to evidence of either extreme sloppiness or intentional skewing of data. The Pfizer trial, who makes a claim of 95% efficacy also notes that there were “3,410 cases of suspected but unconfirmed covid 19 in the overall study population, 1594 occurred in the vaccine group vs. 1816 in the placebo group.” 
It doesn’t say “negative PCR test with symptoms of covid.” It says “unconfirmed”. Why would that be? Why were they not tested? Why are they left unconfirmed? Unfortunately, we don’t yet have answers to these questions.
And now we have a whistleblower from the Pfizer trial saying this was the sloppiest clinical trial she’s ever been a part of. She has a list of data integrity issues including skewed data, no follow up with patients who had severe adverse events, unblinding of the data early on in the trial, and failure to test people with symptoms. [3,4]
We must also take into account the difference between absolute and relative risk. Relative risk is what the trials tout as 95% efficacy, but that only tells part of the story. Absolute risk measures the risk with and without the vaccine, and considers the entire population. Measuring the absolute risk takes your immune system into account and doesn’t pretend that we are all dependent on a product to save us. The ARR for Moderna was 1.2% and 0.84% for Pfizer.  Not as impressive, but more realistic.
Highly vaccinated populations in real life are proving that efficacy simply does not hold up. Click here for a fun video of headlines that start with 95% efficacy and slowly devolve into the 20s before they switch to talk about boosters.
Israel is one of the highest vaccinated populations in the world. Their efficacy had dropped to 39% by July,  and they are now seeing another rise in cases even since they’ve rolled out boosters. 
Even if these shots start out at 95% effectiveness, they stopped measuring that in trials March of 2021, so we can’t tell how long we have until immunity begins to wain. Some studies have shown drops in immunity that are “considerably lower” than what we have been told based on the trials. 
According to a study from Israel, “In the vaccinated population, we observe higher initial antibody titers, but the titers quickly drop, decreasing by 40% each passing month. Conversely, in the convalescent population, initial titers are lower, but the titers decrease much more slowly, by ~4% every month.” 
A recent study out of Sweden showed “Vaccine effectiveness of BNT162b2 (Pfizer vaccine) against infection waned progressively from 92% at day 15-30 to 47% at day 121-180, and from day 211 and onwards no effectiveness could be detected.  That’s less than 50% in a little over 3 months and zero effectiveness in a little over 6 months. Johnson and Johnson has dropped all the way down to only 3%. 
To make the claim that they work, we would at least need evidence of a drop in cases after mass vaccine campaigns take place. The opposite has occurred in every single location as far as I can see. We actually had more deaths from covid by June 2021 than all of last year combined.  I know there are many factors involved, but one would expect some improvement after millions have been vaccinated, if they do actually work.
And honestly, all we need to do to answer this question is look at the talk surrounding boosters. We went from “very efficacious” and bizarre claims of the vaccine having better immunity than actually catching and surviving covid (such a claim would need extremely strong evidence; artificial immunity seeks to MIMIC natural immunity and has to this day never succeeded in being stronger or more long-lasting than natural immunity) to needing a third dose, to talk about needing a dose every five months  and they’re discussing a fourth dose even though it’s doubtful most people have even gotten their third one yet. 
Boosters this early in the game are not a sign of a “highly effective” vaccine.
Side note: Have y’all noticed the immunocompromised are the first ones getting rejabbed? The argument that we’re supposed to get injected to protect the vulnerable doesn’t hold up anymore since we’re injecting the vulnerable first.
2. There is no Transparency
Scientists have been asking for the raw data to the clinical trials from the beginning and the information was not released until after the vaccines were being taken en masse by a trusting public. 
Even now that the Pfizer vaccine has been granted approval (even though the approved version is not available to the public yet here in the US ) despite multiple promises for full transparency, the FDA has redacted one of the ingredients.  An ingredient, that incidentally, makes up 22% of the formulation.  There is currently a lawsuit underway to try and force them to actually fulfill that promise. 
On top of the aforementioned whistleblower alluding to severe adverse events being ignored within the trial, and trial participants coming forward with stories of injury and being ignored (more on that later) we have Maddie. A heartbreaking story of paralysis and severe suffering of a 12 year old girl who was a trial participant that was completely swept under the rug by Pfizer. Her adverse event was entered in the data as “functional abdominal pain” and not investigated or followed up on. 
3. Language is changing
So far I’ve counted 5 changes of definition by major public health officials:
- it used to be: “a preparation of killed microorganisms, living attenuated organisms, or living fully virulent organisms that is administered to produce or artificially increase immunity to a particular disease”  (the mRNA jabs would not have qualified as vaccines under this definition, just FYI)
- It is now (changed Jan 2021): “a preparation that is administered (as by injection) to stimulate the body’s immune response against a specific infectious agent or disease: (please note: stimulating the immune system is not the same thing as producing immunity) such as b: a preparation of genetic material (such as a strand of synthesized messenger RNA) that is used by the cells of the body to produce an antigenic substance (such as a fragment of virus spike protein)”  (oh good, the mRNA gene therapy is now a vaccine. Voila!)
- Click here for an interesting exchange of emails at the CDC that precipitated this change.
- Gain of function:
- As recently as Oct. 19, the NIH defined “gain-of-function” experiments as “a type of research that modifies a biological agent so that it confers new or enhanced activity to that agent.” The NIH noted that “This research poses biosafety and biosecurity risks,” and warned that “these risks must be carefully managed.”
- The new definition downplays the concept of gain-of-function and largely focuses on “enhanced potential pandemic pathogen” (ePPP) research. “While ePPP research is a type of so called ‘gain-of-function’ (GOF) research,” the revised definition explains, “the vast majority of GOF research does not involve ePPP and falls outside the scope of oversight required for research involving ePPPs.” 
- “A person who opposes the use of vaccines” is the description used by most but
- “…or regulations mandating vaccines” has recently been added to the Merriam Webster dictionary. 
- Herd Immunity:
- The World Health Organization used to describe herd immunity as follows: “Herd immunity is the indirect protection from an infectious disease that happens when a population is immune either through vaccination or immunity developed through previous infection.” 
- It has now removed the part where it can be achieved through natural immunity which is worse than a lie because herd immunity has yet to be proven attainable through vaccination at all. To pretend it is only achieved through vaccination is the worst kind of bias. But they now say, “Herd immunity is a concept used for vaccination, in which a population can be protected from a certain virus if a threshold of vaccination is reached. In other words, herd immunity is achieved by protecting people from a virus, not by exposing them to it.” 
- Breakthrough Infection:
- This is an entirely new term that used to be called “vaccine failure”. It’s a positive spin on something that is obviously not the desired effect. The definition of a breakthrough infection “is defined as the detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA or antigen in a respiratory specimen collected from a person ≥14 days after receipt of all recommended doses of an FDA-authorized COVID-19 vaccine.” So if you’ve been twice vaccinated and get COVID and test positive, you are not a breakthrough infection and will be labeled as “unvaccinated” until you get that third shot, and so on as more and more boosters are required to be able to attain the term “fully vaccinated.” 
- As of May, 2021, “after thousands of reported breakthrough cases” the CDC stopped counting anything other than hospitalized and dead breakthrough cases. They rely on “voluntary reporting from health departments through passive systems” to get these numbers right. 
- Spoiler alert: they are not accurate. Many hospitals don’t even document vaccination status. (And when they do thoroughly document, they find results like this.) So all the stories in the media and those memes counting patients by vaccination status are not only discriminatory and ugly (imagine doing that with obesity, for example, which is also a personal health choice that people make), they are suspect and utterly meaningless unless we can prove that hospital is counting accurately and thoroughly.
Do you see how hard they have to work to prop up the narrative? They have to redefine words and make up new ones, just to explain away the truth. It’s what happens when you tell one lie and the truth keeps tripping you up so you have to pile lies upon lies until the whole thing starts teetering and people see through the holes.
4. We are not following the data
There are so many examples of this. I’ve covered some of it in previous posts. I’m not going to go into great detail here, because if you’ve made it this far, you’ve probably noticed the inconsistencies as well, plus this is already getting long.
The data on lockdowns is clear. We kill more people than we save.  The evidence that they do more harm than good is overwhelming.
Masks don’t make enough of a difference to be worth the risk. Especially to children. (No reference here, it’s too big of a topic, but this is the conclusion I have reached after much research, especially the research of reading the studies the CDC uses as proof that they do work. I highly recommend with starting there if you’re curious about this topic. Keep this rule (picture below) in mind as you go, along with actually looking at the percentages of statistical evidence that they cite.)
We’re deliberately killing small businesses while all of our money gets shunted to men who are already billionaires. 
PCR testing is extremely faulty. “…if someone is tested by PCR as positive when a threshold of 35 cycles or higher is used (as is the case in most laboratories in Europe & the US), the probability that said person is actually infected is less than 3%, the probability that said result is a false positive is 97%.”  Yet this is the very basis of most of the pandemic.
We ignore the data on medications like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin and have yet to form a protocol that includes early treatment. Instead, if you go into the ER with a positive test and shortness of breath, you will likely be sent home until you are sick enough to be hospitalized and ventilators are still being pushed early in care despite evidence that they increase your risk of death. 
In a bizarre demonstration of either extreme ignorance or bias, the FDA ignored the fact that ivermectin won the Nobel prize as a medication for humans in 2015 and told people not to use it “because you’re not a horse”.  (If that’s their best argument against it, their grounds must be weak indeed.)
Could it be the skepticism and adamant denial of any medication that actually works is because if we had a cure, we wouldn’t need a vaccine?
From the beginning we have ignored the data on the actual risk of covid 19. It is now very evident what that risk is. Here are the latest numbers (age and survival rate): 
- 0-19 = 99.973%
- 20-29 = 99.986%
- 30-39 = 99.969%
- 40-49 = 99.918%
- 50-59 = 99.73%
- 60-69 = 99.41%
- 70+ = 97.6% (non inst.)
- 70+ = 94.5% (all)
And now we are moving forward to vaccinating children despite the danger of covid to children being “so low as to be difficult to quantify.” And “an unvaccinated child is at less risk for severe covid than a vaccinated 70 year old.”  Even long covid is almost nonexistent in children. 
But still, we move forward with recommendations to get them all vaccinated. This is not following the data.
Mandates forcing everyone to get vaccinated are also not following the data. More on transmission later.
5. We will never know the risk of the vaccines
I already went over the sloppy work in the clinical trials when it comes to efficacy, but haven’t focused on the safety aspect other than the people coming forward with eye witness testimonies. If you would like to see some interviews of clinical trial participants and others who have been injured and their interaction with the pharmaceutical companies, you can watch a few here, here, and here.
On top of them seemingly ignoring and sweeping any severe reaction under the rug in the clinical trials, after a mere 6 months, they started vaccinating the placebo group.  This effectively takes away any scientific group we can measure against. You see, the only way to truly establish a causal connection between a product and an injury is through a randomized placebo controlled clinical trial. Once a vaccine is added to the recommended childhood schedule by the CDC, a study of this nature becomes “unethical” (because we cannot withhold a life saving vaccine from a group of children who would obviously drop dead without it). So we are left with retrospective studies which can only prove correlation. And then we enter a maze of denial and obfuscation and smug quotes of “correlation doesn’t equal causation” and we will be stuck in that cycle forever. No matter how many studies show a causal link or mechanism of action, no matter how many people come forward with injury stories. The science wasn’t done and then it’s unethical to do it. Maybe that’s what they mean when they say “the science is settled?”
So since we can’t do the science required, we must rely on post marketing surveillance and this is mostly contained by a passive system called VAERS. The website itself is rife with disclaimers and admissions of underreporting being a problem. In fact a study funded by the CDC found that less than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported.  This study notes the CDC basically ghosted them after they realized how bad the reporting was and the system was never automated as the goal had been when the study was first started. This was published over a decade ago and nothing has been done since so I assume they concluded less than 1% is good enough for government work.
There is evidence of extreme underreporting with the covid vaccines today. For an example, anaphylaxis is an extreme reaction that would result in death if immediate medical help is not administered. The reaction usually occurs within 17 mins of administration of the product causing the reaction and it is the most easily recognized adverse event. It is impossible to miss and nearly impossible to pass off as coincidence because it usually happens so quickly after the product is given. So if any reaction were to be thoroughly documented, it would be this one, right?
The CDC strongly encourages and even notes that doctors are required by law to report adverse events to VAERS even if they don’t know if the vaccine caused the reaction.  And this is now the only way we are monitoring the safety of these products, so who wants to guess how well we’re doing with anaphylaxis? A recent study in JAMA notes that VAERS data shows the rate of anaphylaxis is 2.5-11 per one million doses. Their independent research outside of VAERS showed the rate is actually 2.47 per 10,000 doses.  Now, I’m not very good at math, but even I know there’s a huge difference between 10,000 and one million.
If we can’t even capture anaphylaxis, no one can convince me we’re capturing anything else. Plus, doctors are coming forward with statements of having no idea that they were required by law to report injuries, and when they do, they get told in no uncertain terms to stop it by their bosses, because we wouldn’t want to do anything that could possibly add to vaccine hesitancy (scientific integrity be damned). 
But even with this crappy system, we currently have over 18,000 reported deaths, 88,910 reported hospitalizations, and in all, 856,917 reported adverse events.  It is a fact that all vaccine injuries in the past 30 years combined do not equal the carnage we’ve seen in 2021 alone. 
As far as the $science goes, I don’t think we’ll ever have clear admissions of causal injuries (and when we do, they still recommend the vaccine, but more on that later), so we are left with combing through the evidence available, and listening to people’s stories.
Which brings us to censorship and the fact that social media platforms are across the board, silencing, shadowbanning, and outright deleting people’s accounts for simply sharing stories of their injuries. And despite this difficulty, we have these people finding each other in groups of thousands.
When we step outside of VAERS, to look at independent data there is evidence that the death count from February to August 2021 alone ranged from 146K to 187K.  This study also notes that “VAERS deaths are underreported by a factor of 20”. But despite multiple independent studies with similar findings, the CDC is still holding strong that no deaths at all can be linked to the vaccines.
So my conclusion based on this evidence is that any risk based on VAERS data is much larger than they are admitting, and there are many unknown risks that will never be admitted or proven in any official capacity. And that includes menstrual changes and miscarriages after vaccination, which they are now finally looking into because of the absolute clamor being raised by the public. 
I’ve seen disturbing evidence of a fanatical, almost cult like belief in vaccines from our health authorities that is willing to push aside any risk in a single minded devotion to vaccines as the only possible solution to all of our problems. From the FDA helpfully hiding an ingredient for Pfizer, to the CDC pausing the Johnson and Johnson Vaccine to see if it was causing blood clots (based on VAERS data), admitting that it does cause them, and then reinstating it despite that fact. 
But nothing makes this more clear than myocarditis in young people. The CDC has admitted that the available data (again from VAERS) “suggest an association of myocarditis with mRNA vaccination”.  And we now have evidence that the vaccine is actually up to 6 times more dangerous (for the risk of myocarditis alone) than the risk of hospitalization from covid for this age group.  The observed rates of myocarditis for these age groups are much higher than what is expected post vaccination:
Please watch this video for a cardiologist’s perspective on the claim that myocarditis is “mild.”
For this behavior to actually make sense, the risk from covid would need to be extremely high for this age group. It’s not. Not even for hospitalization, never mind for death or lasting disability, which myocarditis can cause. Athletes around the world are collapsing in the middle of games and others are losing their careers over heart problems post vaccination. The world record holder for static breath hold in free diving is one of many.  This hockey player died. 
And still it is recommended. It’s even recommended if the first dose causes myocarditis. The second dose is to be deferred until the “heart has recovered” (whatever that means since heart muscle does not regenerate). I can find no scenario where the risk is too great to completely contraindicate this product.
6. Spike Proteins
As far as I know, all of the vaccines are based on the spike protein portion of the virus. We have recently discovered that the spike protein is actually the part of the virus that is causing damage. A study from April explains, “The researchers created a “pseudovirus” that was surrounded by SARS-CoV-2 classic crown of spike proteins, but did not contain any actual virus. Exposure to this pseudovirus resulted in damage to the lungs and arteries of an animal model—proving that the spike protein alone was enough to cause disease. Tissue samples showed inflammation in endothelial cells lining the pulmonary artery walls.” 
The original claim was that the vaccine contents would remain in the arm of the recipient and not circulate too much, but circulating spike protein has been found in plasma,  kidney, liver, and spleen, and large amounts in the ovaries. 
There is new evidence that the spike protein takes up to 15 months to clear for some people post infection, which explains long haul covid.  But what happens when your body is actually making the spike protein and it is replicating over and over by your own cells? And what happens when you’re getting another booster every few months? If it takes over a year for some people to clear the spike protein after the virus, what will happen if we need to be injected with that same spike protein every 12 months?
It has been shown that injected spike protein can cross the blood brain barrier in mice.  And a recent study from Sweden talks about how the spike protein inhibits DNA damage repair. They say, “Our findings reveal a potential molecular mechanism by which the spike protein might impede adaptive immunity and underscore the potential side effects of full-length spike-based vaccines.”  One of the genes that is impeded by the spike protein is called “the guardian of the genome.” Its name is 53BP1 and it is a “key player of DNA damage response with critical functions in cancer.”  Another reason it is so important for long term studies to be done on how these vaccines effect cancer rates, but we don’t do that with any vaccine. (Check any insert)
Interestingly, when I shared a doctor’s take on this new study on my Instagram, my story was flagged and fact checked with this article linked as proof. Despite the fact that the article is talking about birth defects and really doesn’t apply to this new study, it is still used as proof that this new information is “false”. Their exact words are “The mRNA in COVID vaccines does not enter the nucleus of human cells, where the DNA is, and does not alter the DNA…” What’s fascinating is that this new study (citation 57 above) states, “Mechanistically, we found that the spike protein localizes in the nucleus and inhibits DNA damage repair by impeding key DNA repair protein BRCA1 and 53BP1 recruitment to the damage site.” Oops. The fact checkers are wrong again.
So if the spike protein is the culprit and we now know it can cause all of the symptoms of covid without even having a virus to go on, does that not beg the question whether commanding our bodies to become little spike protein factories is a good idea?
This explains all the blood clots, strokes, menstrual problems, pulmonary embolisms, and heart attacks post vaccination, by the way. It also explains brain fog and the blood clotting problems for covid itself. I do realize that the spike protein is part of covid. So all of the problems listed could be evidence that covid is dangerous. I have no problem admitting that. I’ve never had a problem with that. But it does not follow that the solution should then be the vaccine. The vaccines are essentially injecting that exact problem into ourselves, and could potentially be worse. Just think about the mechanism of action. Our cells are being commanded to make this spike protein. More on how they have to bypass the immune system later, but even if this virus was lab made and tampered with by humans, I think my immune system, in its natural state will have a better chance of dealing with a spike protein on a virus I contract naturally versus having my body being made into a spike protein factory.
Byram Bridle, a viral immunologist, sums it up like this, “We made a big mistake. We didn’t realize it until now. We thought the spike protein was a great target antigen, we never knew the spike protein itself was a toxin and was a pathogenic protein. So by injecting people we are inadvertently inoculating them with a toxin.”
7. There is no liability
I think this is pretty well known by now so I’m not going to bother with references. Please note that there is no product on the earth more “take at your own risk” than these. If you are injured, the pharmaceutical companies will not chip in to pay for your medical bills. Even insurances are turning down claims if the vaccines are mentioned. Your pro-mandate friends will likely turn on you (one of the reasons many will not go public with their stories of injury: the fear of being ostracized by their friends), and people online will label you an “antivaxxer” even though you obviously took the vaccine so that label does not apply. If you lose your job due to injury, there is no one who will step in to pay your bills.
One of the injured in the interview above (a surgeon) says there is one word to describe how he felt as he suffered through his paralysis and the loss of his job and health post vaccination: “abandoned”.
8. Transmission is not stopped
Let me be very clear. None of these injections stop transmission. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Anyone pretending there was evidence that these products stopped transmission in the beginning were being scientifically dishonest. There may have been hope that they stop transmission. But as the clinical trials did not measure this, the basis for such claims was nonexistent. The recommendation for the vaccinated to continue wearing masks should have been a clue that the health authorities knew this from the very beginning. But now we have clear evidence of the head of the CDC making the statement that vaccination does not effect transmission. 
Here is the current wording on the cdc website: “If you are fully vaccinated and become infected with the Delta variant, you can spread the virus to others.” 
Viral loads in those vaccinated and unvaccinated are the same. 
I feel like the entire conversation could start and end on this one point. This is a personal decision and if I myself am not scared of covid, and I see the risk of the vaccines as greater than the risk of the infection for myself, then no more thought needs to go into this. No manipulative coercion about loving my neighbor, nothing about “doing the right thing”; that’s it. Because all those controlling, bigoted arguments are based on lies.
No vaccine that does not stop transmission will ever achieve herd immunity. Even vaccines that do stop transmission cannot achieve herd immunity,  so again, that claim is extraordinary and would require extraordinary evidence.
It’s not even skeptical to refuse to believe baseless claims. It’s just common sense. When people make extraordinary claims (even if they are wearing a lab coat or frequently seen in the media, or labeled an expert), they need extraordinary evidence to back it up. Otherwise, it’s just hopeful conjecture at best, and lying at worst.
9. We are ignoring natural immunity
We have mountains of evidence (or at least 123 studies as of today—it was 102 last week) proving natural immunity is “durable, broad based, long term, and effective.”  We have found the reinfection rate for those with severe disease is less than one percent.  Natural immunity is being called “super immunity” because it protects across different variants/strains. 23 of them, in fact, and natural antibodies also exhibit an “absence of selection pressure” which actually decreases the risk of “escape mutation acquisition and subsequent development of resistant viral variants.”  There is even evidence of immunity through other coronaviruses (like the common cold) through T cell immunity. 
Discrimination is running rampant and it’s (mostly) based on vaccination status. Why is natural immunity being ignored? It’s crazy that people who caught the dread disease and survived are being discriminated against simply because they might not want to take on the added risk of a medical product that is too late for them.
You see, when you encounter a virus in the wild, you breathe it in, and from there on, your body is learning it, and fighting it off. You will experience this virus (the entire virus, every sequence, every minute particle) with every single layer of your immune system. You will likely get sick as this occurs (but for a large, healthy majority, this sickness will be of short duration and easily overcome—disclaimer: not denying that some find it more difficult to overcome, not denying that some die), but if you do survive, your body will boast immunity the vaccine could never touch.
Plus you will actually be adding to the protection against more virulent strains, whereas the vaccines do the opposite.  In fact, a recent study actually showed that “fully vaccinated were more likely than unvaccinated persons to be infected by variants carrying mutations associated with decreased antibody neutralization.”  (This study is huge. It’s evidence that the vaccinated actually pose a greater risk to society as a whole than the unvaccinated. The opposite of what we’re told by the media. It’s also another study that notes the vaccinated and unvaccinated have the same viral loads.)
Here’s a fun little bunny trail on how the vaccines reprogram our immune systems: on Moderna’s website, under the heading “Overcoming Key Challenges”, they note, “Using mRNA to create medicines is a complex undertaking and requires overcoming novel scientific and technical challenges. We need to get the mRNA into the targeted tissue and cells while evading the immune system. If the immune system is triggered, the resultant response may limit protein production and, thus, limit the therapeutic benefit of mRNA medicines.”  I read that last year and immediately wondered how they figured out how to “evade” the immune system since isn’t that the very thing we’re targeting with these vaccines?
Well, it looks like the way to “protect the mRNA from the body’s immune defenses” is to “ablate the immune system” by “changing the code” that then subsequently “affects the toll like receptors.”  (The definition of ablate is “to remove or destroy the function of” just to anyone else who found this a new word.)
Turns out, mRNA technology actually reprograms both your adaptive and innate immune responses. 
But back to toll like receptors. What do they do? What happens when we ablate them? They are the gatekeepers that empower the immune system and do things like:
- Recognize native vs foreign mRNA
- Distinguish healthy cells from cancer cells
- Put viruses in check so they remain dormant
Which may explain why we are having reactivation of varicella,  shingles,  (lymes disease flare up, anyone?) autoimmune disease flare ups, and aggressive cancers or returns of cancer post remission, all occurring shortly after vaccination. 
10. I cannot align myself with lies and control
There are simply too many lies swirling around out there. Even the accusation of misinformation is usually a lie (which is really ironic) and simply a phrase used to attempt to silence someone. Many times, the general narrative is actually the exact opposite of the actual truth. The truth is important to me. I truly believe that aligning myself with a lie has the power to tarnish my soul. The more lies a person defends, the more they will lose the ability to tell the difference between truth and deception and the faster they will move to the realm of calling good evil and evil good. An example of this is calling discriminatory legislation that mandates vaccines “for the greater good”.
The greater good argument is frequently used for vaccines and I often think “the end justifies the means” would be a more accurate description of what’s going on here. Have you noticed that the greater good argument always comes back to control? The push for certain behaviors is always cloaked in seemingly good intentions, but the end goal is still compliance to certain requirements being instigated largely by people who have no understanding of God or Christianity or Truth. The same people who tell us they’re following the science believe that we came from monkeys, that gender is fluid, and that abortion isn’t killing a human being.
I’ve seen so many “love your neighbor” posts by well meaning Christians but they always seem to forget that Jesus finished that command with two more words: “as yourself.” It’s understandable they want to leave that part out since the logic follows that if I believe a product to be harmful for myself there is no biblical basis for taking it for my neighbor. Sorry. That’s once again, twisting things into a lie to further an agenda. And twisting Jesus’ own words is dangerous ground, if you ask me. You don’t have to lie to people to get them to do what is right. The truth stands on its own and people have to make their own choices. If you cannot respect that, I would dare to say you are not loving your neighbor at all, but are caught in the throes of worldly ideology.
A more loving approach (if extremely condescending) is one I’ve seen on Facebook that claims those who refuse the vaccines are like the weaker brethren in Romans who don’t want to eat meat offered to idols even though that was part of the law Jesus had set them free from. I’m fully willing to accept that label if it means those who apply it to me will then also obey the following command that states the weaker brother is to be supported in heeding his conscience, for to do otherwise, is not faith, and is thus, sin. To try and convince him otherwise would be to encourage someone to sin, and we wouldn’t want that, would we?
Even when applied to vaccines that do stop transmission, passing over the free will of an individual for the believed benefit of many is not something Jesus ever taught. If an individual chooses to sacrifice themselves, that is different. But forcing that choice on others is the very farthest thing from loving your neighbor as yourself. Would you want to be forced to choose between a job and something you find morally wrong or physically risky? No, don’t pretend that you would. We all want what we think is best for ourselves. Jesus never disregarded what was best for the individual as a clause on how to love our neighbors. (More on that here)
Even the greatness of the good is no validation for us to demand that people do what we think is right. Jesus is truth. He made a way for us to be saved from sin. That is the greatest good humanity has ever experienced. And yet He never lied. He never coerced or manipulated or tried to control anyone. The greatest good, the gift of heaven, and still He never forced it on anyone. The truth is clear. It is straightforward. You can take it or leave it. It’s not about control. You certainly don’t have to base things on lies to get the truth out. The end never justifies the means if the means are based in lies, and I refuse to live by lies.
8 thoughts on “The Covid Vaccines”
A thought on Romans 14, our preacher just preached an entire sermon on this chapter and it was one of the most beautiful sermons I’ve heard. He wondered to us all if perhaps the the ones who had to eat herbs, like the old testament people, were actually the rule followers. And those who eat meat, as in the new testament times, were the ones who could find greater freedom away from severe rule following. He was directly speaking about these covid times and the many rules and mandates we are facing from the government.
That’s so interesting. I hadn’t thought of it that way. Certainly turns things around. Sounds like I would have enjoyed that sermon. ♥️
Hey! Dr Finny Kuruvilla from Sattler College did an interview about the covid-19 v*****e recently. Wonder if you would do a write-up and give your thoughts on that? Thanks!
Is this the one where he says people can sell grass clippings as a supplement? Lots of bias and blind faith from a doctor who obviously hasn’t looked into both sides and knows nothing of the corruption in government regulatory agencies. He couldn’t even say natural without adding quotation marks as if nature is somehow suspect lol. It was hard to listen to. 😬
I‘ll have to think about doing a point by point refutation. That might be fun.
Thank you so much for your willingness to tackle hard topics. This blog is a favorite of mine and I really appreciate your work in research, etc and then posting when you know a LOT of people don’t agree. (Which is sad!) May God bless you!!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Reblogged this on Retooled &Thriving!.