We Now Know How The Government Lied About the COVID Vaccines

Story at a Glance: Since the dawn of vaccination, authorities have habitually doubled down on unsafe and ineffective vaccines, regardless of the pushback they received or the evidence against them. Sustaining this has required increasingly brazen methods to censor and conceal the deluge of “extremely rare” injuries caused by an ever-expanding vaccination schedule. Senator Ron Johnson, who has worked tirelessly to expose this coverup, recently held a Senate hearing aptly titled: “Unmasked: How Biden Health Officials Purposely Turned a Blind Eye Toward COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Signals.” Faced with a tsunami of vaccine injuries too large for anyone to ignore, the FDA and CDC searched for a way to statistically dismiss it, eventually settling on effectively comparing Moderna’s injury rate to Pfizer’s and declaring the vaccines “safe” because there was no major difference between the two. When a senior FDA analyst pointed out this obvious flaw and suggested comparing them to less toxic vaccines instead, documents show the entire FDA turned against her to suppress her findings. As a result, dozens of conditions we have all seen the COVID vaccines cause were never officially linked to them—despite the data clearly showing they were. The unprecedented damage caused by the COVID-19 vaccines has created a historic loss of trust in the parties who covered it up, giving us a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to force them to start telling the truth and end an immunization experiment that has profoundly damaged the health of our society. I have long believed in a “law of equilibrium” which posits that most things are cyclical and will eventually be brought back into balance. Mechanistically, this frequently results from existing phenomena being the result of competing forces reaching a balance point (e.g., you don't fall through the floor because the ground pushes up on you just as hard as gravity pulls you down) and because nature’s design utilizes feedback loops to maintain balance. This process is commonly referred to as “negative feedback,” where anything that shifts a system away from its center (e.g., its “set point”) triggers a response that counteracts that change (e.g., a thermostat kicks on the heat when the temperature drops too low, or turns on the AC when it climbs too high). Biology in turn, has many layers of these negative feedback loops (where one thing counteracts another which counteracts another etc.) which collectively are able to keep the immensely complex orchestra of life functioning. Conversely, “positive feedback loops” also exist, where a shift from baseline triggers a further shift from baseline (e.g., forest fires spreading, fruit ripening, the blood clotting cascade, the hormonal surge triggering ovulation, or childbirth contractions) but these are far rarer and ultimately still “turn off” because they rapidly consume a self-limiting resource. Due to the cyclical nature of history, I have noticed the same vaccine fiascos repeat again and again, but each time, are forgotten, and hence able to repeat again. Briefly, the process is typically as follows: •A new (dubious) vaccine is introduced and marketed with immense fanfare despite the existing evidence showing it does not deserve that fanfare. •Once the vaccine hits the population, a significant number of vaccine failures and injuries inevitably occur. •Once this happens, health authorities (and healthcare workers) respond by exaggerating the benefits, moving the goal posts from what was originally promised, and sweeping all the injuries under the rug. •This produces increasing pushback from the public and resistance towards vaccinating. •As time goes on, rather than acknowledge the shortcomings of the vaccine, the failures of the vaccine begin being increasingly blamed not enough people vaccinating (e.g., to reach “herd immunity”). As such, more and more aggressive mandates are instituted which create stronger and stronger public resistance against the program. I named this the “vaccine positive feedback loop” because if things were functioning normally, the injuries and failures of the vaccine would trigger a negative feedback response that would cause the vaccine program to be pulled back—but instead a rather curious and unnatural thing occurs—the devotion to them increases. This I believe cuts to the core of why “vaccines are a religion” and why vaccine proponents will always double down on what they are doing rather than admit fault. Recognizing that this is a recurring cycle, my focus hence has been on exposing the cycle, as I feel it is only through the knowledge of what our society is actually trapped in that it will be possible to free ourselves from it. Note: a major reason I've focused on umbrella therapies like DMSO is that their mechanisms of action are in many ways the inverse of what vaccines do, which provides a concrete way to understand why so many different vaccines can cause such a wide range of neurological and autoimmune injuries. This for example was why my recent article on DMSO treating “incurable” neurological injuries had to be so detailed, but now that that has been done, a much shorter version which references the more extensive summary can be published (and will be). One of the most depressing facets of the “vaccine positive feedback loop” is how consistently both doctors and government officials will sweep vaccine injuries under the rug to maintain public confidence in the vaccine, with the earliest example I’ve found being one that Suzanne Humphries unearthed: Mr. Henry May, writing to the Birmingham Medical Review, in January, 1874 reported that deaths as a result of vaccination were often not reported because of an allegiance to the practice. Often a vaccinated person was recorded as having died from another condition such as chicken pox or erroneously listed as unvaccinated. When producing the original (Salk) polio vaccine, manufacturers faced a delicate balance: the live poliovirus had to be fully inactivated with formaldehyde to ensure safety, but excessive inactivation could damage key viral antigens and weaken the immune response. This required a series of careful steps to strike an appropriate balance and during the clinical trials, three different parties (Salk, the US government and the manufacturers) tested the vaccines for safety. Once the vaccine was approved, changes were made to the vaccine to increase potency (a preservative was removed), inactivation protocols became much more lax (increasing potency), and testing was delegated to manufacturers (despite large deviations from Salk’s inactivation protocols)—all of which was essentially done to meet the large demand for the polio vaccine as the trial approach was not feasible to implement at scale. As a result, on April 12th (based on the recent clinical trials), was declared “safe, effective, and potent,” and licensed the same day. The next day, widespread vaccinations began, and around April 24th polio began being reported in recipients, ultimately causing 40,000 recipients to develop non-paralytic polio, 200 to develop paralytic polio and 10 to die. To solve this public relations nightmare (which given previous assurances greatly shook public confidence in vaccines), the US government chose to blame it on faulty manufacturing from one of the five producers (who recalled their vaccines) but stand behind the other four. However, to quote Turtles All the Way Down (and Paul Offit): Alexander Langmuir, the CDC’s chief epidemiologist, and Dr. Neil Nathanson, who at the time headed the CDC’s polio surveillance unit. The two conducted a follow-up investigation into the Cutter Incident and discovered that Wyeth’s vaccine had also caused several cases of paralysis. Following their report, the company silently recalled the allegedly “hot lot” from the market. No one other than senior US health officials ever saw that report. “It was never released to the media,” Offit writes, “never shown to polio r…