To Vaccinate or Not to Vaccinate? Is that a question?

There are some serious potential problems with the COVID vaccines that are not being brought to light by those with the power to do so.  The media and politicians are not discussing this at all.  I’ve been reading the peer reviewed medical literature instead of listening to the talking heads.  I have posted links and excerpts to three peer reviewed articles below.  Decide for yourself.

I’m posting some references regarding the potential problems with the new SARS-COVID vaccines.  To be clear, the concern is NOT a “side effect” or “reaction” to the vaccine itself.  The concern is what happens when a vaccinated subject is exposed (“challenged”) to the live virus.

Peer reviewed is the standard in REAL Science.

These are peer reviewed journals, which means the submitted articles / studies undergo strict scientific scrutiny before being published.  These studies / articles bring up some VERY serious potential problems.

Viral challenge testing was not done.

The current vaccines did NOT undergo STANDARD “challenge testing” like the previous vaccines did (in 2012 and 2016).

In previous attempts (2012 and 2016), 100% of the subjects in the lab developed ADE (Antibody Dependent Enhancement).  That’s a VERY big problem, and it’s why they abandoned those vaccines.

They didn’t test the new vaccines for ADE.  Why not?  I can’t say for sure.  The obvious answer is, “They didn’t have time.”  Understandable, but not acceptable.  The other answer is they didn’t want to test them, which gets into more dubious motives.  I’m not one to subscribe to conspiracy theories. 

So, I cannot suggest why they didn’t do challenge testing for ADE this time around.  It’s a standard procedure in vaccine trials in the lab.  But, they didn’t.  That’s not conjecture or speculation.  It’s a known fact that they did NOT challenge test lab animals for ADE, as you’ll see the peer reviewed articles below address.

 Me?  Worry?  You betcha!

That should be EXTREMELY concerning to anyone paying attention.  I will not be getting the vaccine for this reason.  Perhaps this is why “they” are telling you that even after the vaccine, you have to wear a mask and social distance.  Hmmmm?  YOU are the guinea pig who may or may not experience “viral challenge” in the wild.  Except they didn’t tell you… an absence of “informed consent,” which is a whole other kettle of ethical fish.  You won’t know until you know (something is very wrong).

——————————————————–

OK… here we go!


Informed consent disclosure to vaccine trial subjects of risk of COVID‐19 vaccines worsening clinical disease.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijcp.13795

<<<The aim of the study was to determine if sufficient literature exists to require clinicians to disclose the specific risk that COVID‐19 vaccines could worsen disease upon exposure to challenge or circulating virus.>>>

<<<The specific and significant COVID‐19 risk of ADE should have been and should be prominently and independently disclosed to research subjects currently in vaccine trials, as well as those being recruited for the trials and future patients after vaccine approval, in order to meet the medical ethics standard of patient comprehension for informed consent.>>>

————————————————————————–



Immunization with SARS coronavirus vaccines leads to pulmonary immunopathology on challenge with the SARS virus.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22536382/

<<These SARS-CoV vaccines all induced antibody and protection against infection with SARS-CoV. However, challenge of mice given any of the vaccines led to occurrence of Th2-type immunopathology suggesting hypersensitivity to SARS-CoV components was induced. Caution in proceeding to application of a SARS-CoV vaccine in humans is indicated.>>>

————————————————————————–


Antibody Dependent Enhancement Due to Original Antigenic Sin and the Development of SARS.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7291596/

<<<<Consequently, it remains to be studied whether such an early IgG response as it has been observed in COVID-19 patients (3) is protective. If cross-reactive IgG are not protective one would expect that in cases where they represent the main immune response to the virus recurrences of the infection would be observed. Actually, occasional recurrences of SARS-CoV-2 RNA positivity have been described, however, without reporting the IgG status of the patients (19, 20).>>>

<<<The question arises, whether non-protective antibodies worsen the clinical course of the infection. Wang et al. showed that antibodies against different epitopes of spike glycoprotein either protect or enhance SARS-CoV infections in a Vero E6 cell line as well as in vivo in macaques. Antibodies produced to the epitopes S597–603 and S604–625 strongly aggravated lung damage in macaques. Sera of 64% out of 470 COVID patients contained antibodies that bind in this region of the spike glycoprotein (21).>>>

<<<A similar finding was reported in a mouse model with four different SARS-CoV vaccines when after a post-vaccination viral challenge the viral load was lower compared to controls, but all mice showed histopathological changes in the lungs with eosinophil infiltration, which did not occur in controls that had not been vaccinated (22)>>>>


Do your homework.

So, there you have it.  Decide for yourself.  Vet the information available rather than depending on the media.  The citations above are just a sample of the ACTUAL SCIENCE available.  You can search for more information on ADE and the COVID vaccines.  You will find plenty to read.

I will not be getting the vaccine.  Not yet.  Maybe never.  The known mortality risk factors at around 0.3%.  We don’t know the risk for ADE, which could make the effects of COVID worse than the infection without a vaccine.  But, if ADE happens, the sequellae are significant. 

This entry was posted in Current Events and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to To Vaccinate or Not to Vaccinate? Is that a question?

  1. As usual, your research and comments are timely and relevant. I actually read the articles and a few more that are related to the ones you posted and I have to say the evidence is quite compelling NOT to submit to this particular vaccine.

    • The Dental Warrior says:

      Hi Michael! Thanks for reading and commenting. Yes, these are just a SAMPLE of the literature available regarding these concerns. It’s truly frightening that this potentially very dangerous and untested vaccine has been foisted on the public in a politically and culturally-charged environment.

      I have learned, over the years, that people do NOT like to learn that they’ve been fooled. People do NOT like to find out that the narrative that was fed to them (and they bought) is possibly false. Cognitive dissonance is VERY uncomfortable to some people. I have lost friends and family over my insistence on critical thinking and reliance on ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC findings rather than the popular media and posturing politicians.

      Yet, I keep trying. Alas.

  2. Rick Lindquist says:

    Thanks Mike.
    Keep it up man, I appreciate you. Linked these articles over to my kiddo with the big brain. You have my attention.

  3. Brian K. Van Netta, DDS says:

    Hi Mike. It’s phenominal that you are tuned in to this aspect of the vaccines and have articulated it here. I also have been following antibody dependent enhancement and the current mutation patterns of this virus as well. There potentially could be huge negative consequences with this vaccine. Like you, I’m not particularly conspiratorial, but after this suckish year, nothing would surprise me. Here’s what is really troubling to think about: do you think states will MANDATE dentists to get the vaccine or risk not having their licenses renewed? This is such a political hot potato that affects our ability to make personal choices. After reading about countries requiring proof of vaccination before entry, airlines requiring proof of vaccination before flying, and businesses/restaurants/entertainment venues requiring proof as well, it’s not a far stretch to imagine states mandating vaccinations of healthcare providers under threat of loss of license. Kind of Orwellian. Thoughts?

    • The Dental Warrior says:

      I’ve heard those RUMORS, too, Brian. I also think it’s a bit of wishful thinking on the part of those with an anti-liberty agenda to control citizens. But, from a logistical standpoint, it seems far-fetched. Here’s why… There aren’t enough vaccines available to the masses. Those businesses restricting customers on that basis would be eliminating MOST of their business, which is ALREADY suffering to the point of extinction.

      As for dental boards requiring, that would be a BIG problem for me… based on what we ACTUALLY know RIGHT NOW. They didn’t require hepatitis vaccines. They haven’t required any other vaccine. That’s not to say that political pressures are different now. But yeah… I’d have a problem with that. And, I’d be happy to join any effort in defeating it on a Constitutional basis. 1st and 14th Amendments. Maybe a bit of the 4th and 5th Amendments, too.

  4. Ana Balica, DDS says:

    Thank you, read the articles, evidence is not compelling to take vaccine yet.

  5. Karen Glerum says:

    Thanks for the excellent review Mike. I emailed your blog to myself. I have had a couple patients ask me whether I will get the vaccine. After I say no because this virus has a 99.5% survival rate, I briefly discuss ADE.
    If any of them want a “deeper dive” into this issue I will send them your review.
    Nice job!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *