If a paper has 11 writers all employed by the same company whose product they are discussing in paper and said company also paid for the study itself, I think it’s safe to assume it’s biased and should be taken with a boulder of salt.
Although not entirely apropos to this, I think this quote from Upton Sinclair is in spirit.
”It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
The Novavax preprint that I discussed, showed results of an antibody measurement experiment which demonstrated poor outcomes of mRNA vaccines - a focus of my blog.
I properly mentioned that this study is sponsored by Novavax and expressly stated that I do not support that company.
The results of the experiment (measuring IgG4) reflect badly on mRNA technology, which is what I reported.
And yet you are upset that I am "controlled opposition" because I cited something from Novavax.
Why?
Are you alleging that the experimental data from Novavax is fake?
Guess what, in the past I cited papers from Pfizer also! Does that make me a Pfizer shill?
I did not call you controlled opposition. I said Novavax was controlled opposition.
"I properly mentioned that this study is sponsored by Novavax"
Incorrect. If you read my article, you'd see it was *written* by Novavax. Not sponsored. Written. First hand versus third hand.
"Are you alleging that the experimental data from Novavax is fake?"
When has data from pharmaceutical companies ever been reliable, Igor?
"Guess what, in the past I cited papers from Pfizer also! Does that make me a Pfizer shill?"
I didn't call you a shill either. Read my article properly. In-fact, I gave you the benefit of the doubt, but I'm alarmed to see you twisting my words out of context.
Please don't overinterpret Igor's response otherwise we will end up in another spiral fo fisticuffs!
Igor has produced fantastic work. What you have shown is that even the best of us (me included) can miss things when focused on something else. Igor made a valid point using the paper that was presented, and you have made a different valid point all based on the same paper!
We are all very sensitive at the moment because external factors are intentionally making this happen.
Igor - you're great and your articles have stood the test of time.
Beagle - you're great and you have exposed things that people wouldn't have thought of.
Please don't escalate this as neither of you have insulted the other. Chat in the background and see if you can agree any changes that keep you both happy.
As mentioned to Igor when I gave him the link, I did my best not to phrase the criticisms as personal attacks.
"Igor has produced fantastic work."
Yes, he has, and I even acknowledged his excellent contributions before opening to the criticisms of the paper. I have quoted his work before as well, and I do read his articles.
"Please don't escalate this as neither of you have insulted the other."
Name calling is never productive, although I think in anger I do sometimes accidentally fall to it. I like Igor. I don't like Novavax.
I pinned Igor's comment a while back so he has equal visibility, and hope it also shows this isn't a bad faith attack. He has right-of-reply, and I will respect that in reporting.
I read it that Novavax is controlled opposition not Igor!
I also read it that the Novavax study was cleverly sold as an NEJM "authoritative" article but was really just pharma advertising.
Let Underdog know what phrase you would like changed and I'm sure they'd consider it. I'm pretty sure they are aware the article could be misinterpreted and didn't want that message to come across when the real message - that Novavax is controlled opposition - is the important one.
Equally it's important to point out the COIs in the NEJM article which are not overt.
I will add, if I'm intentionally criticising a person directly, I will not hesitate to name them explicitly in the headline *and* stick their face or name as part of the article thumbnail.
Ian Copeland, Richard Ebright, Dr Susan Oliver, to name a few. In those cases, the article will be exclusively about them and not much else.
Explaining the particular journalist choices used:
In this case the majority of the article was about Novavax and saponins - both named in the title and the thumbnail. The shills refer to the Twitter shills (I couldn't fit 'Twitter' on the left guy's forehead without it turning tiny and unreadable), which is what I opened with. I was hoping the 's' on the end of 'shills' would make it clear it was plural, not singular.
In this case, there wasn't a viable path for me to work with. I can't falsely claim I found the paper (I didn't) or that I 'stumbled across it' (commenters are inquisitive and nearly always ask me 'where?'; some may even corrected me and said 'Igor reported on this earlier').
I would have to have mentioned the paper's flaws regardless of justification, and had I not reported on it, it raises the question 'why didn't The Daily Beagle mention the fact Igor reported on it?' which invariably gets accusations I'm conspiring or thieving content. So I'm forced to attribute source (I mean, rightly so, I should be attributing but in this case it backfires).
If I mention you reported on it but then gloss over the fact there's a discrepancy (namely, sponsored versus directly written), I will get people going 'but didn't you read the article, Igor said it was sponsored, not written'. So I have to address the elephant in the room that it is provably written, and then also explain why I think that discrepancy occurred (otherwise, the alternative is people wildly speculate and I think that's probably more harmful than 'I think he might have made a simple mistake').
Without it, people will be wondering why I'm writing about 'people falling for Novavax's lies!', because they will think it's just the vaccinated and thus not attribute any real sense of threat to it.
The appeal to adversity fallacy abused in duo-politics is a *really* powerful 'us versus them' tactic for polarising people; and Novavax seem a bit smarter than Pfizer in the PR game; astroturfing sock accounts on Twitter playing to mRNA fears and rehashing "advertorials" as preprints is low-key genius. I bet they paint the paper rejection as 'Big mRNA are trying to stop us!' or something, and not due to the painfully obvious conflict of interests (aren't clinical reviews supposed to be independent by most medical standards?).
I'm not sure how this is coming off personally, and maybe some sections of the article could be better worded, but hopefully you should see the tight manoeuvring room. My main goal was to segue into exposing the saponins in Novavax.
Hi Igor there you are, excuse me while you two have your little tiff I thought you might find this interesting. the injected seem to be wiping out their immune system.
.
Check out Dr Steven Pelech, Kinexus Laboratory, he has done many videos explaining his intricate test and the immune response, which is different in everybody to the same virus. He also has a book coming out.
.
“This kind of immunity lasts for years and because of Immune Memory it can last for decades” because that’s how the immune system works, unless you wipe it out.
The shots also contain Polysorbate 80, of which I completely forgot to include a reference on their toxicity. Polysorbate 80 toxicity has been covered before:
A Shareholder of Novavax has been threatening to send my private X chat thread to his beloved company for the purpose of inciting them to sue me. This resulted from me be added without my consent to the chat by my friend known as Canceledmouse and OpenVAET.
I will continue to expose all the hazardous materials in all jabs without fear or favour.
It is getting very nasty because I will be giving 2 more public lectures and hope to speak to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee soon, protected by Parliamentary Privilege. I have lots to say.
The person who is threatening you, depending on where they live, could be sued for violations of GDPR (if UK/Europe) and threatened with criminal charges of attempted blackmail (most countries). You'd likely have to private prosecute depending on the situation.
"Canceledmouse and OpenVAET"
I recently had a beef with Canceledmouse over his ad homs against Steve Kirsch which gave me serious 77th brigade vibes. CM also makes use of sock accounts. I only recently unblocked him after another poster mediated, but frankly I could take it or leave it.
I’ve been noticing a lot of “friendly fire” that gives me those vibes on the health freedom front. Also on the political front, it seems like some have went ahead and made a deal or something. Radar up, especially this year.
There is NO reason, after reading about vaccines and other medical issues for the past four years, again, NO reason to have a vaccine, EVER. It is a total fraud from the get go, and arguing about which one or which vaccine maker is better is just goofy.
The human body does not need NEEDLES jabbed into it, nor does any other creature. Introducing something into your bloodstream is damn stupid. Eat something shite, and you'll be able to vomit it out, pee it out, poop it out-- it goes through your digestive tract, which can easily be cleansed. Inject it into your bloodstream and you're STUCK WITH IT.
You don't have to trust me... do the work and you'll see for yourself.
Exactly. The most potent vector of exposure to poison is injection, by far....and every emt basic knows this. It's not rocket science.
The question "which one sucks less" is also irrelevant.....call that a choice? The answer is neither.
At this point, anyone who still believes in the good intentions of the medical death cult is delusional, and if people aren't actively taking charge of their health.....turning to natural, alternative preventions and treatments, working to detox themselves from the bioaccumulation of decades-long chemical contamination and fixing the root cause of whatever maladies made them turn to pharma to suppress symptoms in the first place....they're fools. There is no further excuse to stay a victim.
I am so beside myself at how idiotic the majority of humanity continues to be. They keep trucking back and forth to doctor god, despite knowing that these high priests of pharma have been actively trying to kill them for the past four years. But of course....that was just the covid death shot, right? They can be trusted for everything else, just not the covid shot, right? NOT. It's the same damn bad actors across the board in all the incestuous businesses that are interconnected by a big ole pipeline that is sucking peoples' vital life force away from cradle to grave, and that includes the political puppets who are all dancing around on stage playing one part or the other. The cognitive dissonance is beyond belief.
Dr. gets a fricken kickback, so fuck Doctor, doncha know. I donut include thee, clearly.
But peeples are quite foolish, especially when they've been dumbed down, slapped around, and treated like mushrooms-- kept in the dark and fed a lot of bullshit...
Did you just hack my brain as this could be my text?! :D
Even in the best of cases, I see vaccines now as a risk for my or next gens future health, as they all have an unknown effect on other diseases and often affect the offspring (via mommy). They also drive new variants when given recklessly during an epidemic, which can lead to a real catastrophe (like Marek's disease).
The combined effect of vaccines and/or meds has never been tested (let alone what these transfections will cause in a long run). Several countries (i.e. Nordic countries, CAN, etc.) already have robust data sets showing vaccination status and all-cause health outcomes, which could be crunched through in a high-performance computer over a weekend, but they won't release it for research.
This. even though the data and the salaries of those keeping it hidden are funded by us. Why would all countries hide this data if vaccines were indeed good for public health, to keep us safe from the reality? IMO, they stop nothing else spreading than health and I won't change my mind until I see credible proof of even one viral wundervaxx.
I THINK you're replying to my comment, lol. It's hard to tell with SS. I will just assume you are, and say, yes, and thanks for adding your bits to it, too. But what is your confusion? That I might have hacked your brain, or that something is niggling at you? I yam not afraid to explain fur-ther. ;)
Those thin "wires hanging" from a substack comment have caused issues also for me in some occasions. Having said that, it may have been the device & the Substack app, as these lines look workable now (on PC browser)?
It could also be that age has poo-poo'd on my eyes but even that would be a relief, as at least I won't have to worry if the slide in my near vision is caused by random foreign Spike-mutants or the sh*t DNA contamination of the mRNA-LNPs!
Let that be as it may, but the injections are shown to cause new-onset retinal vascular occlusion (RVO) on rare occasions* and it occurs soon after the modRNA covid-injection. RVO causes vision loss that can lead to blindness as well. The list of serious adverse events is never-ending.
*) I hadn't looked at this in a while, the vision loss just came to mind, and I just noticed that the corrupt Experts(tm) had quickly reacted to the original findings and turned onto damage control pseudoscience, where they compare the risk as similar with traditional injections (problem: also trad. vaccines have an unknown harm profile so that the incidence rates can't be worked out) by writing:
"The relative risk for RVO after the first mRNA COVID-19 vaccination was not significantly different from the risk with influenza vaccination and tetanus, diphtheria, pertussis (Tdap) vaccination."
- They talk about shot #1 but I hear many are already jabbed up to their eyeballs, nine times I've read! What's the incidence rate of vision loss at #9 (incl. Omicron-boosters tested on 8 mice)?
- The comparison they use is meaningless, as the safety trials were purposefully muddied on the traditional vaccines, so that the incidence rate of any adverse event would can't be worked out based on their advertised "safety trials",as none of the mentioned vaccines were tested against a true placebo, but they used another vaccine or a toxic/bioactive substance with unknown harm profile as the placebo.
- They'll do whatever is needed to protect the new golden egg, the mRNA-platform. Don't buy onto them as they'll transfect your brain & I mean it. What was worrying to me was to understand that if they damage the miscovasculatory system of the eye, they're doing the same to the braincells. Is that the reason many of the injected folks seem so dumb & are constantly angry?
The brain damage may not be large-scale at first, but something seems to be triggering aggressive cancers of the brain post-boosting. Official numbers and RCTs are MIA on all types of post-vaccination cancers.
The story of Novavax is really bizarre. It was spun off from the world's largest supplier of poultry vaccines, IGI, based in New Jersey in the 80s. Also, Dick Cheney was instrumental in bringing Novavax into existence:
Feel free to discard my opinion, but from 2003 to 2016, I researched the investigations conducted by scientists of known integrity, my conclusions bolstered by repeated public health exams that existed prior to 1965. My conclusions are that (1) No vaccine works; (2) there is no historical correlation between vaccines and the reduction of disease incidence from 1880; (3) All vaccines cause injury but most measurable in infants; (4) unvaccinated children are noticeably healthier and more intelligent than vaccinated children; (5) No unvaccinated child has developed autism; (6) There is no independent and transparent safety testing for any vaccine; (7) No vaccine or vaccine adjuvent has ever been proved safe; merely not proved unsafe by virtue of inadequate testing; (8) The Gates polio vaccine has paralysed 53,000 children and Gates is wanted for arrest in India and parts of Africa; (9) On video, in 2007 I viewed Bill Gates declaring that his vaccines would eliminate 80% of the world's population; Despite claims that the cause of autism is unknown and that there is no known cure, UK neurologist Natasha Campbell-McBride cures children with her GAPS programme. Essentially, she restores gut flora.
Applying unconventional research techniques, I identified seven factors and contributers in the autism development process; each effecting each child differently. These can be read on "The Autism Controversy" on 'Australia Fights Back' URL oziz4oziz.com/
I agree with nearly all your points and my conclusions have found similar, with one mild caveat; I think basic inoculations (simply weakened or dead versions of the disease, and *nothing else*) do help reduce losses of life; but only for extremely harmful diseases, and not to the extent nor bragged success these vaccine shills falsely claim.
I think at some point in the early 1900s, vaccines started going going downhill, and it can be almost immediately marked to the introduction of artificial chemicals and the adoption of mass manufacturing techniques which favour quantity over quality.
Disease reduction parallels the rise of three key things:
1) Access to clean water
2) Access to hygiene products (soap etc)
3) Antibiotics
In-fact, the best counter-argument the vaccines don't work (pointed out to me by a former pharmaceutical exec) is the fact disease spread is still rife in India. If it isn't due to hygiene (India has a serious hygiene problem), then why have vaccines not solved the issue of disease spread in India?
The diseases they always claim are 'eradicated' happen to always be the asymptomatic ones where certification of eradication is a non-transparent process.
"Despite claims that the cause of autism is unknown and that there is no known cure, UK neurologist Natasha Campbell-McBride cures children with her GAPS programme. Essentially, she restores gut flora."
I have a competing hypothesis but I think perhaps for another time.
LOL. I won't quibble. We have both formed almost identical conclusions, as have thousands of others, and that is what matters. Other readers will be cautioned and thus, we may have save lives. I daresay, when WWIII is over, and the self-identified elite have paiid for their crimes, we may enter a new era of research with integrity, provided access to non-toxic and nutritious food, and eliminated dangerous living environments; and we will finally know the truth. Gotta admit, my fingers are drumming impatiently on the table. If I get my way, Australia will be the first liberated nation.
No race in history has faced, or will face, greater discouragement. Here's hoping at least one of us survives. If one nation triumphs, all others will follow. That is why they are so ruthless now.
Sorry for the off-topic, but we have a humangous task ahead of us in trying to liberate our nations (or what's left of them). We've been captured by the same apparatus almost everywhere and most of the govts are puppets only (I say this as a Finn who's country has also been captured). I just recently bumped into Australia-related 1970's case of a young Christopher Boyce who exposed the CIA's criminal activity in Australia that undermined the democratically elected (labor) govt.
He happened to handle the most secret US info and had a strong moral compass just like Edward Snowden did. He also later warned Snowden that US govt would never stop ruining his life if given a chance.
I'll only link to the hit peace written by the always trustworthy WaPo, plenty of other material available for a researcher, just look him up. The hitjob article here:
FYI: Mr. Boyce was not a communist, just wanted his country to be the good guys and blow the whistle when his govt couldn't be trusted. The article is propaganda turning a good man into a crook.
Boyce was a CIA agent involved in the sacking of Australia's Prime Minister Gough Whitlam in November 1975. The agencies were the City of London's MI6 and CIA, acting to prevent Whitlam from identifying high placed CIA agents in Australia. These were: Sir Arthur Tange, Permanent Head of Canberra's Administrative Affairs; Bob Hawke, President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions and later ALP Prime Minister; Peter Ables, owner of TNT transport; Richard Lasting, head of Pine Gap spy base; and Doug Anthony, President of the National Party and VP of the LNP coalition.
The nation was ready to revolt but I suspect Whitl;am was told, 'rebel and your family die very badly'.
One of the CIA agents, Christopher, eventually comprehended that this was a monumental betrayal of Australia as an ally of the US and he blew the whistle. He was imprisoned for 22 years for his heroism. Don't believe the Russia yarn That is standard alibi for US crushing of dissent.
Boyce will never be forgotten by Australians and one day he will be invited to move here. If he is harmed in the meanwhile, everybody connected with his conviction will be held to account. Not a good move.
This is roughly how I see it after trying to put the puzzle together from bits by multiple sources. For me, the strongest confirmation was that he got the "full treatment" from the machine including posing him as as a traitor and gaslighting the public to believe that the story was about Boyce and not the criminal activity of the US govt organizations. The deep state really hates the ugly truth coming out, as we know from it's war against all true whistleblowers (Obama govt was probably the worst in going after them instead of protecting).
I learned that the US govt tortured also Boyce for ten years by keeping him in the solitary confinement but he survived using his memories/imagination to keep sane. Originally, the govt issued a sentence which was supposed to keep him locked up until death, but decades and rulers changed, which saved his life.
Even though Boyce seems to have been an "avg arrogant 20-year-old" judging by a pre-solitary interview given to 60 mins or similar (that are still used as stealth propaganda outlets) and Boyce's own views of young Boyce, but IRL he's much more than that, as he did provenly endure something that would lead to suicide or permanent mental breakdown for the most of us.
For those interested, case Boyce, and the US infiltration and deveivement of Australia, in his own words in this post-prison interview:
'Christopher Boyce Interview "American Sons: The Untold Story of the Falcon and the Snowman"'.
Thanks again, dear Underdog, for pointing out the thin ice and the depths of the evil below.
As you say, some of the "good guys" do leap quickly to cite anything that supports the narrow argument that the covid shots are dangerous, without examining the source and the implications in the rest of the package. Like you, I suspect it's done a bit impulsively ("oh, hey! here's another one!"), but I'll also add that some of the more treacherous sources fly the kind of banners that might carry some credibility with the blind faithful followers of the pharma establishment, and so citing them might be thought to aid in persuading more people of the truth. And it might do so, on a narrow point, but then lead them to gleefully embrace the killer in various other guises. I've given up trying to persuade anyone. I'm just observing now. But the moral of the story is the same- go for the head of Medusa, not one of the flailing tentacles.
I like Chudov (I think....), I've been reading his work for awhile now, but, thanks to you, I'll be reading more critically.
Plants containing high concentrations of saponin are not recommended by field guides for plant foragers like me. Why would they be used for injections?
" I'll also add that some of the more treacherous sources fly the kind of banners that might carry some credibility with the blind faithful followers of the pharma establishment, and so citing them might be thought to aid in persuading more people of the truth"
If Chudov's goal was that (certainly valid), he ought to have opened the pre-face with something like 'this is from the horse's mouth of a pharmaceutical company who have written this preprint paper saying that...'. But oddly, he placed the disclaimer at the end (ironically, the novavax paper has theirs at the beginning!).
So the people who hate conspiracy theorist folks won't have read that far. They will have exited by the first paragraph. And burying it from us conspiracy folks isn't going to make the conclusion more credible unless folks ignore it, which a lot of folks seem to have done.
Yeah... you're right, and you did point that out in Chudov's article. So what do you think his intention really was? Maybe just another example of someone already professionally deeply ingrained in the pharma medical model who's outraged ONLY by the covid shots but accepts the monstrous medical paradigm that spawned them?
Since subscribing her, I've been reading the archives as well as your new releases, and you've earned my respect, like a Virgil as we explore the circles of medical hell (which is not a subject I know very well). What other Substacks do you find to be the most honorable and well-informed on this subject?
Just to comment (although I hope they answer your query about the guide), eating and injections should be different avenues.
For example, the poison Curare, is only lethal when it enters the bloodstream, but can be ingested (although disclaimer warning alert: not if your internal digestive tract has any open wound, ulcers, or similar points of entry into the bloodstream). Hunters in tribes would use Curare to hunt wild animals using blowdarts, so the injected material would kill the animal, but not the hunters who ate the animal.
It is possible saponins may follow a similar path. Plus your stomach contains hydrochloric acid and your digestive tract has digestive enzymes.
True.... so much we don't know. I've always wondered about the rattlesnake venom drinkers.... what if they ate a tortilla chip just before and it scratched on the way down - yikes.
My wife is an echocardiographer (we live in Australia) and she has scanned hundreds of vaxx victims. The saddest story she recounted to me was of a lovely South Asian woman who held out on the MRNA's due to the obvious agitprop, but took Novavax thinking it was safer. She too got myocarditis.
Pointing to the problems in how the pro-Novavax paper (how many treated it) alone earns a critical thinker and corruption buster award. None of us are immune to biases. Now I hope Igor notices his & thanks you, as the preprint wasn't even ghostwritten, but proudly produced by Novavax employees & he seems to have missed it (in a hurry?).
The rest of the article is solid and understandable also for an advanced layman. I can imagine how I'd feel (anger&fear) had I given in when bullied to bend over for Novavax, as it was for "you anti-vaxxers" & a "normal vaccine", or so was I told. I politely told them that let someone in need have mine, as I've never liked experimental injections that weren't properly tested (nor produced with GMP).
Chudov's deception around covid injections is stunning, and even more stunning is the fact, that his posts seem to get an attention caused almost by some kind of very well organized AI plot*, similar to all the covid injections comments on ALL the social media during the introduction of the covid GENETICALLY MODIFYING OPERATION on all the humanity... To continue talking about 'mRNA technology', vaccines, etc., without implying a SYNTHETIC genetic material mod mRNA and thus resulting GENE THERAPIES, which is the real technology here, and which does NOT decay, is the biggest cover up Chudov et al are constantly committing, with a big applause of 'invisible' like makers. It is indeed a controlled opposition operation with a stingy CIA character.
* S. Kirsch, A Midwestern Doctor and ALL the MD's, scientists and the Chudov-alike characters constantly parroting the FDA ILLEGAL thus CRIMINAL redefinition of GENE therapies into 'unsafe vaccines'.
Chudov has usually been fairly good at reporting in the past, in my opinion. I think his eagerness in trying to disprove mRNA meant he ended up unintentionally shilling Novavax. I am a little baffled why he didn't see the 'unreviewed' and 'financial conflicts of interest' as red flag, but I'm hoping it is genuine error.
"the FDA ILLEGAL thus CRIMINAL redefinition of GENE therapies into 'unsafe vaccines'."
The problem is, it is all word games. The Mosquitirix vaccine contains saponins, and it was made in 1987, and it is starting to seem like multiple vaccines have historical abilities to transfect (basically, genetic modification). So is there such a thing as an actual 'vaccine', or do most of the vaccines have some hidden ability to transfect?
I genuinely do not know and finding a vaccine as old as 1987 containing a transfectant really surprised me. I thought it was a modern invention.
I try to avoid using the term "gene therapy" (there's nothing therapeutic about it), but the term has such a foothold people don't always know what you're referring to unless you use it. I usually mention 'gene modification' in a preceeding or follow-up sentence. I'm hoping sooner or later people will call them gene mod shots or similarly.
It's a fairly new discovery on my part, so there hasn't been a chance to process the implications.
Reportedly the 1987 shot wasn't trialled until 2019 (I have a little difficulty believing this time lag unless it was spent scheming). The earliest I'm aware of was the Shringrix vaccine in 2017, but there may be others that are earlier and it'll require a much broader search outside of Novavax.
Thankfully, Mosquirix wasn't available at the time, and Shringrix was mainly given to the over 65s.
That said, I don't know the true extent of saponin usage in shots, and my fear is 'adjuvants' may imply 'transfectants', but I will need to verify that.
Scary thought on the "adjuvant" idea. Now that you mentioned it I'll be watching for mention of it anywhere.
Thanks for alerting us to all this... so many of us are trying to cope with the details that need doing around us we don't have time to dig these things up. Your time is just as valuable as ours so thank you for sharing!
agree that the 'therapy' word is not good description, normally in my posts I'm using the words gene modifications, like I did above in calling covid injections operation: GENETICALLY MODIFYING OPERATION. Almost 2 years ago I did have an exchange with quite few of these great s-s writers whose role in this entire cover up became immediately clear. The SS censorship by those individuals here on this 'free platform' is mindblowing, to me! And it became even more concerning to see their MSM style of influencing others. The basics of genetic modifications while using synthetic genetic material are explained in:
That word 'game' is exactly what everyone talking about 'covid vaccines' does, DECEIVES simple people who have no clue what normal human mRNA does, not even to speak about synthetic one.
Saponins are glycosides (soap), and not genetic material, they have the power to lyse cells, open them and expose them to what they themselves are surrounded with. Some old style vaccines, like anthrax for example, had saponins plus only protein parts which were degraded after being exposed to cell contents. In that respect saponins are EQUIVALENT to the nanolipids used in the Pfizer/ModERNA shots, they are the transfecting tool, they can kill and destroy the cells, BUT THEY ARE NOT THE GENES which are responsible for the genetic REPROGRAMMING of the human cells. The genetic code is what matters most, and once that material is used it is called BY DEFINITION GENETIC MODIFICATION treatment/procedure/therapy, you pick the name, you want... FDA/MD's/influencers et al. surely all know that, that's why their style to consistently stick to the deceptive words.
I don't think he shilled novavax. He was looking at one single element, and using that study to strengthen a point against the mRNA - in the original study the IgG4 may have been an artifact, but in this one, novavax was a control.
As a reader I read nothing that remotely suggested one should take novavax for safety. I did object to Chudov aligning it with 'protein vaccines' of the pre-covid days, since the antigen itself was in such a radical structure.
Regarding the funding of the paper, who else is going to call out the dangerous products of a pharma company, than another pharma company with a potential competing product? The "regulators" certainly aren't doing that. Who did the research on VIOXX, for example?
"who else is going to call out the dangerous products of a pharma company, than another pharma company with a potential competing product"
What, you mean besides places like The Daily Beagle, EMA leaks with the BMJ, Jikkyleaks... why are you so co-dependent on pharmaceutical companies for assistance?
I will never align myself with companies who kill and harm children. Not even as a compromise.
"why are you so co-dependent on pharmaceutical companies" ??? I really didn't deserve that strawman. This is something I concluded years ago... who does keep these companies to account? It wouldn't be the TGA. Do they self-report after they've made sufficient return on investment? Do you know who did the VIOXX research?
This is a fantastic dig and IMO the top source for beginning to learn about saponins, transfection, etc.
One question that is bugging me and seems to be unanswered: if Novavax is is just as harmful as Moderna/Pfizer/etc--why is it being suppressed? Why is it getting late (post-seasonal) FDA approvals? Why is it getting no press coverage? Why is the distribution lousy? Why do the most hardcore Covidians seem to prefer it and have better reactions to it? (I track anecdotes from heavily vaccinated forums) Why can't the company turn the corner if they're a Cheney-backed part of the cabal agenda?
By who? Novavax shills are everywhere on Twitter. My posts get suppressed, I'd be lucky if I see even a handful of views. I have nearly 2k followers.
"Why is it getting late (post-seasonal) FDA approvals?"
Because they didn't release it until now.
"Why is it getting no press coverage?"
Because they didn't pay for it. Remember? 'Sponsored by Pfizer'.
"Why is the distribution lousy?"
They didn't pay for it.
"Why do the most hardcore Covidians seem to prefer it"
Those are bot accounts that shill the product.
"have better reactions to it?"
There is no evidence people have 'better reactions to it'.
"Why can't the company turn the corner"
Companies compete. Moderna and Pfizer fight with each other. Even Moderna fought with NIH on royalty payments. They're not strictly allies.
Weird line of questioning. Appeals to adversity fallacies are a really shit way of doing medical research. I'm suppressed, would you take my cyanide shot if I offered it? Rhetorical question.
I'm not ruling out that "market forces" and Darwinism couldn't explain Novavax's scenario, but it strikes me as odd that the mRNA products both won out when they had the more challenging path to success.
If you see nothing odd about it, I'm a bit surprised, but so be it. We all come to our own conclusions.
And your rehetorical question is better than you give it credit for. See the book "Doctored Results" about the use of laetrile in cancer treatment.
It's not a case of 'I don't find anything suspicious'. Controlled opposition implies I think they're part of the same group. mRNA is now extremely *unpopular* amongst the public, so how do the murderous poison shot pushers 'recover'? They spin off an "anti-mRNA" shot that... also happens to transfect exactly like the mRNA shot does.
It's best to think of it like the US government (Moderna) and ISIS (Novavax); it is correct to argue the US government are more powerful than ISIS, however to say ISIS are separate is a bit of misnomer, as ISIS receive financing and weapons from the US government.
Pfizer were already corrupt behemoths (they paid the world's largest fraud fine, after all, to the tune of billions, back in 2007, more than 16 years ago). So the only suspicion to ask is how did Moderna rise so quickly? Well, the linked article explains *part* of that:
Shortstop: giant orgy between governments, academia and pharmaceutical pundits.
I do think within these circles there are still psychopath rivalries, in the same way China and the US are both globalists but also fight with each other to be 'top dog'.
That is a fantastic dig, and I must say your view of the vaccine landscape is far more comprehensive than mine (I am new to your writing).
Let's assume your theory is correct. mRNA shot is unpopular (agreed). Novavax is widely known as being a "traditional" vaccine (even though it uses second-wave "vaccine" technology (adjuvants rather than attenuated virus)). Cabal's primary objective is transfection so Novavax is acceptable (disagree, but let's roll with it).
If this theory is true, we should be seeing the following take place:
*) Media narrative that people should be taking Novavax for their latest booster. Sponsorships, advertisements, celebrity endorsements, morning/evening "news" segments, paid promotion from regional doctors, coercion from insurance companies and workplaces to get it, etc.
*) Widespread awareness in "educated/expert" communities (nurses, doctors, pharmacists, phds) to support the narrative that folks need to get Novavax for their latest booster.
*) FDA/NIH/WHO/CDC aggressively pushing the shift to Novavax via preferential approval process and rhetoric encouraging it.
I argue we see none of those things, and that we in fact see the opposite, manifesting as follows:
* "Expert" demographics are largely unaware that Novavax exists unless a Covidian inquires whether they offer it.
* FDA/CDC/NIH/WHO slow-walking Novavax to where it lands at times that Covidians have already gotten mRNA, and rarely to never mentioning it so that awareness is minimized.
* Availability of Novavax is still extremely spotty, to the point that people have to seek it out rather than happening to get it when they request to "get vaccinated for COVID".
* Complete disinterest/avoidance from media.
* Framing of mRNA side effects as "long COVID" (i.e. denial that there is anything wrong with mRNA or lipid nanoparticle delivery mechanism).
* Doubling down on mRNA tech as a cure for cancer and other conditions.
Do you disagree with these facts? If not, how do you square them with your theory? If these facts don't square with your theory, what other theories might explain them?
Controlled opposition does not work the way you're thinking ('media aggressively pushing', etc is not how it works). It is the 'safety net' to the main event, not the main event itself.
An entry-level article on how Controlled Opposition behaves can be found here:
If a paper has 11 writers all employed by the same company whose product they are discussing in paper and said company also paid for the study itself, I think it’s safe to assume it’s biased and should be taken with a boulder of salt.
Although not entirely apropos to this, I think this quote from Upton Sinclair is in spirit.
”It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
The Novavax preprint that I discussed, showed results of an antibody measurement experiment which demonstrated poor outcomes of mRNA vaccines - a focus of my blog.
I properly mentioned that this study is sponsored by Novavax and expressly stated that I do not support that company.
The results of the experiment (measuring IgG4) reflect badly on mRNA technology, which is what I reported.
And yet you are upset that I am "controlled opposition" because I cited something from Novavax.
Why?
Are you alleging that the experimental data from Novavax is fake?
Guess what, in the past I cited papers from Pfizer also! Does that make me a Pfizer shill?
I did not call you controlled opposition. I said Novavax was controlled opposition.
"I properly mentioned that this study is sponsored by Novavax"
Incorrect. If you read my article, you'd see it was *written* by Novavax. Not sponsored. Written. First hand versus third hand.
"Are you alleging that the experimental data from Novavax is fake?"
When has data from pharmaceutical companies ever been reliable, Igor?
"Guess what, in the past I cited papers from Pfizer also! Does that make me a Pfizer shill?"
I didn't call you a shill either. Read my article properly. In-fact, I gave you the benefit of the doubt, but I'm alarmed to see you twisting my words out of context.
Please don't overinterpret Igor's response otherwise we will end up in another spiral fo fisticuffs!
Igor has produced fantastic work. What you have shown is that even the best of us (me included) can miss things when focused on something else. Igor made a valid point using the paper that was presented, and you have made a different valid point all based on the same paper!
We are all very sensitive at the moment because external factors are intentionally making this happen.
Igor - you're great and your articles have stood the test of time.
Beagle - you're great and you have exposed things that people wouldn't have thought of.
Please don't escalate this as neither of you have insulted the other. Chat in the background and see if you can agree any changes that keep you both happy.
For our sakes.
Thank you.
As mentioned to Igor when I gave him the link, I did my best not to phrase the criticisms as personal attacks.
"Igor has produced fantastic work."
Yes, he has, and I even acknowledged his excellent contributions before opening to the criticisms of the paper. I have quoted his work before as well, and I do read his articles.
"Please don't escalate this as neither of you have insulted the other."
Name calling is never productive, although I think in anger I do sometimes accidentally fall to it. I like Igor. I don't like Novavax.
I pinned Igor's comment a while back so he has equal visibility, and hope it also shows this isn't a bad faith attack. He has right-of-reply, and I will respect that in reporting.
"I like Igor. I don't like Novavax".
Love it.
Thank you
I read it that Novavax is controlled opposition not Igor!
I also read it that the Novavax study was cleverly sold as an NEJM "authoritative" article but was really just pharma advertising.
Let Underdog know what phrase you would like changed and I'm sure they'd consider it. I'm pretty sure they are aware the article could be misinterpreted and didn't want that message to come across when the real message - that Novavax is controlled opposition - is the important one.
Equally it's important to point out the COIs in the NEJM article which are not overt.
I will add, if I'm intentionally criticising a person directly, I will not hesitate to name them explicitly in the headline *and* stick their face or name as part of the article thumbnail.
Ian Copeland, Richard Ebright, Dr Susan Oliver, to name a few. In those cases, the article will be exclusively about them and not much else.
Explaining the particular journalist choices used:
In this case the majority of the article was about Novavax and saponins - both named in the title and the thumbnail. The shills refer to the Twitter shills (I couldn't fit 'Twitter' on the left guy's forehead without it turning tiny and unreadable), which is what I opened with. I was hoping the 's' on the end of 'shills' would make it clear it was plural, not singular.
In this case, there wasn't a viable path for me to work with. I can't falsely claim I found the paper (I didn't) or that I 'stumbled across it' (commenters are inquisitive and nearly always ask me 'where?'; some may even corrected me and said 'Igor reported on this earlier').
I would have to have mentioned the paper's flaws regardless of justification, and had I not reported on it, it raises the question 'why didn't The Daily Beagle mention the fact Igor reported on it?' which invariably gets accusations I'm conspiring or thieving content. So I'm forced to attribute source (I mean, rightly so, I should be attributing but in this case it backfires).
If I mention you reported on it but then gloss over the fact there's a discrepancy (namely, sponsored versus directly written), I will get people going 'but didn't you read the article, Igor said it was sponsored, not written'. So I have to address the elephant in the room that it is provably written, and then also explain why I think that discrepancy occurred (otherwise, the alternative is people wildly speculate and I think that's probably more harmful than 'I think he might have made a simple mistake').
Without it, people will be wondering why I'm writing about 'people falling for Novavax's lies!', because they will think it's just the vaccinated and thus not attribute any real sense of threat to it.
The appeal to adversity fallacy abused in duo-politics is a *really* powerful 'us versus them' tactic for polarising people; and Novavax seem a bit smarter than Pfizer in the PR game; astroturfing sock accounts on Twitter playing to mRNA fears and rehashing "advertorials" as preprints is low-key genius. I bet they paint the paper rejection as 'Big mRNA are trying to stop us!' or something, and not due to the painfully obvious conflict of interests (aren't clinical reviews supposed to be independent by most medical standards?).
I'm not sure how this is coming off personally, and maybe some sections of the article could be better worded, but hopefully you should see the tight manoeuvring room. My main goal was to segue into exposing the saponins in Novavax.
Hi Igor there you are, excuse me while you two have your little tiff I thought you might find this interesting. the injected seem to be wiping out their immune system.
.
Check out Dr Steven Pelech, Kinexus Laboratory, he has done many videos explaining his intricate test and the immune response, which is different in everybody to the same virus. He also has a book coming out.
.
“This kind of immunity lasts for years and because of Immune Memory it can last for decades” because that’s how the immune system works, unless you wipe it out.
.
DR STEVEN PELECH EXPERT REPORT 2023
THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
https://nationalcitizensinquiry.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/VA7aPelech23MY1_PelechExpertReportNCIIC1.pdf
This is one video from a year ago.
.
SARS-COV-2 Antibody Testing Explained
https://rumble.com/v1meq4a-sars-cov-2-antibody-testing.html
.
PDF ⬇️
https://www.canadiancovidcarealliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/2023MAY3_Pelech-NCI-Presentation.pdf
Addendum:
The shots also contain Polysorbate 80, of which I completely forgot to include a reference on their toxicity. Polysorbate 80 toxicity has been covered before:
https://thedailybeagle.substack.com/i/139878994/polysorbate-is-toxic
Further Addendum:
Novavax shots must carry a warning that they impact the heart:
https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/eu-regulator-says-novavax-covid-vaccine-should-carry-side-effect-warning-2022-08-03/
More on the Novavax story and Polysorbate 80, known to cause VITT
https://geoffpain.substack.com/p/novavax-preferred-adjuvants-include
and
https://geoffpain.substack.com/p/novavax-is-contaminated-with-rhabdovirus
A Shareholder of Novavax has been threatening to send my private X chat thread to his beloved company for the purpose of inciting them to sue me. This resulted from me be added without my consent to the chat by my friend known as Canceledmouse and OpenVAET.
I will continue to expose all the hazardous materials in all jabs without fear or favour.
It is getting very nasty because I will be giving 2 more public lectures and hope to speak to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee soon, protected by Parliamentary Privilege. I have lots to say.
https://geoffpain.substack.com/p/australia-royal-commission-terms
The person who is threatening you, depending on where they live, could be sued for violations of GDPR (if UK/Europe) and threatened with criminal charges of attempted blackmail (most countries). You'd likely have to private prosecute depending on the situation.
"Canceledmouse and OpenVAET"
I recently had a beef with Canceledmouse over his ad homs against Steve Kirsch which gave me serious 77th brigade vibes. CM also makes use of sock accounts. I only recently unblocked him after another poster mediated, but frankly I could take it or leave it.
Stay strong Geoff, and keep up the good work.
I’ve been noticing a lot of “friendly fire” that gives me those vibes on the health freedom front. Also on the political front, it seems like some have went ahead and made a deal or something. Radar up, especially this year.
Thanks very much. The Novavax shareholder is in US.
Tortious Business Interference might be one possibility if he's trying to undermine you.
Love your work Geoff
Thanks very much for your support.
There is NO reason, after reading about vaccines and other medical issues for the past four years, again, NO reason to have a vaccine, EVER. It is a total fraud from the get go, and arguing about which one or which vaccine maker is better is just goofy.
The human body does not need NEEDLES jabbed into it, nor does any other creature. Introducing something into your bloodstream is damn stupid. Eat something shite, and you'll be able to vomit it out, pee it out, poop it out-- it goes through your digestive tract, which can easily be cleansed. Inject it into your bloodstream and you're STUCK WITH IT.
You don't have to trust me... do the work and you'll see for yourself.
Exactly. The most potent vector of exposure to poison is injection, by far....and every emt basic knows this. It's not rocket science.
The question "which one sucks less" is also irrelevant.....call that a choice? The answer is neither.
At this point, anyone who still believes in the good intentions of the medical death cult is delusional, and if people aren't actively taking charge of their health.....turning to natural, alternative preventions and treatments, working to detox themselves from the bioaccumulation of decades-long chemical contamination and fixing the root cause of whatever maladies made them turn to pharma to suppress symptoms in the first place....they're fools. There is no further excuse to stay a victim.
Thanks for validating...
And for not mincing words! This is a war, and throwing ourselves into the bomb pit ain't gonna help us.
I am so beside myself at how idiotic the majority of humanity continues to be. They keep trucking back and forth to doctor god, despite knowing that these high priests of pharma have been actively trying to kill them for the past four years. But of course....that was just the covid death shot, right? They can be trusted for everything else, just not the covid shot, right? NOT. It's the same damn bad actors across the board in all the incestuous businesses that are interconnected by a big ole pipeline that is sucking peoples' vital life force away from cradle to grave, and that includes the political puppets who are all dancing around on stage playing one part or the other. The cognitive dissonance is beyond belief.
WORD. And the word is "Woof."
I donut like the DOGma of "Dr. Knows Best."
Dr. gets a fricken kickback, so fuck Doctor, doncha know. I donut include thee, clearly.
But peeples are quite foolish, especially when they've been dumbed down, slapped around, and treated like mushrooms-- kept in the dark and fed a lot of bullshit...
Cheers!
I love this wordplay!
Oh, goodie!! I yam incapable of NOT doing it for very long... lol
It's Doggish, you do realize! ;)
Did you just hack my brain as this could be my text?! :D
Even in the best of cases, I see vaccines now as a risk for my or next gens future health, as they all have an unknown effect on other diseases and often affect the offspring (via mommy). They also drive new variants when given recklessly during an epidemic, which can lead to a real catastrophe (like Marek's disease).
The combined effect of vaccines and/or meds has never been tested (let alone what these transfections will cause in a long run). Several countries (i.e. Nordic countries, CAN, etc.) already have robust data sets showing vaccination status and all-cause health outcomes, which could be crunched through in a high-performance computer over a weekend, but they won't release it for research.
This. even though the data and the salaries of those keeping it hidden are funded by us. Why would all countries hide this data if vaccines were indeed good for public health, to keep us safe from the reality? IMO, they stop nothing else spreading than health and I won't change my mind until I see credible proof of even one viral wundervaxx.
"Did you just hack my brain as this could be my text?! :D"
I must profess confusion at this statement.
I concur with most of what you said.
He means you said what he was thinking.
When reading from emails comments are presented in a vacuum, so I thought he meant the article. I thought 'I bloody hope not!'.
I yam a She Dog... Some might call me a BITCH. ha harf!
Actually Antonius M. means The Word Herder said what Antonius M. was thinking.
I THINK you're replying to my comment, lol. It's hard to tell with SS. I will just assume you are, and say, yes, and thanks for adding your bits to it, too. But what is your confusion? That I might have hacked your brain, or that something is niggling at you? I yam not afraid to explain fur-ther. ;)
Those thin "wires hanging" from a substack comment have caused issues also for me in some occasions. Having said that, it may have been the device & the Substack app, as these lines look workable now (on PC browser)?
It could also be that age has poo-poo'd on my eyes but even that would be a relief, as at least I won't have to worry if the slide in my near vision is caused by random foreign Spike-mutants or the sh*t DNA contamination of the mRNA-LNPs!
Let that be as it may, but the injections are shown to cause new-onset retinal vascular occlusion (RVO) on rare occasions* and it occurs soon after the modRNA covid-injection. RVO causes vision loss that can lead to blindness as well. The list of serious adverse events is never-ending.
*) I hadn't looked at this in a while, the vision loss just came to mind, and I just noticed that the corrupt Experts(tm) had quickly reacted to the original findings and turned onto damage control pseudoscience, where they compare the risk as similar with traditional injections (problem: also trad. vaccines have an unknown harm profile so that the incidence rates can't be worked out) by writing:
"The relative risk for RVO after the first mRNA COVID-19 vaccination was not significantly different from the risk with influenza vaccination and tetanus, diphtheria, pertussis (Tdap) vaccination."
Source: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaophthalmology/fullarticle/2803760
- They talk about shot #1 but I hear many are already jabbed up to their eyeballs, nine times I've read! What's the incidence rate of vision loss at #9 (incl. Omicron-boosters tested on 8 mice)?
- The comparison they use is meaningless, as the safety trials were purposefully muddied on the traditional vaccines, so that the incidence rate of any adverse event would can't be worked out based on their advertised "safety trials",as none of the mentioned vaccines were tested against a true placebo, but they used another vaccine or a toxic/bioactive substance with unknown harm profile as the placebo.
- They'll do whatever is needed to protect the new golden egg, the mRNA-platform. Don't buy onto them as they'll transfect your brain & I mean it. What was worrying to me was to understand that if they damage the miscovasculatory system of the eye, they're doing the same to the braincells. Is that the reason many of the injected folks seem so dumb & are constantly angry?
The brain damage may not be large-scale at first, but something seems to be triggering aggressive cancers of the brain post-boosting. Official numbers and RCTs are MIA on all types of post-vaccination cancers.
So... What if I toad you all that physical breakdown ain't from age, but from EMF's?
Eh? Ooooooooh. It's killing me softly, as I bark very very loudly.
The story of Novavax is really bizarre. It was spun off from the world's largest supplier of poultry vaccines, IGI, based in New Jersey in the 80s. Also, Dick Cheney was instrumental in bringing Novavax into existence:
https://entropywave.substack.com/p/from-the-chicken-farm-to-the-human-8cd
Feel free to discard my opinion, but from 2003 to 2016, I researched the investigations conducted by scientists of known integrity, my conclusions bolstered by repeated public health exams that existed prior to 1965. My conclusions are that (1) No vaccine works; (2) there is no historical correlation between vaccines and the reduction of disease incidence from 1880; (3) All vaccines cause injury but most measurable in infants; (4) unvaccinated children are noticeably healthier and more intelligent than vaccinated children; (5) No unvaccinated child has developed autism; (6) There is no independent and transparent safety testing for any vaccine; (7) No vaccine or vaccine adjuvent has ever been proved safe; merely not proved unsafe by virtue of inadequate testing; (8) The Gates polio vaccine has paralysed 53,000 children and Gates is wanted for arrest in India and parts of Africa; (9) On video, in 2007 I viewed Bill Gates declaring that his vaccines would eliminate 80% of the world's population; Despite claims that the cause of autism is unknown and that there is no known cure, UK neurologist Natasha Campbell-McBride cures children with her GAPS programme. Essentially, she restores gut flora.
Applying unconventional research techniques, I identified seven factors and contributers in the autism development process; each effecting each child differently. These can be read on "The Autism Controversy" on 'Australia Fights Back' URL oziz4oziz.com/
I agree with nearly all your points and my conclusions have found similar, with one mild caveat; I think basic inoculations (simply weakened or dead versions of the disease, and *nothing else*) do help reduce losses of life; but only for extremely harmful diseases, and not to the extent nor bragged success these vaccine shills falsely claim.
I think at some point in the early 1900s, vaccines started going going downhill, and it can be almost immediately marked to the introduction of artificial chemicals and the adoption of mass manufacturing techniques which favour quantity over quality.
Disease reduction parallels the rise of three key things:
1) Access to clean water
2) Access to hygiene products (soap etc)
3) Antibiotics
In-fact, the best counter-argument the vaccines don't work (pointed out to me by a former pharmaceutical exec) is the fact disease spread is still rife in India. If it isn't due to hygiene (India has a serious hygiene problem), then why have vaccines not solved the issue of disease spread in India?
The diseases they always claim are 'eradicated' happen to always be the asymptomatic ones where certification of eradication is a non-transparent process.
"Despite claims that the cause of autism is unknown and that there is no known cure, UK neurologist Natasha Campbell-McBride cures children with her GAPS programme. Essentially, she restores gut flora."
I have a competing hypothesis but I think perhaps for another time.
LOL. I won't quibble. We have both formed almost identical conclusions, as have thousands of others, and that is what matters. Other readers will be cautioned and thus, we may have save lives. I daresay, when WWIII is over, and the self-identified elite have paiid for their crimes, we may enter a new era of research with integrity, provided access to non-toxic and nutritious food, and eliminated dangerous living environments; and we will finally know the truth. Gotta admit, my fingers are drumming impatiently on the table. If I get my way, Australia will be the first liberated nation.
We'll have a race, see who can liberate their nation first!
I for one look forward to improvements in the morality and integrity of future research.
But by god we have to make sure the next generation learns from these mistakes.
No race in history has faced, or will face, greater discouragement. Here's hoping at least one of us survives. If one nation triumphs, all others will follow. That is why they are so ruthless now.
Sorry for the off-topic, but we have a humangous task ahead of us in trying to liberate our nations (or what's left of them). We've been captured by the same apparatus almost everywhere and most of the govts are puppets only (I say this as a Finn who's country has also been captured). I just recently bumped into Australia-related 1970's case of a young Christopher Boyce who exposed the CIA's criminal activity in Australia that undermined the democratically elected (labor) govt.
He happened to handle the most secret US info and had a strong moral compass just like Edward Snowden did. He also later warned Snowden that US govt would never stop ruining his life if given a chance.
I'll only link to the hit peace written by the always trustworthy WaPo, plenty of other material available for a researcher, just look him up. The hitjob article here:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1977/04/29/christopher-boyce-convicted-as-spy/8e632557-012e-431f-bcda-20362d09e100/
FYI: Mr. Boyce was not a communist, just wanted his country to be the good guys and blow the whistle when his govt couldn't be trusted. The article is propaganda turning a good man into a crook.
The US cover story above. The truth below.
Boyce was a CIA agent involved in the sacking of Australia's Prime Minister Gough Whitlam in November 1975. The agencies were the City of London's MI6 and CIA, acting to prevent Whitlam from identifying high placed CIA agents in Australia. These were: Sir Arthur Tange, Permanent Head of Canberra's Administrative Affairs; Bob Hawke, President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions and later ALP Prime Minister; Peter Ables, owner of TNT transport; Richard Lasting, head of Pine Gap spy base; and Doug Anthony, President of the National Party and VP of the LNP coalition.
The nation was ready to revolt but I suspect Whitl;am was told, 'rebel and your family die very badly'.
One of the CIA agents, Christopher, eventually comprehended that this was a monumental betrayal of Australia as an ally of the US and he blew the whistle. He was imprisoned for 22 years for his heroism. Don't believe the Russia yarn That is standard alibi for US crushing of dissent.
Boyce will never be forgotten by Australians and one day he will be invited to move here. If he is harmed in the meanwhile, everybody connected with his conviction will be held to account. Not a good move.
This is roughly how I see it after trying to put the puzzle together from bits by multiple sources. For me, the strongest confirmation was that he got the "full treatment" from the machine including posing him as as a traitor and gaslighting the public to believe that the story was about Boyce and not the criminal activity of the US govt organizations. The deep state really hates the ugly truth coming out, as we know from it's war against all true whistleblowers (Obama govt was probably the worst in going after them instead of protecting).
I learned that the US govt tortured also Boyce for ten years by keeping him in the solitary confinement but he survived using his memories/imagination to keep sane. Originally, the govt issued a sentence which was supposed to keep him locked up until death, but decades and rulers changed, which saved his life.
Even though Boyce seems to have been an "avg arrogant 20-year-old" judging by a pre-solitary interview given to 60 mins or similar (that are still used as stealth propaganda outlets) and Boyce's own views of young Boyce, but IRL he's much more than that, as he did provenly endure something that would lead to suicide or permanent mental breakdown for the most of us.
For those interested, case Boyce, and the US infiltration and deveivement of Australia, in his own words in this post-prison interview:
'Christopher Boyce Interview "American Sons: The Untold Story of the Falcon and the Snowman"'.
https://youtu.be/cC--SlJKl9M?si=e69lxMVCxOcmh0WF
Thank you, Antonius.
Thanks again, dear Underdog, for pointing out the thin ice and the depths of the evil below.
As you say, some of the "good guys" do leap quickly to cite anything that supports the narrow argument that the covid shots are dangerous, without examining the source and the implications in the rest of the package. Like you, I suspect it's done a bit impulsively ("oh, hey! here's another one!"), but I'll also add that some of the more treacherous sources fly the kind of banners that might carry some credibility with the blind faithful followers of the pharma establishment, and so citing them might be thought to aid in persuading more people of the truth. And it might do so, on a narrow point, but then lead them to gleefully embrace the killer in various other guises. I've given up trying to persuade anyone. I'm just observing now. But the moral of the story is the same- go for the head of Medusa, not one of the flailing tentacles.
I like Chudov (I think....), I've been reading his work for awhile now, but, thanks to you, I'll be reading more critically.
Plants containing high concentrations of saponin are not recommended by field guides for plant foragers like me. Why would they be used for injections?
" I'll also add that some of the more treacherous sources fly the kind of banners that might carry some credibility with the blind faithful followers of the pharma establishment, and so citing them might be thought to aid in persuading more people of the truth"
If Chudov's goal was that (certainly valid), he ought to have opened the pre-face with something like 'this is from the horse's mouth of a pharmaceutical company who have written this preprint paper saying that...'. But oddly, he placed the disclaimer at the end (ironically, the novavax paper has theirs at the beginning!).
So the people who hate conspiracy theorist folks won't have read that far. They will have exited by the first paragraph. And burying it from us conspiracy folks isn't going to make the conclusion more credible unless folks ignore it, which a lot of folks seem to have done.
Yeah... you're right, and you did point that out in Chudov's article. So what do you think his intention really was? Maybe just another example of someone already professionally deeply ingrained in the pharma medical model who's outraged ONLY by the covid shots but accepts the monstrous medical paradigm that spawned them?
Since subscribing her, I've been reading the archives as well as your new releases, and you've earned my respect, like a Virgil as we explore the circles of medical hell (which is not a subject I know very well). What other Substacks do you find to be the most honorable and well-informed on this subject?
Yucca is a foraging food, good anti-inflammatory and full of saponins.... what do your guides say about that?
Just to comment (although I hope they answer your query about the guide), eating and injections should be different avenues.
For example, the poison Curare, is only lethal when it enters the bloodstream, but can be ingested (although disclaimer warning alert: not if your internal digestive tract has any open wound, ulcers, or similar points of entry into the bloodstream). Hunters in tribes would use Curare to hunt wild animals using blowdarts, so the injected material would kill the animal, but not the hunters who ate the animal.
It is possible saponins may follow a similar path. Plus your stomach contains hydrochloric acid and your digestive tract has digestive enzymes.
True.... so much we don't know. I've always wondered about the rattlesnake venom drinkers.... what if they ate a tortilla chip just before and it scratched on the way down - yikes.
Cameroon receives first shipment of GSK's Mosquirix malaria vaccine
November 22, 2023
https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/cameroon-receives-first-shipment-gsks-mosquirix-malaria-vaccine-2023-11-22/
------------------------------------
Cameroon begins routine malaria shots in global milestone
January 22, 2024
https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/cameroon-launches-malaria-vaccination-programme-global-milestone-2024-01-22/
------------------------------------
Introduction of new or (underutilized) products
Impact Goal 2:
Promote Equity 2.2
Provide access to all vaccines
Target:
At least 500
cumulative vaccine introductions in low- and middle-income countries by 2030
[On track toward 2030 target] (Year 2022 claimed total 237 (47.4%) target achieved)
- Mosquirix will increase the 'achievement' when 2023 stats are published
https://scorecard.immunizationagenda2030.org/ig2.2
My wife is an echocardiographer (we live in Australia) and she has scanned hundreds of vaxx victims. The saddest story she recounted to me was of a lovely South Asian woman who held out on the MRNA's due to the obvious agitprop, but took Novavax thinking it was safer. She too got myocarditis.
I'm sorry to hear that.
I have no idea how you keep on top of all this - great article 🙏
Thanks.
I think maybe ESP, luck, friendly contacts, memory recall and good investigative practices.
Great reporting! I do hope that this is shared far and wide.
Pointing to the problems in how the pro-Novavax paper (how many treated it) alone earns a critical thinker and corruption buster award. None of us are immune to biases. Now I hope Igor notices his & thanks you, as the preprint wasn't even ghostwritten, but proudly produced by Novavax employees & he seems to have missed it (in a hurry?).
The rest of the article is solid and understandable also for an advanced layman. I can imagine how I'd feel (anger&fear) had I given in when bullied to bend over for Novavax, as it was for "you anti-vaxxers" & a "normal vaccine", or so was I told. I politely told them that let someone in need have mine, as I've never liked experimental injections that weren't properly tested (nor produced with GMP).
Haha... NO THANKS!! 💉 💀
Chudov's deception around covid injections is stunning, and even more stunning is the fact, that his posts seem to get an attention caused almost by some kind of very well organized AI plot*, similar to all the covid injections comments on ALL the social media during the introduction of the covid GENETICALLY MODIFYING OPERATION on all the humanity... To continue talking about 'mRNA technology', vaccines, etc., without implying a SYNTHETIC genetic material mod mRNA and thus resulting GENE THERAPIES, which is the real technology here, and which does NOT decay, is the biggest cover up Chudov et al are constantly committing, with a big applause of 'invisible' like makers. It is indeed a controlled opposition operation with a stingy CIA character.
* S. Kirsch, A Midwestern Doctor and ALL the MD's, scientists and the Chudov-alike characters constantly parroting the FDA ILLEGAL thus CRIMINAL redefinition of GENE therapies into 'unsafe vaccines'.
Chudov has usually been fairly good at reporting in the past, in my opinion. I think his eagerness in trying to disprove mRNA meant he ended up unintentionally shilling Novavax. I am a little baffled why he didn't see the 'unreviewed' and 'financial conflicts of interest' as red flag, but I'm hoping it is genuine error.
"the FDA ILLEGAL thus CRIMINAL redefinition of GENE therapies into 'unsafe vaccines'."
The problem is, it is all word games. The Mosquitirix vaccine contains saponins, and it was made in 1987, and it is starting to seem like multiple vaccines have historical abilities to transfect (basically, genetic modification). So is there such a thing as an actual 'vaccine', or do most of the vaccines have some hidden ability to transfect?
I genuinely do not know and finding a vaccine as old as 1987 containing a transfectant really surprised me. I thought it was a modern invention.
I try to avoid using the term "gene therapy" (there's nothing therapeutic about it), but the term has such a foothold people don't always know what you're referring to unless you use it. I usually mention 'gene modification' in a preceeding or follow-up sentence. I'm hoping sooner or later people will call them gene mod shots or similarly.
Is there any way at all to find out if this has happened in humans? Going back to the 1987 vaccines? Has anyone looked at this - say in Russia?
It's a fairly new discovery on my part, so there hasn't been a chance to process the implications.
Reportedly the 1987 shot wasn't trialled until 2019 (I have a little difficulty believing this time lag unless it was spent scheming). The earliest I'm aware of was the Shringrix vaccine in 2017, but there may be others that are earlier and it'll require a much broader search outside of Novavax.
Thankfully, Mosquirix wasn't available at the time, and Shringrix was mainly given to the over 65s.
That said, I don't know the true extent of saponin usage in shots, and my fear is 'adjuvants' may imply 'transfectants', but I will need to verify that.
Scary thought on the "adjuvant" idea. Now that you mentioned it I'll be watching for mention of it anywhere.
Thanks for alerting us to all this... so many of us are trying to cope with the details that need doing around us we don't have time to dig these things up. Your time is just as valuable as ours so thank you for sharing!
agree that the 'therapy' word is not good description, normally in my posts I'm using the words gene modifications, like I did above in calling covid injections operation: GENETICALLY MODIFYING OPERATION. Almost 2 years ago I did have an exchange with quite few of these great s-s writers whose role in this entire cover up became immediately clear. The SS censorship by those individuals here on this 'free platform' is mindblowing, to me! And it became even more concerning to see their MSM style of influencing others. The basics of genetic modifications while using synthetic genetic material are explained in:
https://mejbcart.substack.com/p/why-covid-injections-are-not-vaccines
and at:
https://mejbcart.substack.com/p/dr-bret-weinstein-yuri-deigin-and
you can see who and how they operate.
That word 'game' is exactly what everyone talking about 'covid vaccines' does, DECEIVES simple people who have no clue what normal human mRNA does, not even to speak about synthetic one.
Saponins are glycosides (soap), and not genetic material, they have the power to lyse cells, open them and expose them to what they themselves are surrounded with. Some old style vaccines, like anthrax for example, had saponins plus only protein parts which were degraded after being exposed to cell contents. In that respect saponins are EQUIVALENT to the nanolipids used in the Pfizer/ModERNA shots, they are the transfecting tool, they can kill and destroy the cells, BUT THEY ARE NOT THE GENES which are responsible for the genetic REPROGRAMMING of the human cells. The genetic code is what matters most, and once that material is used it is called BY DEFINITION GENETIC MODIFICATION treatment/procedure/therapy, you pick the name, you want... FDA/MD's/influencers et al. surely all know that, that's why their style to consistently stick to the deceptive words.
I don't think he shilled novavax. He was looking at one single element, and using that study to strengthen a point against the mRNA - in the original study the IgG4 may have been an artifact, but in this one, novavax was a control.
As a reader I read nothing that remotely suggested one should take novavax for safety. I did object to Chudov aligning it with 'protein vaccines' of the pre-covid days, since the antigen itself was in such a radical structure.
Regarding the funding of the paper, who else is going to call out the dangerous products of a pharma company, than another pharma company with a potential competing product? The "regulators" certainly aren't doing that. Who did the research on VIOXX, for example?
"who else is going to call out the dangerous products of a pharma company, than another pharma company with a potential competing product"
What, you mean besides places like The Daily Beagle, EMA leaks with the BMJ, Jikkyleaks... why are you so co-dependent on pharmaceutical companies for assistance?
I will never align myself with companies who kill and harm children. Not even as a compromise.
"why are you so co-dependent on pharmaceutical companies" ??? I really didn't deserve that strawman. This is something I concluded years ago... who does keep these companies to account? It wouldn't be the TGA. Do they self-report after they've made sufficient return on investment? Do you know who did the VIOXX research?
"I don't think he shilled novavax"
I didn't say he did. I said he used a bad methodology.
? I thought he just found a paper. Do you think the readers aren't grown-ups?
What's your cut in this? You seem rather intense.
Why are you trying to ad hom me for exposing what is clearly a novavax advertisement preprint?
??? As though no reader is able to work out a corporate funded publication. Something's a bit strange here. Goodbye.
This is a fantastic dig and IMO the top source for beginning to learn about saponins, transfection, etc.
One question that is bugging me and seems to be unanswered: if Novavax is is just as harmful as Moderna/Pfizer/etc--why is it being suppressed? Why is it getting late (post-seasonal) FDA approvals? Why is it getting no press coverage? Why is the distribution lousy? Why do the most hardcore Covidians seem to prefer it and have better reactions to it? (I track anecdotes from heavily vaccinated forums) Why can't the company turn the corner if they're a Cheney-backed part of the cabal agenda?
"why is it being suppressed?"
By who? Novavax shills are everywhere on Twitter. My posts get suppressed, I'd be lucky if I see even a handful of views. I have nearly 2k followers.
"Why is it getting late (post-seasonal) FDA approvals?"
Because they didn't release it until now.
"Why is it getting no press coverage?"
Because they didn't pay for it. Remember? 'Sponsored by Pfizer'.
"Why is the distribution lousy?"
They didn't pay for it.
"Why do the most hardcore Covidians seem to prefer it"
Those are bot accounts that shill the product.
"have better reactions to it?"
There is no evidence people have 'better reactions to it'.
"Why can't the company turn the corner"
Companies compete. Moderna and Pfizer fight with each other. Even Moderna fought with NIH on royalty payments. They're not strictly allies.
Weird line of questioning. Appeals to adversity fallacies are a really shit way of doing medical research. I'm suppressed, would you take my cyanide shot if I offered it? Rhetorical question.
I'm not ruling out that "market forces" and Darwinism couldn't explain Novavax's scenario, but it strikes me as odd that the mRNA products both won out when they had the more challenging path to success.
If you see nothing odd about it, I'm a bit surprised, but so be it. We all come to our own conclusions.
And your rehetorical question is better than you give it credit for. See the book "Doctored Results" about the use of laetrile in cancer treatment.
In terms of Moderna's rise to power, it's been covered previously here:
https://thedailybeagle.substack.com/p/murderous-modernas-infiltration-of
It's not a case of 'I don't find anything suspicious'. Controlled opposition implies I think they're part of the same group. mRNA is now extremely *unpopular* amongst the public, so how do the murderous poison shot pushers 'recover'? They spin off an "anti-mRNA" shot that... also happens to transfect exactly like the mRNA shot does.
It's best to think of it like the US government (Moderna) and ISIS (Novavax); it is correct to argue the US government are more powerful than ISIS, however to say ISIS are separate is a bit of misnomer, as ISIS receive financing and weapons from the US government.
Pfizer were already corrupt behemoths (they paid the world's largest fraud fine, after all, to the tune of billions, back in 2007, more than 16 years ago). So the only suspicion to ask is how did Moderna rise so quickly? Well, the linked article explains *part* of that:
https://thedailybeagle.substack.com/p/murderous-modernas-infiltration-of
Shortstop: giant orgy between governments, academia and pharmaceutical pundits.
I do think within these circles there are still psychopath rivalries, in the same way China and the US are both globalists but also fight with each other to be 'top dog'.
That is a fantastic dig, and I must say your view of the vaccine landscape is far more comprehensive than mine (I am new to your writing).
Let's assume your theory is correct. mRNA shot is unpopular (agreed). Novavax is widely known as being a "traditional" vaccine (even though it uses second-wave "vaccine" technology (adjuvants rather than attenuated virus)). Cabal's primary objective is transfection so Novavax is acceptable (disagree, but let's roll with it).
If this theory is true, we should be seeing the following take place:
*) Media narrative that people should be taking Novavax for their latest booster. Sponsorships, advertisements, celebrity endorsements, morning/evening "news" segments, paid promotion from regional doctors, coercion from insurance companies and workplaces to get it, etc.
*) Widespread awareness in "educated/expert" communities (nurses, doctors, pharmacists, phds) to support the narrative that folks need to get Novavax for their latest booster.
*) FDA/NIH/WHO/CDC aggressively pushing the shift to Novavax via preferential approval process and rhetoric encouraging it.
I argue we see none of those things, and that we in fact see the opposite, manifesting as follows:
* "Expert" demographics are largely unaware that Novavax exists unless a Covidian inquires whether they offer it.
* FDA/CDC/NIH/WHO slow-walking Novavax to where it lands at times that Covidians have already gotten mRNA, and rarely to never mentioning it so that awareness is minimized.
* Availability of Novavax is still extremely spotty, to the point that people have to seek it out rather than happening to get it when they request to "get vaccinated for COVID".
* Complete disinterest/avoidance from media.
* Framing of mRNA side effects as "long COVID" (i.e. denial that there is anything wrong with mRNA or lipid nanoparticle delivery mechanism).
* Doubling down on mRNA tech as a cure for cancer and other conditions.
Do you disagree with these facts? If not, how do you square them with your theory? If these facts don't square with your theory, what other theories might explain them?
Recently folks from my extended circle flushed out a (former) CDC shill parroting claims that Novavax was 'safe' (https://twitter.com/normanpie/status/1696646983237173338). He has appeared in numerous alt media outlets.
Controlled opposition does not work the way you're thinking ('media aggressively pushing', etc is not how it works). It is the 'safety net' to the main event, not the main event itself.
An entry-level article on how Controlled Opposition behaves can be found here:
https://thedailybeagle.substack.com/p/controlled-opposition-what-is-it