UCSF Tries To Cover Up Genetic Modification Vaccine Harms
A Rebuttal To "Fibrin Drives Thromboinflammation And Neuropathology In COVID-19"
In a desperate attempt to explain why so many people are experiencing harms, a paper written by UCSF (University of California, San Francisco) sponsored Gladstone Institutes attempts to pin the blame on SARS-CoV-2 in order to sell more pharma treatments.
Whilst they correctly conclude spike proteins trigger clotting, in a desperate bid to save their vaccine god, they only blame the spike proteins from SARS-CoV-2.
The Daily Beagle has long had the counter-argument vaccine cultists cannot refute:
If the spike protein in the shots are different to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, then the shots aren’t training immunity for SARS-CoV-2 spike protein thus the shots are completely fraudulent
If the spike protein in the shots are the same, then the consequences are the same, thus the shots cause clotting
They Literally Fabricate A Claim
Ignoring the fact this sentence has blatantly broken English (it is confusing as to where they’re claiming the ‘protein is eliminated’ — at local accumulation sites or in the lymph nodes?), citation 37 does not state the claim:
Citation 37, also known as ‘Route of Vaccine Administration Alters Antigen Trafficking but Not Innate or Adaptive Immunity’ discusses the impact of different styles of injection.
In it, they do not claim the ‘spike protein’ (referred to as ‘antigen’) only goes to the lymph nodes, but also to the lymph nodes, a sublte but important difference. They state it travels to the muscles and the skin (even though we know from Pfizer biodistribution data that the mRNA carrying LNPs [lipid nanoparticles] end up in the organs, so even the muscle/skin claim uses yet another omission).
Furthermore, the citation does not state that the antigens are eliminated in the skin or the muscle. We know for a fact that mRNA spike proteins continue to circulate for a long time, and are not quickly eliminated.
…they found spike protein still in the lymph nodes (‘LNs’) up to at least 60 days.
And in ‘Circulating Spike Protein Detected in Post–COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine Myocarditis’…
…they found the vaccine injured still had mRNA free-spike-proteins circulating in their body (where-as the uninjured didn’t have mRNA free-spike-proteins circulating in their body).
Therefore, Gladstone Institutes’ claim the spike protein from the shots (via omission of other arrival destination sites) only goes to the lymph nodes, and are eliminated using lymph nodes, is provably false.
They Lie And Claim There’s No Blood Conditions Associated With The Shots
Given it has already been accepted that Vaccine Induced Thrombosis and Thromocytopenia are a thing, this is arguably the most brazen faced lie.
Lets break these lies down further.
Citation 38
The first lie is the claim they ‘prevent’ post-COVID-19 thromboembolic complicates relies on citation 38:
Citation 38 is ‘The role of COVID-19 vaccines in preventing post-COVID-19 thromboembolic and cardiovascular complications’, and we immediately encounter problems (just like the last “positive” study).
Citation 38 does the usual cherry picking fallacy by essentially eliminating the bulk of unvaccinated case studies, by removing anyone who hadn’t been declared infected with SARS-CoV-2 prior to the availability of the shots (I.E. the majority of the unvaccinated who had pre-existing immunity):
There’s no reason to do this unless you’re trying to create bias selection criteria.
On weight of probability, those going into healthcare services (I.E. have a pre-existing condition or ‘failure state’ or risk) would get regularly tested for SARS-CoV-2 during 2020 (the vaccinated, inversely, were not typically tested).
Lets say the shots negatively impact those who have pre-existing heart conditions in a way COVID-19 wouldn’t: this selection criteria conveniently eliminates that risk exposure. Essentially, it might as well read as if they had said ‘we have only chosen healthy individuals who never got tested from the point of the shot rollout’.
They also used an extremely narrow time frame: 7 months:
There’s no reason for this artificially narrow selection period, given the paper was published in 2024, and the shots have been around for at least 3 years. Why no data from 2022? Or 2023? Why not even a one years worth of data? Seems more like an arbitrary cut-off time period just before things got worse.
This paper reeks of data cherry picking regarding ‘only benefits’. VITT was an already known issue as early as April 2021:
“most typically with the AstraZeneca nCOV-19 Vaccine”
Smells like citation 38 engages in data fudge and cover up.
Citation 39
This is the real clanger though (if anything should prompt you to dismiss the claims of the paper, it is this):
What, absolutely none?
That is an incredibly broad, overreaching universalist claim that is provably false. Supposedly backed up by citation 39, that also makes the unbelievable claim they’ve somehow studied 99 million records:
An algorithmic search of a dataset is either called an analysis or a search. To study is to imply you’ve manually read every single one, E.G. ‘a case study’. They did not study 99 million records; it is physically impossible.
Even if we ignore this hugely suspicious number, looking at citation 39 — ‘COVID-19 vaccines and adverse events of special interest: a multinational Global Vaccine Data Network (GVDN) cohort study of 99 million vaccinated individuals’ — we see why they magically didn’t find any conditions…
Arbitrary cut-off dates (again):
Why 42 days? Why not 40? Or 44? Or 7 months? They don’t explain, because to do so means to admit they intentionally truncated the dataset in order to give favourable results (by omitting the bulk of the development time for a condition to worsen). It can take years to receive a formal diagnosis for an illness. VITT would take months (easily more than 60 days).
Ironically, even with this arbitrarily short cut-off period, they still find harms, one that even disproves Gladstone Institutes’ claims!
For those of you not familiar with medical jargon:
Guillain-Barré syndrome is a neurological condition that impacts the entire body
Cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (first exposed by The Daily Beagle in our reporting of the EMA leaks) is a cardiovascular disease involving blood clotting in the brain (I.E. a haematological event)
Acute disseminated encephalomyelitis is swelling of the brain and spinal cord caused by autoimmunity (autoimmunity typically being a disorder of the blood).
Myocarditis and pericarditis are both heart-related injuries (I.E. cardiovascular, or blood-related)
So when Gladstone Institutes falsely claim “a cohort study in 99 million COVID-vaccinated individuals showed no safety signals for haematological conditions” — it is provably false, even by using the very artificially constrained study they cited: the shots cause Cerebral venous sinus thrombosis!
Paper Tries To Blame Fibrin For Spike Protein Harms
Fibrin is a natural part of your body, and is used to create clots (for example, to heal wounds). This paper is so deceptive in a desperate attempt to avoid implicating vaccine spike proteins as harmful (read: toxic) they even try to paint the naturally occurring fibrin as “toxic”.
Instead of more accurately describing the non-native spike protein as toxic (which, surprise, it is), they’d rather paint the naturally occurring fibrin as toxic.
Quoting Fibrinolysis and the control of blood coagulation (emphasis added):
Fibrin plays an essential role in hemostasis as both the primary product of the coagulation cascade and the ultimate substrate for fibrinolysis.
Hemostatis is maintaining the balance of functioning within your body (read: preventing you from bleeding to death).
Notice the pro-vaccine paper is trying to lay the groundwork to shift the blame from the spike proteins found in the shots causing neurological diseases (E.G. Alzheimer’s) by blaming fibrin.
Multiple False Claims In Less Than A Paragraph
We can therefore demonstrate, via omission (and point blank lying) Gladstone Institutes make the following erroneous statements:
Incorrectly claims there’s “small amounts” of vaccine spike protein “accumulating locally” with a citation that contradicts this claim.
Falsely claims the spike protein drains (‘only’) into the lymph nodes via strategic omission of evidence showing antigens remain in the muscle and skin.
Incorrectly claims vaccines are beneficial based on a flawed study with an arbitrary 7 month cut-off data and bizarre selection criteria for candidacy.
Falsely claims there are no haematological events in the vaccinated when their citation paper (even when using arbitrary 42 day cut-off dates) literally proves otherwise.
Falsely claims fibrin is ‘toxic’ whilst avoiding calling the spike proteins the same.
It is impressive what lengths they will go to in order to avoid any criticisms of the vaccines.
Found this informative?
Help inform?
Thoughts, dear reader?
Yes! These evil 'controllers'(as they see themselves) are panicking because their house of cards is collapsing. More of us know their diabolical intentions and they're now running scared.
We must keep up the pressure and continue to spread the word about their 'Great Reset' New World Order (All organised and managed by the corrupt World Economic Forum).
First objective is to terminate the ridiculous ZERO LIABILITY for pharmaceutical murderers who pretend to create medicines, mostly applied by needle, that reduce Life Expectancy, reduce natural immunity and depopulate the planet as quickly as they thought they could get away with.
ZERO LIABILITY for injected poisons, like Covid Vax, must cease before another unsuspecting person is terminated by their surreptitious Cull by injection.
Unjabbed Mick (UK) I'll live longer by avoiding their murder by injection.
Thank you for this thoughtful analysis. I saw articles describing the UCSF paper’s findings, and appreciate your detailed rebuttal. I try to explore divergent perspectives in an effort to triangulate to the truth, so your thorough critique helps me discard misleading datapoints like the UCSF paper. Thank you.