Why you should think twice before considering a COVID booster

Contradictions and discrepancies abound between what the government and television doctors say, and what the science and manufacturers' own data shows. Here’s what you need to know and why you should think twice before blindly following their advice.

Remove Ads

Scientific contradictions persist as a new COVID booster is in development for this fall, amid mainstream media reports of new variants and increasing hospitalizations.

The news comes more than two years after the idea that novel biological injections authorized under fast-tracked legislation were the ticket out of the pandemic.

Of course, they were touted as indiscriminately safe and effective, too.

Now it’s abundantly clear that these miraculous vaccines have not prevented the increase in hospitalizations being seen today but that has not stopped the CBC from broadcasting blatant misinformation.

Infectious disease expert Isaac Bogoch's messaging is repeatedly amplified, without divulging his conflicts of interest.

The media fails to mention the scientific fact that predates the COVID hysteria with mountains of immunological evidence: that natural immunity provides broad-spectrum protection that persists for decades.

They fail to mention that the vaccinated and unvaccinated share similar viral loads, as originally published by Riemersma in July 2021, now peer-reviewed, and Acharya in October 2021, also now peer-reviewed.

Further, the purported experts state that pregnant women are categorized as high-risk and should get the shot, while the manufacturer’s own product monograph directly contradicts this claim.

The Comirnaty Omicron-specific booster insert says that “[n]o data are available yet regarding the use of COMIRNATY Original & Omicron BA.4/BA.5 during pregnancy.”

It says the same for breastfeeding, including that “[a] risk to the newborns/infants cannot be excluded.”

Carcinogenic potential — that is, the injection's cancer-causing potential — “was not assessed, as carcinogenicity studies were not considered relevant to this vaccine.”

Genotoxicity — the ability to cause cellular mutations and damage genetic information — was also not assessed. “Genotoxicity studies were not considered relevant to this vaccine,” the insert reads.

Moderna’s Spikevax monograph says the exact same thing regarding pregnant women, breastfeeding and carcinogenicity, although they “consider” genotoxic risk in humans to be “low.”

Yet Microbiologist Kevin McKernan found undisclosed DNA plasmids in the shots, which could potentially integrate into the human genome… permanently.

When Health Canada was asked by the Epoch Times about this finding, the health agency hid behind the proprietary secrecy of the manufacturer's testing data.

“They are not public information,” Health Canada responded. “The methods used for measuring residual DNA fragments were appropriately validated by the manufacturer and evaluated as fit for purpose by Health Canada."

The Canadian COVID Care Alliance (CCCA), a group of Canadian medical professionals with everything to lose and nothing to gain by sharing accurate and up-to-date information on these pharmaceutical products, released an entire campaign about protecting pregnant women from these injections.

“Women are encouraged to be more critical in assessing their need for vaccines during pregnancy and while breastfeeding by asking for evidence that safety has been proven, that the product is indeed necessary, and if its claimed benefits have actually been proven.”

The media also says that it’s “safe” to mix and match vaccines — to administer them “concurrently” but the package insert also never established this as safe.

Pfizer’s Omicron booster says that “[n]o interaction studies have been performed. There is no information on the co-administration of COMIRNATY Original & Omicron BA.4/BA.5 with other vaccines.”

And Moderna’s, once again, says the exact same thing.

When Rebel News previously inquired about this with Canada’s National Advisory Committee on Immunization, which is responsible for issuing vaccine guidance to the Public Health Agency of Canada, which then issues guidance to Health Canada, they responded that they can make “off-label recommendations,” that they can do so without any data, but it’s OK because they’ll collect it in real-time.

All of this is done to “achieve the greatest public health benefit in Canada.”

But are pregnant women actually high risk? Well, according to the evidence dissected by the CCCA, not really.

So why should we trust this next booster? Will it be tested on more than just eight mice, as the Omicron-specific one was, before it’s rolled out on those alleged to be most at risk? The ones that are arguably four to six shots into the regime, with hospitalizations in that demographic only increasing?

In a landscape where trusting the science and trusting the experts has led to the above-mentioned discrepancies, will you be following the experts that the mainstream media amplifies and will you trust the institutions advising the government that what they say is accurate, up-to-date, and that they’re actually following the science as they claim?

Remove Ads
Remove Ads

Don't Get Censored

Big Tech is censoring us. Sign up so we can always stay in touch.

Remove Ads