How ‘One Health’ Could Become A Global One Health Disaster

How ‘One Health’ Could Become A Global One Health Disaster


ER Editor: Dr. Byram Bridle usefully walks us through standard vaccines vs. mRNA injections in the first half of his piece. Our concern here is with the second half of the article: the immediate plan to use mRNA vaccines on animals, both for the welfare of the animals themselves and for humans through our food sources. This is already starting in Australia.

********

How ‘One Health’ Could Become A Global One Health Disaster

A Call for a Moratorium on mRNA Vaccines for Veterinary Use

This article discloses a major new concern that I have with mRNA vaccine technology in its current form. As such, I have taken care to build the rationale for this. Please take the time to read to the end because this is an issue that could potentially affect us all and should be opened to discussion and scientific investigations.

The Elegant Concept of Vaccines

The purpose of a vaccine is to simulate infection with a pathogen so a person can mount a protective immune response without having to be exposed to the risks associated with the disease caused by the pathogen. Naturally acquired immunity represents the gold standard that vaccinologists try to achieve with their immunization technologies. Natural immunity is usually broadly reactive to minimize risk of immunoevasion, confers long-lasting protection against acquisition of the disease and prevents transmission of the causative pathogen to others. In principle, the concept is sound. In practice, we still have much to learn about natural immune responses and some vaccines come closer than others to achieving this gold standard of immunity.

Lipid Nanoparticles and mRNA Vaccine Technology

Messenger RNA is a genetic blueprint that cells use to manufacture proteins. This can only happen if the mRNA can get into cells. To facilitate this, mRNAs get packaged into tiny bubbles made of fat, called lipid nanoparticles (LNPs). When LNPs come into contact with the fat layer that surrounds cells, which is called the cell membrane, they fuse and release the mRNAs into the cell.

LNPs were originally designed with the goal of delivering drugs throughout the body, including into the brain to treat things like Alzheimer’s diseasebrain cancers, and Parkinson’s disease. They were also being tested for wide-spread delivery of genetic blueprints to try to correct genes associated with diseases; known as gene therapy. However, one of the major roadblocks to using LNPs for these purposes was that multiple administrations resulted in excessive toxicities, in part due to activation of inflammatory mechanisms of the immune system. As a consequence, companies strategically decided to try using LNP-encapsulated mRNAs as vaccines. The rationale was two-fold:

  1. The immune system needs to detect something as being dangerous before it responds to it. LNPs containing mRNAs are highly ‘reactogenic’ and, therefore, perceived as being dangerous to the body. By virtue of being reactogenic, this technology induces inflammation, which is the foundation for any immune response.
  2. According to Health Canada, “An ideal vaccine is… effective in providing lifelong protection against disease after a single dose that can be administered at birth”. For multiple reasons, including having immature immune systems, newborn babies cannot respond properly to vaccines, so my opinion is that a couple of doses would normally be required for an ideal vaccine in infants and they would have to be administered well after birth. However, for those with fully mature immune systems, it is reasonable and, therefore, correct for Health Canada to expect that a good vaccine would only require a single dose to provide “lifelong protection against disease”. They appropriately left out the last-ditch effort of ‘reducing severity of disease’ in their delineation of an ideal vaccine. As such, companies working with LNPs that are toxic when administered multiple times latched onto the concept of using LNP-encapsulated mRNAs as vaccines in adults, where they would theoretically only have to be delivered once.

Therefore, companies like Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna made LNPs containing the mRNAs that encode the spike protein from severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), which is the causative agent of the novel coronavirus disease that was first identified (ER: or lab-created?) in 2019 (COVID-19). These products were tested to assess their potential to be used as vaccines.

mRNA ‘Vaccines’ Failed to Meet Expectations

Unfortunately, the mRNA products against COVID-19 failed miserably to live up to Health Canada’s definition of an ideal vaccine. First, they fail to protect against infection and acquisition of disease. And, on the basis of fifth doses (and beyond) now being recommended in Canada, they don’t come close to being effective with a single dose. Alarmingly, this means the entire premise of using them as vaccines to avoid multi-dose-associated toxicities has been lost. As such, Health Canada would likely be compelled to define the mRNA COVID-19 products as being as far from ideal as one can possibly get while still trying to cling to the otherwise elegant concept of a vaccine. Remarkably, in the United States, they had to change the definition of a vaccine to be able to apply this term to this technology once the aforementioned flaws were unveiled by the public rollout. At the end of the day, the public are expected to make their own informed decisions about vaccines, and their general perception matches the classical textbook definition of a vaccine, which is something that induces an immune response that protects a person from getting the disease and prevents them from transmitting the causative agent to others. As such, the public needs to be aware of how far from a benchmark vaccine the mRNA products are.

The COVID-19 ‘Vaccine’ Rollout Has Revealed Troubling Features of The Technology

Global experimentation on the public has revealed key problems with mRNA ‘vaccines’ that public health officials decided were not best studied prior their rollout. These include:

  1. Induction of immune responses that are far from protective. They cannot prevent infection, nor transmission. This means that they apply a sub-lethal immunological selection pressure against pathogens that are prone to mutation. This is a classical recipe for driving the emergence of variants that can evade the immune system. In short, it is not only probable but even likely that the mRNA products have accelerated the emergence of the new variants of SARS-CoV-2 that we keep hearing about.
  2. Identification of safety signals. Members of the public, outside of the context of the official and ongoing clinical experiments, have been used to identify an array of side-effects that were missed in the rush to get the mRNA products to market. These adverse events have the potential to be lethal. Publicly admitted ones include blood clots, myocarditis, pericarditis, and anaphylactic shock. The very mechanism of action of the mRNA products is cause for concern. Getting a person’s own cells to express the spike protein from SARS-CoV-2 means, by definition, that those cells will be killed by the ensuing immune response. The degree of this self-destruction and whether it can spill over into long-term autoimmune diseases remains understudied and actively debated within communities that still allow reasonable discussions to occur uncensored. By virtue of sole reliance during the rollout on passive monitoring systems, which substantially underestimate side-effects, additional dangers are also the subject of ongoing heated debates. Regardless, mRNA vaccines are admittedly unsafe and even lethal for at least some recipients.
  3. mRNA vaccines are injected into muscles, get distributed throughout the body seeding a wide array of organs and tissues, and these vaccines can be shed from the body. For example, it was recently demonstrated that mRNA COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ could be detected in the breastmilk of nursing mothers.

One Health: Vaccinating Animals to Protect the Health of People

The concept of ‘one health’ is that the health of people, animals, and the environment are interlinked and interdependent. The health of one can potentially impact the health of the other two. For example, the most potentially dangerous forms of the ‘flu’ occur when human influenza viruses exchange chunks of genetic material with influenza viruses that infect pigs and birds. This can result in outbreaks in the human population of swine and avian flus. There are also zoonotic pathogens that can be transmitted, unchanged, from animals to people. As such, there are growing efforts to to promote global human health by mass vaccinating animals. (ER: Surely this is a pretext for nefarious agendas!) The concept is elegant. If the animals can’t get a disease and transmit the causative agent to people, this could avoid outbreaks in the human population. (ER: Which sounds incredibly naive to us.)

One Health: Fast-Tracking of Veterinary mRNA Vaccines

Some people may be unaware that a large number of mRNA vaccines are being developed with the goal of administering these to species of veterinary interest. The first clinical testing of a mRNA vaccine was actually in cattle, preceding the rollout into people. Australia has a good example of new mRNA vaccines against Foot and Mouth Disease and Lumpy Skin Disease being fast-tracked as a way to address the economic impact of these diseases on their livestock industry. Yes, warp speed-like development of mRNA vaccines has been adopted by the veterinary industry. I encourage you to conduct a literature search, which will show that mRNA-based vaccines are being developed for a wide array of other pathogens, including influenza viruses in poultry and swine.

Why Should People Care About mRNA Vaccines for Veterinary Applications?

There are at least three reasons…

  1. If veterinary mRNA vaccines targeting pathogens that can infect people are as far from meeting Health Canada’s definition of an ideal vaccine as the COVID-19 products, then massive numbers of animals will be conferred with fare from sterilizing immunity. This, in turn, could produce massive reservoirs of animals around the world that can promote the emergence of unique and potentially immuno-evasive variants of zoonotic pathogens that could then infect people. Global regulators must insist, without compromise, veterinary mRNA immunization products for zoonotic pathogens confer sterilizing or near-sterilizing immunity, unlike the mRNA ‘vaccines’ for people. This means that animals receiving these products should not be susceptible to the target disease, nor should they be able to transmit the causative agent to others, especially humans. Unlike COVID-19 ‘vaccines’, veterinary mRNA vaccines should be required to undergo formal transmission testing as part of their approval process.
  2. COVID-19 mRNA ‘vaccines’ are injected into muscles, they distribute throughout the body and can leave the body such as via breastmilk. What if the vaccines can get into edible tissues of food animals? It would not be safe for people to consume veterinary mRNA vaccines in milk, eggs, and meat. Careful testing needs to be done to determine how long mRNAs from vaccines last in veterinary species. This would determine, in part, the ‘wash-out’ period, which is how long one needs to wait before obtaining food from agricultural species to ensure humans are not exposed to the medical product. Worse, wherever mRNA can be found, we can likely expect there to also be the protein that it encodes. This represents one of my biggest concerns about veterinary mRNA vaccines. Proteins are more durable and, therefore, longer lasting than mRNAs, and the synthetic mRNAs in vaccines last much longer than their natural counterparts. The potential problem here is the phenomenon of oral tolerance. Our immune systems are designed to interpret things that we eat as being non-dangerous. This is to avoid harmful chronic inflammation in our gastro-intestinal tract, as well as food allergies. When we eat something, even in tiny quantities, our immune system gets programmed to ignore it. Now, consider the possibility of eating or drinking key target proteins from pathogens that are dangerous to people. If our immune systems were to be trained to ignore these critical parts of pathogens, we would become more susceptible to the diseases they cause. By virtue of trying to protect ourselves by vaccinating animals, we could, theoretically and counterintuitively, render ourselves more susceptible to diseases. This could be disastrous for public health. Talk about a potential downside of ‘GMO foods’ (GMO = genetically modified organism).
  3. Concern for the well-being of the animals, especially if multiple different mRNA vaccines that require repeated dosing are used. mRNA vaccines are not entirely safe in people, especially if more than one dose is administered, and this may apply to animals as well. Care must be taken to ensure that animal welfare is preserved, along with their ability to reproduce efficiently. Research in animals represents an ideal scenario to conduct extensive and careful studies into the safety of mRNA vaccine technologies, including addressing the numerous legitimate, well-rationalized safety questions that have been raised but largely ignored during the rollout into humans.

The Precautionary Principle

In this article, have I proven risks of veterinary mRNA vaccines? No, that was not the purpose. It is possible that these concerns will one day be allayed by the careful conduct of scientific investigations; and let’s hope that is the case. However, as a medical scientist, I lean on two key principles when it comes to public health and safety…

  1. Hypotheses that are formulated with a strong scientific rationale are the legitimate starting point for discussions and investigations.
  2. The precautionary principle is that novel medical products should never be implemented into practice until very high standards of safety and efficacy have been proven. And when it comes to safety, this would include addressing all well-rationalized scientific concerns, including those that were deemed inappropriate to raise during the rollout into humans. Hopefully, a return to our scientific roots and principles will be allowed prior to veterinary mRNA vaccines being licensed for routine use.

What to Do

  1. Scholarly debate. No scientific topic should be off-limits for respectful discussions. The issues raised in this article should be critically assessed to either affirm or allay these concerns. After all, robust, uncensored scholarly debate represents the best way to ensure both the safety of the public when it comes to novel medical technologies, including making sure they are fully informed when making their own decisions.
  2. Research. Governments need to recognize the potential for mRNA vaccine technologies to not only have positive global impacts on health, but also the possibility of substantial negative outcomes. mRNA vaccines and funds for research need to be made readily available to third-party investigators to run critical experiments to address questions like, but not limited to:
  • Do veterinary mRNA vaccines induce immune responses that protect against infection?
  • Do they protect against transmission of the causative agent of the disease?
  • Do veterinary mRNA vaccines or any of their components, including the proteins they encode, get into milk, meat, eggs, and/or other food products (e.g., livers, etc.)?
  • If so, how long are they present?
  • Can consumption of proteins from zoonotic pathogens potentiate oral induction of immunological tolerance that would render a person more susceptible to the disease being targeted?

Until the concerns raised in this article are definitively addressed, it is my expert opinion that no mRNA vaccine intended for veterinary use (nor any for human use, for that matter) should be licensed by any regulatory body. This is for the sake of both human and animal health.

Overly rapid deployment of this technology anywhere in the world has the potential to cause public health problems elsewhere on the globe. After all, pathogens do not respect boundaries. Those developing mRNA vaccine technologies need to give consideration to their fellow human beings. What you do could impact the health of those around you, and not necessarily for the better.

************

Source

••••

The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)

••••

Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.

••••

Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

••••

Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.

Visit Original Source

Of 29 Pregnant Women That Had Received Pfizer’s COVID-19 Inoculation, Only One Had a Baby That Lived

Of 29 Pregnant Women That Had Received Pfizer’s COVID-19 Inoculation, Only One Had a Baby That Lived


ER Editor: In relation to this reaction by Dr. Byram Bridle on Pfizer’s trial data in relation to pregnant women, we invite readers to check out this latest interview Maria Zeee did with UK funeral director, John O’Looney. O’Looney is keeping track of all manner of health (and death) phenomena in relation to Covid and the vaccines. In this interview he comments on the alarming number of dead babies now being ‘born’ and how they are being kept hidden from funeral directors. See

UK Funeral Director John O’Looney Does An Update with Maria Zeee

********

Of 29 Pregnant Women That Had Received Pfizer’s COVID-19 Inoculation, Only One Had a Baby That Lived

I Am In Shock

DR. BYRAM W. BRIDLE

The United States Food and Drug Administration (US-FDA) had requested 75 years to release the documents that they reviewed from Pfizer prior to issuing emergency use authorization for the Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b mRNA ‘vaccine’ (Comirnaty) against SARS-CoV-2, which can cause COVID-19. However, a judge over-ruled this and issued a court order that the documents be released in large monthly installments.
Today, an absolutely shocking set of data were brought to my attention. They are not new. They are from a document that was in the data dump released back in May of this year. However, I want to help my fellow scientists in making sure that this science gets widely distributed throughout the world. This is for the sake of ‘fully informed consent’, something that regulatory agencies, public health officials and too many physicians seem to have abandoned over the past couple of years.

For a long time I have been arguing that our children need to be left out of the massive conflicts over the science underpinning COVID-19. In my opinion, adults can conduct their own risk-benefit analyses regarding whether they want to receive one of the current COVID-19 inoculations. However, far too many adults are making these decisions based on pseudo-science, data from flawed studies, misinformation, and outright disinformation being propagated by physicians and public health officials, many of whom are unqualified to opine on anything in the field of vaccinology. I have never felt comfortable about these injections being used in ‘children, adolescents and young-adults of child-bearing age’. This was the precise terminology I used in a parent’s guide to COVID-19 vaccines that I wrote more than one year ago.

The highest quality data for assessing a novel medical product are derived from clinical studies. This is because these types of experiments in people are typically well-controlled and include what is known as ‘active monitoring’: there is follow-up to assess safety and efficacy. This is why the clinical testing phases should never be compromised.

With this in mind, let’s explore a stunning set of data that Pfizer provided to the US-FDA. Here is the relevant document…

The data in this document were accumulated up until February 28, 2021. Notably, on page 9, safety concerns based on the US Pharmacovigilance Plan included “missing information” on “Use in Pregnancy and lactation”. The data that had accumulated up to the end of February, 2021 were from too small of a sample size (i.e., # of pregnant or lactating women) to justify its use in these populations. However, here are the data that were available at that time regarding outcomes in pregnant women that had received Pfizer’s COVID-19 inoculation; this is quoted from the top of table 6 (I have italicized and/or bolded the most important points)…

Pregnancy cases: 274 cases including:

• 270 mother cases and 4 foetus/baby cases representing 270 unique pregnancies (the 4 foetus/baby cases were linked to 3 mother cases; 1 mother case involved twins).

• Pregnancy outcomes for the 270 pregnancies were reported as spontaneous abortion (23), outcome pending (5), premature birth with neonatal death, spontaneous abortion with intrauterine death (2 each), spontaneous abortion with neonatal death, and normal outcome (1 each)No outcome was provided for 238 pregnancies (note that 2 different outcomes were reported for each twin, and both were counted).

Apparently, outcomes will never be known for 88% (238/270) of the pregnancies. Why was the follow-up rate on these cases so abysmal?

NutriTruth has a great graph on their website that summarizes the results from cases for which follow-up data were available…

It appears that data would be available for five of the pregnancies, but these outcomes were still unknown at the time that Pfizer’s document was written. As such, there are solid data available from 29 pregnancies. One out of 29 of these pregnancies resulted in a ‘normal’ outcome. This means that 28 out of the 29 babies died! That is a 97% death rate. I don’t care which trustworthy data set you look at to determine a ‘background’ death rate, none of them come close to 97%. Spontaneous abortions are more common than many people appreciate, but, again, they are nowhere near the rate in this study. Even in the case of the ‘normal outcome’, this means there was an apparently healthy baby. However, one cannot be certain that the outcome was ‘normal’ until the baby has had all of their physiological systems fully mature, which means early adulthood.

I have looked at Pfizer’s pre-clinical reproductive toxicity data and they are fatally flawed. Issues included ‘vaccinating’ the females only; apparently, it was forgotten that ‘it takes two to tango’. Also, the rodent models that were used express the low-affinity version of the receptor for the spike protein encoded by the ‘vaccines’. People express the high-affinity receptor. This means the rodent models aren’t capable of revealing toxicities that might be associated with the spike protein. In short, the pre-clinical studies could provide no assurance whatsoever that Pfizer’s vaccine would be safe in the context of pregnancy. Now there is proof that data were in the hands of regulatory agencies that suggested the potential for a 97% fatality rate for babies from ‘vaccinated’ women.

I have collaborated with scientists and physicians about the post-rollout ‘real-world’ studies on pregnancy and the COVID-19 shots. They are highly flawed. I co-authored a paper about this, but have yet to find an editor that will even allow it to undergo peer review (I have had no problems with this for any of my cancer- or basic virology-focused papers). Regardless, many other reputable scientists and physicians have been addressing this. Further, these ‘real-world’ studies should never have been authorized based on the data presented here.

Many countries have pushed Pfizer’s COVID-19 ‘vaccine’ on pregnant women, often via mandates. This was been done with the full blessing of their societies for obstetrics and gynecology. Are obstetricians and gynecologists going to continue to make these recommendations with these data in-hand? At the end of the day, couples experiencing pregnancies or who wish to do so must make it their own responsibility to educate themselves to facilitate fully informed consent. Too many obstetricians and gynecologists are either too superficially trained in the immunological sub-discipline of vaccinology or are too afraid of contradicting a narrative for which dissent is punished. Some physicians are starting to speak up about this. Unfortunately, their singular personal observations are simply deemed anecdotal. However, as a scientist, I have been trained to observe the cumulative nature of these reports; to not dismiss them out-of-hand, and to use them to formulate legitimate scientific questions.

If you or your baby have experienced any issues post-inoculation, please report these to your physician. They are obligated to submit an adverse event report, without opining on whether or not they think it might or might not be related. The accumulation of these reports is the only way scientists can help identify safety signals during a public rollout of a novel medical product.

A 97% death rate among babies from pregnant mothers that were ‘vaccinated’ is appalling. And this was from Pfizer’s own clinical trial data. This suggests a massive breakdown in the health regulatory process. The public, whom health regulatory agencies are to be serving, should demand accountability from these government-run institutions.

If I were a regulatory scientist assessing the pregnancy outcome data from Pfizer, there is no way that I would ever have supported the use of their inoculation in pregnant women. And I would never have allowed ‘real-world’ data from flawed studies to replace proper pre-clinical and clinical trials. Nor would I remain silent about this knowledge. Regulators who know better need to start speaking up.

******

••••

The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)

••••

Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.

••••

Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

••••

Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.

Source

error

Please help truthPeep spread the word :)