A WARNING ABOUT COVID-19 mRNA VACCINES

[Islander]

I have the good fortune to be a real-life personal friend of large-scale organic grower and research scientist Anthony Samsel. (We have published links to some of his research; do a search on Samsel and you'll quickly find references). It's much too early for formal coronavirus vaccine research, but Samsel has made a number of statements on Facebook that I quote below. Draw your own conclusions.

Product developers often don’t fully think of the potential consequences of a product, both short and long-term. The new COVID-19 mRNA vaccines may affect fertility and neurology among other inflammatory cascades ~
The COVID-19 vaccine containing the mRNA sequence appears that it may affect the cell surface protein SYNCYTIN which is an envelope protein of the human retrovirus family. There are warnings in the labeling of the COVID-19 vaccine which I append ~
Syncytin is a viral gene protein discovered in rabbits in 2009, that suppresses the immune system of pregnant woman which prevents tissue rejection of the developing fetus. This fusion protein is expressed in the human placenta and elsewhere including the brain and has been associated with neuro-inflammation and neurological disease. Syncytin activates pro-inflammatory and autoimmune cascades. Syncytin is also found in both the eggs and sperm ~
The mRNA vaccine may suppress Syncytin just as it does by the antibodies it develops to stop SARS 2 spike protein. It could potentially behave as an anti-Syncytin-1 antibody. Syncytin suppresses tissue rejection for fertility and growth of new humans ~

WHAT POSSIBLY COULD GO WRONG NOT ONLY WITH FERTILITY, PREGNANCY BUT NEUROLOGY !!!
The pharmaceutical companies and UK are warning MDs not to give the COVID 19 vaccines to pregnant woman ~

WARNING: The COVID vaccine label and latest recommendations for physician’s says PREGNANT WOMEN SHOULD NOT RECEIVE THE VACCINE. NURSING MOTHERS SHOULD NOT RECEIVE THE VACCINE ~ immunocompromised people should not receive the vaccine ~ ANYONE WITH FOOD ALLERGIES SHOULD NOT RECEIVE THE VACCINE ~ Children 16 and under should not receive the vaccine ~

Samsel adds: I’m in 2 medical research groups and we have been discussing mRNA vaccines and all concur we will not take the vaccine. Your best defense against COVID 19 is taking vitamin D3 daily 2000-5000 IU/day to maintain a blood level of 40-60 /ng/ml ~ also humidify your home at 40-60% as humidity mitigates virus ~ MIT research study and others on humidity and virus.

Islander adds: I read in ANH, "For too long the public has been blamed for vaccine hesitancy, that the World Health Organization rates as one of the top 10 global health threats. This is not only unfair, it incorrectly apportions blame on the public when the real driver of vaccine hesitancy is distrust through lack of transparency by vaccine makers, regulatory agencies, the World Health Organization, and others."
My question: how much of this information is routinely and consistently made available to the public?

Here is the link to the complete U.K. vaccine insert: https://assets.publishing.service.go...nformation.pdf

[Maurya]

Thank you Tony Samsel! My strange little mind wonders if the lower humidity created indoors in rooms or buildings with air conditioning might not be such a good thing in this regard. Normally our humidity is quite high, although this time of year it is lower than in summer. Among my personal friends, I have known few who have suffered from Covid, but I do know that one friend who has died lived in a condo with the AC on all the time. This just is one correlation, but one does wonder.

[Pattypans]

I'm so glad you're in contact with Anthony Samsel, Islander. I deeply respect his knowledge and wisdom.

Maybe this is in the vax inserts (I haven't read them yet, but thanks for the link), but I've read that it's been suggested that men might want to freeze their sperm before getting vaccinated! Talk about playing Russian roulette not only with individuals' health, but with the future of the human race! God help us.

The Brazilian Supreme Court has ruled that, while nobody can physically force anyone to take the vaccine, on local and state levels all sorts of negative consequences can be applied to those who are not vaccinated, citing as examples being refused a place in school or on public transport. And this is a country where a huge part of the population relies on public transport. (Including my husband and me!) Bolsonaro doesn't agree with them on this at all.

[Islander]

Pattypans, I'm not sure from the way you phrase it, whether Bolsonaro disagrees with the Supreme Court or with the local and state mandates. It does matter, doesn't it?

[BandsAiud]

The Brazilian Supreme Court has ruled that, while nobody can physically force anyone to take the vaccine, on local and state levels all sorts of negative consequences can be applied to those who are not vaccinated, citing as examples being refused a place in school or on public transport.

This is a very huge matter as this consequences can be used upon all the government in the world who will acquire the vaccine. I also commute whenever I go out. I don't have past allergies from a vaccine, but I sure want to hold my own decision over taking this soon or later.

[Pattypans]

Pattypans, I'm not sure from the way you phrase it, whether Bolsonaro disagrees with the Supreme Court or with the local and state mandates. It does matter, doesn't it?

The way I see it, it's one and the same, because the Supreme Court says it's just fine and dandy for government at any level, if they want to, to make life very very difficult for those who refuse to get vaccinated. Sorry if I didn't make it clear before, but Bolsonaro is against coercion of any type with regards to vaccinations; he is for individual choice--freedom, in other words.

Only one member of the SC disagreed with the majority.

[Islander]

Well, if the Supreme Court has ruled that people cannot be forced to be vaccinated, then how can local legislation apply force? I think Bolsonaro is a bad man, but in this case I have to admit that I agree with him.

[Pattypans]

I'm sorry if I'm not making this clear. The Supreme Court said you cannot physically force someone to get vaccinated, but you can make rules for what happens if someone chooses not to get vaccinated, such as, you can't go to school or use public transportation. I think it must be confusing because saying you can't do things you need to do as part of daily life if you choose not to get vaccinated is tantamount to forcing vaccination.

[Islander]

Agreed. I think you made it clear enough, Pattypans it's just a very confusing situation. What's more, it wouldn't surprise me if somethings similar were to evolve up here — not that I'm asking for it, I just wouldn't be surprised!