A new peer-reviewed study has called for a moratorium on mRNA COVID-19 vaccines due to serious safety concerns and incomplete data. Published in the winter 2024 edition of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, the study emphasizes the need for detailed safety studies before proceeding with the vaccines. The authors argue that the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine is misclassified as a traditional vaccine when it should be considered a gene therapy, due to its lack of adequate testing and regulatory oversight. The lead author, Philip R. Oldfield, expressed frustration over the government's failure to address these concerns earlier.
This recent call joins a larger movement among scientists and organizations advocating for a halt to mRNA vaccines based on safety risks. Notable figures and groups, including the surgeon general of Florida and the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, have supported this moratorium. In October, Idaho’s health board ceased offering COVID-19 vaccines at its clinics due to safety worries, while Slovakia proposed banning these mRNA vaccines following a government report.
The study highlights potential dangers associated with the spike protein and lipid nanoparticles used in these vaccines. It cites research showing that prolonged exposure to spike proteins may lead to serious neurological damage. Experts like Dr. Angus Dalgleish note that findings from recent studies warrant an immediate withdrawal of mRNA vaccines, especially given the rising cases of severe neurological issues post-vaccination.
Moreover, the authors argue that public health agencies have ignored serious risks associated with the COVID-19 shots and failed to conduct necessary studies. The classification of these vaccines has led to inadequate safety regulations, which would typically apply to gene therapies. The study points out that clinical trials were flawed, lacking essential data on how the vaccine affects individual patients, which calls into question the conclusions drawn about their safety and efficacy.
The review also raises alarm over the high mortality rates observed within months of the vaccine's introduction. The study criticizes the light regulatory scrutiny faced by the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine, contrasting it with how rapidly other vaccines were removed from the market over fewer reported adverse effects. It notes that the distribution of the vaccine’s components throughout the body raises further concerns about their safety.
The ongoing peer-reviewed study into neurological impacts suggests that persistent spike protein may lead to long-term neurological issues resulting from vaccination. The presence of spike proteins in the brain has been associated with neuroinflammation and anxiety-related behaviors in studies. While some claim that vaccines reduce spike protein levels, others argue that repeated doses enhance the risk of accumulation in the brain, leading to adverse effects.
Critics urge caution regarding claims of vaccine safety and effectiveness, pointing out discrepancies in studies and stressing that regulatory protections may have influenced the reporting of side effects. The latest findings reaffirm the argument for a moratorium on mRNA vaccine distribution until comprehensive safety evaluations can confirm their long-term effects are understood.
In summary, the study advocates for an urgent review of mRNA vaccines, stressing they may not meet the safety standards required for medical treatments. There remains significant uncertainty about their risks and benefits, prompting calls for public health officials to reassess the continuation of these vaccines in light of growing evidence.
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/peer-reviewed-study-moratorium-covid-mrna-vaccines/
No comments:
Post a Comment