The cat is out of the bag over covid vaccine blood clots
ROGER WATSON
IN A remarkable break with tradition, Global Health NOW (GHN) of February 12 led with an entry about ‘life-threatening blood clots’ caused by both the Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca covid vaccines. I have been following GHN closely throughout the covid era and this is absolutely the first time covid vaccine side effects have ever been referred to. Not only that, but they have gone the full monty and linked to an article which reports the death of a covid vaccine recipient. What is going on?
The entry in GHN refers only to the cause of the blood clots being related to ‘rogue’ antibodies in people with a particular genetic background, which rather seems to put the responsibility on the victims rather than the virus. The entry provides links to an article in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) and an explainer in Science.
The NEJM article, which reports the original study of the phenomenon, is uninvitingly titled ‘Adenoviral Inciting Antigen and Somatic Hypermutation in VITT’. VITT is an acronym for vaccine-induced immune thrombocytopenia and thrombosis.
The abstract to the NEJM article gets ‘rare’ into the first line of the abstract and the rarity of such events is also emphasised throughout the Science article. Rare they may be, which is no help to the person who dies of a blood clotting incident, but what happened to 100 per cent safe and 100 per cent effective, which was the mantra that accompanied the rollout of all the covid vaccines, including the Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca versions?
These two vaccines used different technology from the Pfizer and Moderna which were based on mRNA technology. The Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca vaccines used adenoviruses as carriers of the DNA for covid spike protein which was delivered in the vaccine.
It seems that the adenovirus carriers, which are used in several other vaccines, lie at the heart of the clotting problem. According to the Science article, ‘adenovirus protein triggers “rogue” antibodies in people with an unlucky combination of genetic background and a particular mutation in their antibody-producing B cells’. Note the word ‘unlucky’.
The antibodies raised in response to the spike proteins are supposed to target the covid virus but these so-called ‘rogue’ antibodies bind to a clotting factor, PF4, in the blood. This leads to a cascade reaction which results initially in blood clotting but subsequently to bleeding as the blood is depleted of the platelets required for clotting. Unlucky or what?
The Science article introduces a human angle. If you’re envisaging the story of a family who lost a loved one to either of the Johnson & Johnson or AstraZeneca vaccines, you’re wrong. We are introduced to Sabine Eichinger, a haematologist at the Medical University of Vienna, who witnessed a nurse who had ‘unusual blood clots and uncontrollable bleeding after receiving AstraZeneca’s vaccine’. The nurse died.
Poor Sabine ‘could not get the case out of her head’ and claimed she ‘could barely sleep’. She even attended the autopsy of the nurse ‘hoping it would turn up some other explanation’. Presumably Sabine was pushing the covid vaccine up to that point and, like many such fanatics, refused to believe that they could possibly be harmful. Tragic story, isn’t it?
It is stated that many countries ‘restricted’ the use of the AstraZeneca covid vaccine and that the Johnson & Johnson version was ‘ultimately abandoned’. However, the discontinuation of both these covid vaccines is not attributed to clotting events: it is reported as something that just happened around the same time. A coincidence, perhaps? It is clear that the covid vaccine-obsessed cannot bring themselves to state that they were harmful and had to be dropped.
There is a remarkable volte-face among the vaccine-obsessed. The clotting cat is finally out of the covid vaccine bag and, as there is no denying the link, those who once dismissed warnings about the ‘clot shots’ as anti-vax scaremongering are now expressing somewhat over-the-top praise for this work, almost as if they had kept an open mind all along.
Thus ‘this is a beautiful piece of work’ (Stanley Plotkin, professor emeritus at the University of Pennsylvania and vaccine developer); ‘It’s groundbreaking stuff’ (Gowthami Arepally, haematologist at Duke University); ‘I’m convinced . . . It’s very elegant work’ (Demin Wang, immunologist at the Medical College of Wisconsin).
But, undeterred, the use of adenovirus-based vaccines for other diseases continues apace. According to Science, they ‘are inexpensive to make and easy to distribute because they don’t need to be stored at very low temperatures’. Vaccines are in preparation against influenza, malaria, meningitis, tuberculosis and Nipah. What’s not to like?
Unbelievably, the surely discredited Professor ‘Dame’ Sarah Gilbert, responsible for inflicting the AstraZeneca covid vaccine on the world, even gets a walk-on part. According to Gilbert, adenovirus-based vaccines have a ‘major role to play in producing new vaccines’. In an extraordinary claim, she says: ‘There’s still a lot of work to do to verify the approach, but the way forward appears clearer.’ Has she learned nothing from the withdrawal of her invention and the new information in the NEJM study?
It is worth including the fact, in addition to the dangers inherent in these vaccines (and the mRNA vaccines), as clearly demonstrated by Dr Clare Craig in her recent book Spiked, that these vaccines were all worse than useless in combating covid. That and the fact covid never posed the existential threat that was claimed by the likes of discredited modeller Professor Neil Ferguson and his team at Imperial College London.
An intervention was rolled out that was worse than useless and life-threatening for a threat that did not exist. None of this is expressed in the latest revelations and there is not a whiff of contrition for the misery caused by the likes of Sarah Gilbert.
It’s a disgusting spectacle. The scientists who once insisted there was nothing to see are now congratulating one another on the ‘elegance’ of their discovery. The vaccines were withdrawn, but not because of the clots. The clots were real, but only in the unlucky and the technology marches on regardless. It looks like the adenovirus-based vaccines are already being repackaged for the next global emergency. Of course, next time they will be safe and effective.
This article (The cat is out of the bag over covid vaccine blood clots) was created and published by Conservative Woman and is republished here under “Fair Use” with attribution to the author Roger Watson
••••
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.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Liberty Beacon Project.
Leave a Reply