The "Vaccine" Scandal Gets Worse

Most people do not spend their evenings reading drug-trial reports or vaccine documents. They reasonably assume that somebody trustworthy has checked the evidence before a product is injected into them or their children.

That assumption is becoming harder to defend.

Recent news reveals that an experimental mRNA cancer treatment was abandoned after an unexplained difference in deaths between the patients who received it and those who did not. Along with that, we find updated COVID shots were approved without completed human trials of the exact versions now being distributed. And, despite all the claims of those COVID shots being "safe and effective," scientists have now found ways in which the spike protein produced by the shots may damage the barrier protecting the brain.

Overseeing all this is a pharmaceutical industry with a proven record of unlawful promotion, secret deals, and improper payments to doctors and government officials. Yet whenever concerns arise, the public is told to stop asking questions and trust the experts.

Consider what has just happened to BioNTech's experimental cancer treatment, autogene cevumeran. It uses mRNA technology to give a patient's cells genetic instructions intended to help the immune system recognise and attack that person's cancer.

BioNTech and Genentech were testing it on patients who had undergone surgery for high-risk bowel cancer but still showed tiny traces of cancer DNA in their blood. Some received the mRNA treatment, while the comparison group was closely monitored without receiving it.

By October 2025, the trial had crossed what researchers call a "futility boundary". That simply means the treatment had become very unlikely to deliver the benefit the trial was designed to find. The study was allowed to continue because the available results were still considered too early to make a final judgment.

Then the independent committee monitoring the trial found a "numerical imbalance in overall survival". Put plainly, the number of people still alive was different between the two groups.

The committee recommended stopping treatment and terminating the trial. BioNTech has not revealed how many patients died in each group, which group suffered more deaths, when they died, or what killed them.

Instead, the company said the committee had found "no new safety signals". That phrase tells us what the company wants us to conclude. It does not give us the figures needed to judge the deaths for ourselves.

If the patients receiving the mRNA treatment survived in greater numbers, there would be little reason to keep that result vague. BioNTech should release the numbers, the causes of death, and the timing of every death in both groups.

At almost the same time, American regulators approved updated Pfizer and Moderna COVID shots designed to target the XFG strain of the virus. Pfizer's version can be given to high-risk children from the age of five. Moderna's jab can be given to high-risk babies as young as six months.

Despite these shots being different from previous versions, regulators did not demand another large human trial before approving them. They relied on what was already known about earlier shots, manufacturing information, and tests measuring whether animals produced an immune response.

Reports say Pfizer tested its updated formulation on eight mice and Moderna tested its version on ten. Completed human trials of the exact XFG shots were not available before approval.

The original Pfizer and Moderna products have been tested on humans, but the exact updated formulations now entering people's bodies were approved based on the assumption that they would behave much like earlier versions.

Human studies of the XFG shots will begin after approval is granted. And by then, it will already be being administered to the elderly, medically vulnerable adults, and high-risk children.

The official information supplied with the products also acknowledges an increased risk of myocarditis and pericarditis after mRNA vaccination. Myocarditis is inflammation of the heart muscle. Pericarditis is inflammation of the thin sac surrounding the heart. The recognised risk has been highest among young males.

Apparently, approving the exact product before its human studies are complete is now considered normal. The injection comes first. The formulation-specific answers arrive later.

I mean, what harm could be done? Right? It's not like it could affect your brain. Oh... wait!

A quick science lesson first: COVID mRNA shots contain tiny fat particles called lipid nanoparticles. These particles carry genetic instructions into human cells. The cells then use those instructions to manufacture spike protein, the part of the coronavirus that the immune system is meant to learn to recognise.

People were initially left with the impression that this process remained mostly around the injection site and ended quickly. Research into where the material travels around the body has made that comforting explanation much harder to maintain.

The lipid nanoparticles and mRNA-related material can move beyond the arm and reach other organs. Laboratory studies have now found that the spike protein can cross models of the protective lining between the bloodstream and the brain. It can damage the cells making up that lining and make the barrier more permeable.

That blood-brain barrier performs an essential job. It controls what can leave the blood and enter the brain. If it becomes damaged or leaky, substances that would normally be kept out may gain access to sensitive brain tissue.

This provides a credible explanation for at least some of the brain fog, severe headaches, unusual nerve sensations, seizures, and cognitive problems reported after vaccination. It could also explain the huge uptick in dementia and dementia-related deaths since the rollout of the COVID shots. Once the injection has been given, the recipient cannot control which cells absorb the nanoparticles, how much spike they produce, where all the material goes, or how long it remains in that person's body.

The biological mechanism exists. The enormous unanswered question is how much human neurological injury it has caused.

Some researchers and commentators calculate that deaths caused or accelerated by COVID vaccination run into the millions worldwide. Their estimates use several kinds of evidence, including excess mortality.

Excess mortality means the number of people who died above what would normally have been expected based on previous years. Researchers also examine adverse-event reports, the timing of deaths after vaccination campaigns, estimates of how many reactions go unreported, and findings from autopsies.

We still do not have a transparent worldwide accounting of how many people were killed or seriously injured by the shots. Counting such deaths is difficult when a fatal heart attack, stroke, or neurological condition may occur some time after vaccination and be recorded only as the immediate medical event.

But why should the benefit of every doubt automatically belong to the manufacturers? Consider the case of but one of these outfits: Eli Lilly.

Eli Lilly pleaded guilty to unlawfully promoting its antipsychotic drug Zyprexa for uses that had not been approved. The company paid US$1.415 billion.

American regulators later brought another case involving improper payments used to win pharmaceutical business in Russia, China, Brazil, and Poland. The allegations included cash, jewellery and spa treatments for government-employed doctors. Other payments were connected to getting Lilly products listed on the drug lists paid for by government health systems.

The Prozac litigation following the Wesbecker mass shooting was just as disturbing. Joseph Wesbecker had been taking Prozac when he entered his former workplace in Kentucky in 1989, killed eight people, wounded twelve, and then killed himself. Victims and their families sued Eli Lilly, arguing that Prozac had contributed to his actions.

Before the jury delivered its verdict, Lilly and the plaintiffs secretly reached a financial arrangement. When the judge asked whether an agreement had been made, its existence was initially denied. Lilly later promoted the verdict in its favour as evidence that Prozac was safe.

That's just one case. We could go on and on about legal cases involving other drug and vaccine manufacturers, including Pfizer and Moderna.

These are the corporations asking the public to roll up its sleeves without question. They withhold mortality figures. Updated products are approved before trials of the exact formulations have been completed in humans. Questions about where the material travels in the body are played down.

When someone reports an injury, the burden is placed on that person to prove exactly what happened, often without access to the manufacturer's complete data.

Every allegation of harm must apparently be proved beyond doubt before it may be discussed. The manufacturers and regulators, meanwhile, are allowed to rely on assumptions and carry unanswered questions, as well as potentially dangerous drugs, vaccines, and medicines, into the marketplace.

“Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.”
– Richard Feynman, physicist and Nobel laureate