How “Anti-vaxxers” Think

... speaking as someone who would get called one

Jan 29, 2023

Dedicated to Scott Adams (of Dilbert fame).

The Prompt

Putting yourself in other people’s shoes and seeing the World from their point of view is a process that you can hardly practice too much. Some people have taken on board the existence of a caricature “anti-vaxxer”, and think that for people who didn’t get jabbed, it was because they were too selfish to think of others (oh the irony - coming from sociopathic politicians!) and/or didn’t get jabbed because they had been listening to conspiracy theorists. For those people, let me explain how I, an “anti-vaxxer” actually thought. (Of course I’m not really an “anti-vaxxer”: I try and avoid prejudices of all kinds; but I would get called one since I would not take the new mRNA so-called “vaccines”).

I was prompted to write this slightly sarcastic and self-indulgent article [apologies for that] by hearing several people saying “well we can see the problems with the vaccine now, but for a long time we didn’t have the information. Back in 2020/21 only lunatics and conspiracy theorists thought the vaccines wouldn’t be benign.” (I’m paraphrasing). E.g. here’s Sam Harris saying this, at 8’36” in this video. https://rumble.com/v25yhpe-sam-harris-cant-admit-he-was-dead-wrong-about-covid.html

My Aim

THAT is the contemptible argument I am attempting to dispel here. My point is I don’t think you needed to be any sort of expert, to realise that getting the covid vaccine was unwise - just interested. Even Aseem Malhotra – the UK cardiologist who is now doing sterling work getting the message out about the massive damage being done by the mRNA vaccines – is, irritatingly, rather prone to rationalise his early blindly obedient acceptance of the propaganda in the same way (“we didn’t know back then: now we have more information”). Yes, of course we have more information now, but for people able to think for themselves, there was plenty of information from the start. And it wasn’t hard to find experts explaining it to you. John Campbell – surely the most welcome latecomer to the party (what a lovely guy!) – is much more self-deprecatory than Malhotra (not hard) but I suspect there are still aspects that I guess he would still ascribe to “conspiracy theorists”.

Now ...

It’s January 2023, and, well, it seems the evidence for vaccine damage is becoming so overwhelming, that even the most avid follower of TV information is now, or very soon, going to have to recognise the large pachyderm in the boudoir. It feels tactless to point out the obvious; and rude to imply that someone is being stupid. But it’s been a couple of years now, and I’m getting impatient: surely the fear of a “pandemic” has died down now, and people are at last able to think? Perhaps I’m just feeling self-indulgent as it’s my birthday.

We’re not all Jessica Rose, or even run-of-the-mill virologists, biochemists or the like. But surely it’s not difficult, or especially technical. I think that if people are not petrified with fear, it should at least occur to those with a modicum of intelligence, curiosity and general knowledge, that the new mRNA “vaccines” are a somewhat risky gamble … (even after reminding myself of the “consensus bias” – the tendency to think that other people think more like you do than is in fact the case).

Like this ...

This particular “anti-vaxxer” (again – I have no prejudice against vaccines) thought like this.

1 What is it?

You want me to inject this stuff into myself? What is it?

You won’t tell me?!

2 Who’s making it then?

Well do you have a product that’s made by an organisation that does not have a long criminal record? … or a start-up? No?!

3 The Propaganda

It cannot be known to be safe, as they have not had time to do long-term studies. And yet they are saying that it is safe. That is necessarily an obvious lie. If they meant to say “we think the risk for the whole population of taking the “vaccine” will be less than the risk of not taking it, based on these data”, then they should have said that … except of course they couldn’t, because they didn’t have any data. (Even now they are still sticking to this lie, despite the appalling figures on excess deaths known to be due to the “vaccines” and not a virus).

4 The Mechanism

What happens to blood when you cut yourself? Surely most people know that your blood clots when it comes into contact with something that is not you?

That gives bloodsuckers like mosquitoes or midges a problem. What happens if you are happily sucking up blood, through your tube (proboscis?) and the blood goes solid because it is in contact with a foreign material? So first the insect squirts in some anti-de-clotizater. (Stop me if I’m getting too technical). So you are left with some foreign substance in YOU, and everybody knows it itches and becomes inflamed.

You’re liable to get a similar sensation when you are injected with a traditional vaccine: a foreign substance is injected into you, to give you practice in recognising it, and (the whole point of the exercise is that) you react, you get some trivial local inflammation.

Nothing too difficult, obscure, arcane, esoteric yet, surely? (“Specialist subject – the bleeding obvious” to quote Basil Faulty … but what do I know)?

The Sell

But they told you … (boasted to you) … that the marvelous new mRNA technique means that YOU will manufacture the foreign protein. (Although - I don’t remember a convincing explanation of why that would be in your interest. More convenient for the drug company perhaps but for you … )?

So – in goes the mRNA, my body manufactures a foreign protein, and then my immune system notices the foreign protein and gets practice at recognising and destroying it. Excellent!

Actually - no: it sounds about as well thought through as a rather larger spike in the brain – aka a lobotomy.

The Devil is in the detail

Let’s have a go at thinking this through without any more information than general knowledge, and what they told us. Manufacturing spike protein - where exactly is that going to happen? (And does it matter where? And will everybody do the same)?

After injection, which of your cells will come into contact with the lipid nanoparticles containing the mRNA? Muscle cells? Yes; but surely that volume of liquid they inject into you doesn’t just stay in the muscle: you would see the lump! Some must spread around in the blood vessels which go everywhere. (Particularly since they told people to abandon the proper technique of aspirating for this vaccine roll-out: that is you put in the needle, then suck before pushing the vaccine out, and if the needle ends in a significant blood vessel you will suck up blood and see the syringe turn pink, so you would then move the needle to a different spot). Even if a large proportion of the “vaccine” does not immediately enter the blood stream, all that extra fluid has to go somewhere, so it will, I would guess, be dumped into the blood-stream via the lymphatic system, which collects up fluid leaking out of cells.

(If you had been inclined to check the idea that your vaccine could spread around, in the ubiquitous blood supply, you would have found that research revealed that a proportion of the mRNA does go everywhere in the bloodstream, and accumulates in some localities, notably in the liver, adrenal glands, and ovaries).1

So if the mRNA (in it’s little fatty bubbles) circulates in the blood vessels, perhaps the most common cell that it come into contact with will be those that make up the lining of the blood vessels (arteries, veins, and – mainly – capillaries). Those cells then follow the mRNA instructions, and manufacture the foreign “spike protein”. So the inside surface of your blood vessels becomes coated with a foreign protein … [pause for thought] and you know your blood CLOTS when it comes into contact with foreign substances ... [pause – long enough for thought, but not long enough to seem patronising]

So … WHAT WOULD YOU EXPECT TO HAPPEN?!

Now, call me a genius if you must, but that all seems pretty obvious to me, and has done since they first mentioned mRNA “vaccines”.

But “size matters”. How much foreign substance (spike protein) will there be?

The mosquito’s anticoagulant is a small, and limited quantity, and it takes a short while to deal with it.

If you have a conventional vaccine, that too is a measured and limited quantity of a foreign substance, even if it’s rather larger than a mosquito bite.

So how much of this foreign protein will you make? Does the mRNA get read just the once, or does it go on producing spike protein for weeks, months or years? And will everyone respond the same way? Reassuringly, according to the manufacturers, they didn’t test this, so claim not to know. Hm! [Or have I missed something?] But they do tell us that they took steps to reduce the breakdown of the mRNA so that it sticks around producing spike protein for longer. (I’ll go into more explanation later, for those who want it; but I’m trying to limit myself first to what “everybody knows”).

So - if the cells lining your blood vessels start manufacturing a foreign protein, which sticks out of the cell surface, even if the manufacturing is very slow, eventually there will be a lot there. And what is your immune system going to have to say about all these cells which appear foreign? Presumably parts of the lining of the blood vessel will be destroyed by the immune system; and won’t blood then be liable to leak out? And where does the all the spike protein go, which is produced at the injection site (the main location for the mRNA)? And what will it do? It seems to me that without trying out this process on humans for a couple of generations the unknown outcomes could be pretty significant.

Back in 2020

So the first thing that I was concerned about occurring, if injected with this mRNA stuff, was blood clots and inflammation in small blood vessels.

Now doctors thinking along these lines knew that there is a simple test that can be done to see if clotting is happening somewhere: it’s called the “D-dimer test”. They can also do scans, in which doctors will be able to see pictures of large clots. So, when patients came to doctors with problems following the “vaccination”, some doctors tested to see if clotting was happening. And what did they find? Lo and behold - no large clots visible in the scans (in most cases, although they found large clots in some people) but masses of D-dimer tests which showed that extensive clotting is happening.

Hmm. Whatever could that mean? Extensive clotting, but no large clots …

Again – we can’t all be geniuses, but since March 2020 we’ve had time to calm down and take an interest in what someone seems enormously keen to inject into us. Us! Surely people have enough interest in their own health to pay a little attention?

Perhaps It’s Harder than I Think

Maybe that mRNA novelty is too unfamiliar to think about for some people. Well – it’s been a couple of years now, so we’re all experts on virology, epidemiology and biochemistry, if the blogs are to be believed. So for those who need it, here is my

Biochemistry for Complete Dummies

(not to be confused with “Complete Biochemistry for Dummies” – which if it existed would be much more erudite).

Humans are made of ...

You have heard of the substances you are made of – carbohydrates, fats and proteins, because – being an animal not a plant – you eat them. Plants can manufacture everything they are made of from simple substances; but animals steal it, ready-made, from other plants or animals. You eat materials from other living things (only – if you’ve got any sense)!

Carbohydrates and fats are quite simple substances, and mainly just different fuels for your body to run on, like petrol and diesel. (Slight simplification: small amounts are used structurally too).

But proteins are the clever, sophisticated substances that all the complicated machinery is made from. Think of protein as a kit, like Lego. There is a limited number of types of simple “brick”, which vary in simple ways, which can be put together in large numbers to build complex structures.

Lego bricks come in different types - different length, thickness, colour etc.; but every piece has a simple “plug and socket” arrangement, which allows any piece to be stuck to any other.

Protein “bricks” (called “amino acids”) vary too, in all the ways that chemicals can vary – big molecules and small; acid and alkaline, water-soluble or fat-soluble etc; but each “brick” has the same “plug” and “socket” (the “amino-” bit, and the “acid” bit) which allows them to be stuck together in a chain. There are 20 different types of “brick” in the human protein kit.

The instruction books for how to make each protein – which amino acid is stuck to which, in what order – are stored in a “library”. If you use a simple microscope to look at thin slices of living things, you see that they are made of cells (named thus because they evoked the cells that monks lived in). The “library” in the cell was one of the first things to be seen with the first microscopes, as they are full of a dark material, and (as they were the only blob visible inside cells) were called (rather inappropriately) the “nucleus”.

Photograph down a simple microscope of animal cells. You can see the membrane defining the cells; and the blob visible inside each cell is the nucleus. It’s analagous to a library of instruction books; books on how to make proteins.

Why we have mRNA

These instructions (on making proteins) are vital information, literally vital – essential for life. If you were designing living things, would you make it a lending library or a reference library? Hmm? How important is that information, and how reliable are people at returning books?

The nucleus of a cell is a reference library. Those vital books are not allowed to be taken out.

Suppose a cell on your scalp needs to manufacture keratin, the protein that hair is made from. The “book” on how to make keratin can’t be taken out of the “library” (i.e. the cell’s nucleus) and taken to the manufacturing sites, so the information has to be copied out, and then taken out of the library. Imagine the security check at the library door: it has to be clear that this is copied out, not the original book. So it is written onto a slightly different material. (Imagine the original book was on paper, and the copy is written on thin white plastic sheets). Also, in copying it out, there’s a slight difference in the letters: most letters are the same, but imagine that every time there was a letter “p” in the original book, you have to write a Greek p – a pi: π.

In a cell the two substances – the one for the reference book and the one for the copy - are very similar. They are both called “nucleic acid”, because they are acidic and found in the nucleus. But to create that necessary difference, one substance is missing an oxygen atom at a particular site. So the copy material, which is allowed out of the nucleus, is called Ribose Nucleic Acid, while the precious original is written on Deoxy-ribose Nucleic Acid. DNA and RNA are the familiar abbreviations.

(Since RNA can serve other rôles in a cell too, the stuff carrying the instructions out of the nucleus is called “messenger” RNA, for obvious reasons, or mRNA).

Once outside the nucleus (the library) the instructions on the mRNA copy are followed by the protein manufacturing machinery: the right amino acids are stuck together in the right order, and out comes keratin. Then after the appropriate interval the mRNA copy of the instructions is destroyed.

The Modern “Lobotomy”

They are injecting you with the mRNA instructions on how to make a foreign protein - ostensibly copied from the surface of a virus (one that was doing the rounds a couple of years ago). The mRNA has to get into your cells, and they put it in little fatty bubbles so that it can get through the outer cell membrane.

(They are called “lipid nanoparticles”. The word “lipid” is used because to call it “fat” would imply that the substance is solid, whilst “oil” implies that it is liquid; “lipid” means the same stuff, but without those implications. Nanoparticles are simply those that are so small as to be conveniently measured in nanometres – a million times smaller than a millimetre).

Once the mRNA is inside the cell, the cell doesn’t know that these are fake instructions which didn’t come from the nucleus, so it is duped into following the recipe, and it manufactures the virus “spike protein”.

Now at this point, I was waiting for the clever biochemists, who were describing this ingenious trick they want to play on our bodies, to tell me how the process gets stopped. I may not know much biochemistry, but I know enough to realise that all the normal chemical processes are regulated with exquisite subtlety and sophistication … with feedback mechanisms, and feedback on the feedback, and exceptions and counters to the feedback.

Despite the fact that this is the first time that this has been tried on large numbers of people, I heard no mention of how the manufacturing of this foreign protein is limited. And I didn’t expect them to be able to do so.

In fact, as I said above, they deliberately modified the mRNA to minimise the normal limiting processes.

Yes, THAT careless with your health!

But don’t worry, cos they tried it out … for a couple of months!

But It’s Not Proper mRNA!

For those who want to understand more detail … The language of the instructions on how to make proteins is very simple: you only need about 20 words – one for each amino acid. Stick this one on; now stick that one on; now one of those … etc. etc.

If you only need to write about 20 different words, you don’t need many letters: four are sufficient. In DNA they are called Guanine, Adenine, Cytosine and Thymine; and you remember one letter is slightly different in RNA (the material allowed out of the library) – RNA uses Guanine, Adenine, Cytosine and Uracil.

The message on the mRNA is read, and the instructions are followed. Then, normally there would be a mechanism for stopping production after the appropriate time. But they modified the RNA with the aim of preventing the mechanism for breaking it down from working; so that this mRNA sticks around manufacturing a virus spike protein for a longer time … just how long we don’t really know. They replaced the Uracil with a modified version (pseudo-uracyl). It’s similar enough for the instructions to be read, but the machinery for taking apart the mRNA instructions after reading is impeded.

Even if the pseudo-mRNA is eliminated in a timely manner, what about the possibility of the artificial message getting from the (temporary copy) ψmRNA into the permanent copy on DNA in the nucleus? There seemed to be a plethora of articles appearing saying that this was not possible, contradicting studies which say it might be possible. (Look for “reverse transcriptase”).

What I expected, since 2021

So what I was half-expecting to see, or dreading seeing, was initial symptoms that would arise from acute clotting; later, symptoms arising from different organs getting insufficient blood supply. There might be random internal bleeding where the blood vessel lining was damaged; and further waves of a variety of problems as the foreign protein builds up, and whether that would be weeks, months or years (or not at all) I had no idea. With large amounts of a foreign substance in your body, you might expect auto-immune problems. I didn’t think of the imbalance in your immune system causing apparent susceptibility to a wide variety of infections but soon had this possibility pointed out. I also did not foresee the neurological problems without help.

And it Happened

If you are still unaware that all these things are indeed what happened as soon as the “vaccine” roll-out happened in each country, open your eyes and look around. Look at the statistics. Insurance companies would be a good choice to listen to: they need accurate information on disease and deaths, in order to be able to make a profit.

Please.

(… And Pfizer Knew it would)

1 Between the 1st of December 2020 and the 28th Febuary 2021, 42,086 reports of adverse reactions were received and collected by Pfizer. Pfizer published the results of these reports in April 20212 -On page 16, Pfizer lays out a table of the major adverse effects and their time of onset. I invite you to read it for yourself.

This may seem as if it could be pretty close to the list of problems I thought out for myself plus those pointed out to me almost immediately by experts online, i.e. what I expected to see from near the start of this fiasco, when they started talking about the possibility of mRNA “vaccines”.

Do notice the median (“typical” - roughly speaking) time to onset. This prompt result points to probable cause.

Also note that people who were within 14 days of the vaccine were called “unvaccinated” (since vaccines take a while to work) and were not included in the published results of Adverse Reactions (or worse - added to the “adverse reactions” of “unvaccinated people”). The first 14 days is when most of the adverse reactions happened!

To spare the delicate, I won’t include photographs of the novel, pale, rubbery “clots” that embalmers started reporting after the rollout of the injections. I’ll put a link to a video at the end.3

2 Here are data from VAERS – the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System in the US. This is publicly available information; but some people (cleverer and more productive than I) have made the data easy to look at in various ways … ways which get around the problem that you do not know how under- (or over-) reported side effects are, as this was the same for all these comparisons.

Not all the states were as successful in getting people to take the vaccine. What effect did this have on people killed?

Clearly, the more people injected, the more were killed. Now obviously a lot of that trend is due to how many people there are in the state. You would expect a state with twice as many people to have twice as many deaths. Nevertheless, vaccine take-up was different in different states; and there are some clear outliers, much worse than the main trend.

3 So did some states get different vaccines?

Here is a typical sample from the large, complete list of adverse events for the Moderna vaccine (from VAERS) for example. The left column is the batch number, followed by Adverse Reactions, Deaths, Disabilities, and Life-threatening Illnesses.

You can see that this sample shows very few adverse reactions (3 in this section of the list) and a scattering of the worse reactions; mainly there were no serious ones.

4 These are listed in order of how bad the batch was: so now let’s have a look at the worst end of the same list.

You can see that some of the batches had huge numbers of adverse events reported.

5 If, instead of ordering by how bad they were, we put them in order of the batch number (chronological order), this is what we see.

Most of the batches are easily overlooked in this graph – they lie so close to the bottom, the x-axis, that they look about on that line. But some batches – it’s about one in 200, are much worse, about a thousand times worse than the median or modal average. From the pattern, one might be forgiven for thinking that it looks as if they are trying out experiments changing the amount of a substance or substances in the vaccine, to see how effective they are at getting different results. Notice that there is not a gradation from good to bad, but completely separate groups of batches. Most are essentially harmless; others (1 in 200) are clearly harmful; but not much in between. One simple conclusion you can draw is that clearly the contents of the injections are not the same in each batch.

6 You can see in the graphs below that mainly the adverse events were very soon after vaccination, and fell away over time.

But if you look at the graphs for people in their 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s there are enough results that you might notice that there is second bump - a hint that some types of adverse reaction don’t appear until roughly 180 or 200 days after vaccination. That long time makes it easy for people to dismiss them as unrelated to the vaccine, but the uniform timing argues against that.

7 Here’s “hospitalisations” organised by how long it was since their vaccination. On the left is the graph for people’s first injection, and on the right for the second one. Time (unusually) is going upwards. You can clearly see most events occur soon after the injection, but there is a second, later cluster.

Clearly there are two different mechanisms (at least) for the vaccines causing problems.

8 Remember those states which stood out for having more than their share of problems?

They are also the ones where you see the second hump most clearly.

9 In the UK, as with most other countries where vaccination uptake was high, deaths following the vaccine rollout are up MUCH more significantly than during the supposed “pandemic”. Do watch this video.

10 And here is just one example of data from the UK Health Security Agency. Looking at these figures for deaths, would you rather be unvaccinated or triple vaccinated (boosted)?

This was covered in more detail by “GBNews” (not mainstream media, of course) and can be seen in this video, starting 7’30” in.

This is important information that you need to know. If you were unaware of these facts, perhaps you should reconsider where you are getting your information from. If you got it from the TV, a lot of it was lies.

The Big Picture

This coup only stops when the majority of people understand what is going on. It will be much harder after the roll-out of digital IDs for purchases.

Get on Rumble, Bit-chute, Substack and so on (not mainstream media like TV and YouTube) and see what you have been missing for the last couple of years.

Even More Concerning

This is what has been going on in my mind since first mention of the novel “vaccines”. There is very little that would have made me advise anyone to take it before it’s been going on for a couple of generations – about 40 years of research. But I haven’t even mentioned what may be the most dismaying aspect of this for me – their choice of protein.

They went for the “spike” protein. That’s the sort of “disguise” on the outside of the virus. It also has to facilitate latching onto target cells, and breaking in. It’s necessarily going to be changed (by evolution) quickly, when hosts succeed in recognising the virus.

The spike protein seems to have been manufactured with a part to make it stick to a cell, a part to break in, but also a part that makes it a prion, and a part from an HIV virus. It was (eventually) found to be toxic. It seems a remarkably poor choice for your body to make unknown quantities of. Didn’t the virus have any other, more inocuous proteins that could have been chosen?

There are proteins inside the virus that could have been used instead. You might think that obviously the ones on the inside wouldn’t be a good choice for trying to recognise the virus, since your body can’t reach it inside the virus. But your body is the beneficiary of aeons of practice at recognising the tricks of viruses. When your cells are manufacturing ANY protein, it gets frequently checked. Little fragments of protein – while it is still under manufacture are taken up to the outer membrane of the cell, and held out to the white blood cells whose job it is to check for foreign substances. If they detect fragments of foreign proteins, that means the cell has been hijacked, and can be destroyed. So making a vaccine from the virus’s internal proteins has potential. Perhaps they would even be better, since they do not evolve so quickly since they have a mechanical job to do, and mustn’t change much so that they still work. Perhaps they would give longer lasting protection against new strains.

This is just reasoning

So – Sam Harris … or anyone else who thinks that you had to be a conspiracy theorist to think that the mRNA vaccine might present problems – I didn’t refer to shadowy cabals, did I? Did I make any political points? As far as I can see it was just reasoning. Some or all of it may be wrong; or maybe it’s right but for wrong reasons. But it seemed to me to be something that most people can understand, just thinking about what they proposed. As you can see, I had reason not to take a covid “vaccine”: but “vaccine hesitant”? Don’t make me laugh! No, I had no hesitation. I knew from the start that it was not for me!

Is this how you were told “anti-vaxxers” thought?

But What Do I Know?

I am not an expert, I’m just telling you what my thinking was. I’d be delighted to be put right on anything I’m getting wrong … as long as you tell me how it’s wrong, and how you know.

But here are some experts, who seem to be saying something similar. Not surprisingly, they are mainly retired, and therefore can say what they think without jeopardising their income.

[Edit

Here’s an easy discussion of a recent (2023-02-21) paper from Denmark, showing the persistence of mRNA from the “vaccination” in the blood. It’s not known yet (as far as I know) whether this is from the original injected lipid nanoparticles, or has been re-synthesised by the body.]