New Religion of Medical Science Blind Faith

  • Regarding the COVID-19 shots, which Doctors are to be trusted?
  • Why are contrary Scientific opinions of Doctors being censored?
  • Why are some brave Doctors sounding the COVID-19 shot alarm!

Repost by Luis B. Vega

for PostScripts News (PSN) | www.PostScripts.org
EMAIL: vegapost@hotmail.com

This COVID-19 ‘vaccine’ is so safe and effective, that you have to be coerced and even forced to take it…For a virus so deadly you have to be tested to even know if you have it. -JD Farag

The purpose of this study is to repost an article from the American Thinker website of a concerned Doctor regarding the COVID-19 ‘vaccine’. The points the Doctor makes are not anything new now that have not already been divulged. Many Doctors have come out against the so-called COVID-19 vaccination that are not, have not been tested for its long-term side effects on humans. Realize that since this is an Experimental Vaccine, anyone taking it is essentially becoming a willing laboratory ‘Guinea Pig’ for them. As no Corona Virus vaccine had ever been made in the last 30 years, it is because most, if not all the trial animals being injected died. And the risk was so dangerous that the governments banned any experimentation on humans. One can now only expect over the coming years, the slow death of millions around the globe that have been psy-op’ed into taking this poison mRNA shot that is not even a vaccine technically.

The article was written by a Doctor Thomas T. Siler, M.D. One should trust this Doctor, his Science and his reason. Why would such a Doctor risk his reputation, career by being censored and perhaps reprimanded even upon threat of having his Medical credentials revoked? This has happened to other Doctors that have even dared to ask and/or question the ‘Science’ and not go by ‘blind faith’. So when has ‘Science’ now become a ‘Religion’? The reason? The Doctor says from the outset that he is honest. This is the key and the difference and what is needed desperately now of honest Doctors and Scientists. This is what is lacking of so-called Scientific Technocrats that are now running the world.

They are asking the entire world to blindly ‘trust’ them...the 'Scientists', and 'Doctors' and to 'believe' them based on ‘faith’ and not fact and the unknown. And this for an Emergency Act that has rushed an injection with not knowing what will be the long-term effects? This is not Science, it is sorcery. Sure, but as with all religions and 'Saviors', which Scientists? Which Doctors? Ironically, as with religion, it has now become a matter of their ‘Gospel’ that needs to be believed and spread around the world. But such are the ones that are appointed, and now have power, without any accountability, oversight or liability. They are now dictating to the Politicians the draconian laws that will, sooner or later mandate and force these mRNA poison vaccines on everyone. And such are the ones who ridicule the religious for believing more so on fact and thousands of years of historical evaluation, critique, archeology and not just based on a blind faith or ‘unknowns’. Yes, trust the Doctors, the Scientists but with what medicine, what Science? Be warned, a Scientific Inquisition has now come down on Humanity as a dragnet, that like in the Middle Ages, those who did not and will not 'believe' their Scientific Gospel will be 'burned at the stake'.

It’s important to know both what we know about the new vaccines and what we don’t know. I’ve practiced for 35 years. I am always honest with my patients, even if conversations are difficult or confrontational. I will also be honest about saying “I don’t know.” This happens when a diagnosis is not readily apparent or when there are limits to the help I can give. With the passage of time, I’ve learned that what we don’t know about medicine outweighs what we do know.

I’ve always been a proponent of older, more established vaccines. However, they are imperfect and, like all medical treatments, can have side effects.
Unfortunately, in the conversation about the new COVID-19 vaccines, the tenets of honesty and a willingness to admit ignorance are being compromised. Operation Warp Speed was remarkable, but it leaves an uncomfortable question: Is it a good thing to rush a vaccine (or medicine) to the public without the usual safeguards?

Operation Warp Speed might be a great business objective or military goal, but is it great for a medical treatment? The pharmaceutical industry, government health authorities, and the media insist the new vaccines are safe and effective. While the initial results are promising, this is not the whole truth. Both honesty and acknowledging ignorance require answering a few questions. What do we know about the new TYPE of vaccine being given? Pfizer and Moderna were the first COVID-19 vaccines to be approved. Both use a new technology called mRNA vaccine, which has never been broadly given to a human population to prevent any disease. Let that sink in for a moment.

All previous vaccines take a weakened virus or a piece of the virus and inject it into humans to induce an immune response sufficient to prevent a disease.
Pfizer’s and Moderna’s vaccines inject mRNA, which is a protein code that instructs the body to make a part of COVID-19’s spike protein that will then induce an immune response. Our bodies daily use our own mRNA to carry instructions from DNA to make various proteins the body uses. While this new vaccine science sounds intriguing, it has never been tried in humans in this scope. It may be a breathtaking scientific advancement heralding a new path for all vaccines. It may also be less effective or have currently unknown side effects.

Is the mRNA vaccine for COVID-19 safe?
So far, the
limited study of the vaccines approved for emergency use (one major study for each vaccine approved) has shown some short-term side effects. The vaccine is a two-shot series and side effects were prominent after the second shot. Side effects were more common if the recipient was younger than 65 years old.

Side effects
Pain at the injection site has usually gone away in 4-5 days. The other side effects resolve, on average, in 2-3 days. Early reports after giving the vaccine have also included allergic reactions ranging from mild to a few cases of anaphylaxis (serious allergic reaction). [And Death] Allergy may be to mRNA itself or the lipid nanoparticles/PEG vehicle it is housed in. The long-term
side effects are not currently known, as the main study length and follow up have only been four months.

Is the mRNA vaccine effective?
In the main study from Pfizer’s vaccine, 8/17,000 patients got symptomatic COVID-19 in the treatment group during the short follow up. In the placebo group, 162/17,000 patients got symptomatic COVID-19 during the study time. There was also a trend towards those getting the vaccine having a less severe disease and needing less hospitalization.

The Moderna study had 30,000 patients split into treatment and placebo arms. In the vaccine group, 11/15,000 patients came down with COVID-19. In the placebo group, 185/15,000 patients came down with COVID-19.
It was hard to ascertain death avoidance in these small studies. However, the two initial studies are favorable and show a 95% efficacy. Now that more information about the studies is known, Peter Doshi, associate editor of the British Medical Journal, wrote an editorial that the true efficacy may be much lower because the study excluded people with COVID-19 symptoms but a negative test and other factors.

How long does immunity last?
This is unknown.  Injected mRNA goes away in days, but it is thought that the immune response will be long lasting. Whether patients will need boosters at some point is not known. What about mutations in the COVID-19 virus? Will the vaccine still work? Viruses always mutate and scientists following COVID-19 estimate it mutates, on average, twice a month. Most of these mutations are minor and will likely not change the vaccine effectiveness. These mutations also usually do not make the virus more deadly.

What is antibody dependent enhancement?
COVID-19 is in the family of
Coronavirus that causes the common cold. The pharmaceutical industry has been trying without success for the last two decades to make a vaccine against the common cold. A safe vaccine against the common cold would make some company a lot of money! One problem in the animal studies on coronavirus family vaccines was “antibody dependent enhancement.” When animals were inoculated, they developed a robust immune response, which is a good result. However, when the animals were later exposed to the coronavirus against which they were vaccinated, their immune system went into overdrive, and they developed an overwhelming, fatal immune response called a “cytokine storm.” Fatal cytokine storms also happened to some COVID-19 patients when their infection was severe.

Human responses do not always correlate to animal responses. So far, there have been no signs that humans have a cytokine storm when exposed to COVID-19 after receiving the vaccine. [Can take from 3-4 months ] Obviously, this would be catastrophic for any vaccine. Should we be concerned about other long term side effects from mRNA vaccines?
A concern that deserves mention is the possibility that a cross-reaction and immunity to other parts of the spike protein could cause auto-immune disease or other problems.

A former Pfizer VP, Dr. Michael Yeadon, who has over 30 years of experience in immunology and drug research, filed a Stay of Action petition with the European Medicine Agency (like our FDA) to halt the trials of mRNA vaccines over concerns it might
affect sterility in women. Yeadon is worried that the mRNA vaccine was coded for a region of the spike protein that was similar to Syncytin-1,which is a protein that is essential for the development of the placenta. If a woman’s body makes antibodies to this protein, she could become sterile when vaccinated for COVID-19. This is a theory, not a proven fact, and no one has studied it. Yeadon’s insistence on more studies to make sure this will not happen seems reasonable.

What to make of all these concerns?
Medicine is always about a risk/benefit analysis, subject to the first maxim of “do no harm.”
Usually, new medicines or new vaccines are used only after multiple studies show over long periods of time (for vaccines, at least five years) prove they’re safe and better than the older treatments. While the new mRNA vaccines have good initial results and may be a breakthrough, they should be viewed as experimental and would best be used in high-risk patients (older patients or those with health conditions raising COVID-19 mortality) until we know more. Patients should receive extensive informed consent to understand the risks and benefits.

Patients also need to know that if they have a serious complication, Congress already protected the pharmaceutical companies from litigation around emergency vaccines.
The mantra of “safe and effective” is not only incomplete, but it also ignores other pathways out of the pandemic. For healthy people, early outpatient treatments are being developed to treat COVID-19. These would be a safer option than taking an experimental vaccine. Young people (<60 years old) who have very low mortality from COVID-19 should approach getting the new vaccine as if they were consenting to be in an experimental trial of a new vaccine.

Our history shows there are good reasons why new medicines and vaccines are not rushed into widespread use until we have multiple studies and time to assess the safety and efficacy of the new treatments. If the death rate from COVID-19 were much higher, it might make the risks acceptable to try an experimental vaccine. Given that the COVID-19 death rate is a little higher than a bad flu, my opinion is that younger and healthier people need a more rigorous risk/benefit analysis before taking the mRNA vaccines.

The Thomas Siler who wrote this article is not Thomas M. Siler, the pulmonologist in St. Charles, Missouri.

Biden’s Total About-Face on COVID-19 Rollout
By contrast, a subsequent news article will be also presented for comparison. It was written by a Reuters Reporter, Joseph Ax back in September 16, 2020. It was before Biden ‘won’ the U.S. Presidential Election. All throughout the election campaigning, Biden’s point of view was that the COVID-19 vaccine rollout, ‘Was too fast, unsafe and could not be trusted.’ Since ‘winning’ the election, Biden’s has done a Total About-Face on the same COVID-19 rollout program. What changed his mind?

Democrat Biden warns against rushing out coronavirus vaccine, says Trump cannot be trusted. Democratic U.S. presidential nominee Biden attends briefing on efforts to develop coronavirus vaccine in Wilmington, Delaware Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden on Wednesday rejected President Donald Trump's charge that he is spreading fear about the safety of a potential coronavirus vaccine, urging Trump to defer to scientists and not rush its rollout. "Let me be clear: I trust vaccines, I trust scientists, but I don’t trust Donald Trump," Biden said. "At this moment, the American people can’t either." Biden warned against trying to rush out an unfinished vaccine ahead of the Nov. 3 election.

Trump, who has accused Biden and his campaign of stoking doubt among Americans about the efficacy of a vaccine,
told reporters at the White House later that Biden should stop promoting "anti-vaccine theories." "They're recklessly endangering lives. You can't do that," said Trump, who predicted at least 100 million doses of a coronavirus vaccine could be distributed by the end of 2020. The coronavirus has caused about 195,000 U.S. deaths, the most of any country, and millions of job losses, becoming a central issue in the presidential campaign.

Trump has repeatedly downplayed COVID-19's risks, particularly early in the crisis and has also drawn criticism for ignoring or disputing warnings from scientists and public health officials. Speaking from his home base of Wilmington, Delaware, on Wednesday,
Biden argued that such a vaccine should only be approved by adhering to rigorous safety standards. "Scientific breakthroughs don’t care about calendars any more than the virus does. They certainly don’t adhere to election cycles. And their timing, their approval and distribution, should never, ever be distorted by political considerations," he said.

Earlier, Republican U.S. Representative Brad Wenstrup, a physician and Trump supporter, dismissed those concerns in a call with reporters, saying the U.S. Food and Drug Administration would ensure any new vaccine was safe. "We believe the FDA is not going to approve something that isn’t safe and effective," Wenstrup said. At the White House, Trump contradicted one of his own top health officials, Robert Redfield, director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Redfield told a congressional panel on Wednesday that even if a COVID-19 vaccine was approved in the coming weeks, it likely would not be widely available to the public until the middle of next year.

"No, I think he made a mistake when he said that", Trump said. "That's incorrect information. I believe he was confused. I think he just misunderstood the question, probably." Biden spoke after being briefed on the virus by several public health experts, including Vivek Murthy, the former U.S surgeon general. His speech was part of a delicate balancing act the former vice president has struck in recent weeks, as Trump has suggested a vaccine could be approved ahead of the election.

Biden, who leads the president in national opinion polls, has questioned whether Trump is pressuring agencies like the FDA to sign off on a vaccine to boost his re-election prospects. At the same time, Biden has been careful to say he wants to see a safe vaccine as soon as possible.

"There has to be total transparency, so scientists outside the government know what is being approved," Biden said. "I’m saying, trust the scientist." Health experts have expressed concern that not enough Americans will volunteer to take an approved coronavirus vaccine, in part because of the speed with which it is being created. Most vaccines are developed over a decade or more.

In a July Reuters/Ipsos poll, just over 60% of Americans said they were interested in taking a vaccine, around the threshold that experts say is likely to be necessary to halt the pandemic's spread. Trump's penchant for spreading misinformation about the coronavirus may hurt his ability to assure Americans of the vaccine's safety, the poll suggested. Only 15% of respondents said they would be more willing if Trump said the vaccine was safe. More than twice as many said a presidential endorsement would actually make them less interested in taking the vaccine.

Biden has sought for months to portray Trump's response to the outbreak as a failure that has caused tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths. His argument was bolstered last week by the release of recorded interviews between Trump and journalist Bob Woodward, in which
the president acknowledged deliberately downplaying the deadliness of the virus.

Main Sources
A Doctor’s View About the New mRNA Vaccines
By Thomas T. Siler, M.D.
February 15, 2021

Democrat Biden warns against rushing out coronavirus vaccine
Joseph Ax, Reuters
September 16, 2020


Download Articles: PDF

Free COVID-19 Resource Page


© Published by Vegapost Publications
​A website dedicated to the study of Biblical Eschatology.

This is PostScripts News Article
​Read more Articles at: www.PostScripts.org/articles.html
Follow PSN online at www.PostScripts.org