Category: Igor’s Newsletter

Remember how our officials and TV health experts told us that “the vaccine stays in the arm” and that vaccine shedding is a myth?

It turns out that it was not true.

A new scientific study published in the Lancet Discovery Science on Sep 19 analyzed breast milk and found COVID vaccine mRNA present in the milk of 10 mothers out of 13 breastfeeding women analyzed.

Scientists asked breastfeeding mothers to provide frozen breastmilk samples before and after COVID vaccination.

Then, they analyzed breast milk for the presence of COVID vaccine mRNA.

Findings Of 13 lactating women receiving the vaccine (20 exposures), trace mRNA amounts were detected in 10 exposures up to 45 h post-vaccination.

So, lab analysis showed that mRNA Covid vaccine was expressed in extracellular vesicles (exosomes) in 10 of 13 vaccinated women’s breast milk.

Here is the table with 13 women, and 10 of them highlighted as positive for the presence of COVID vaccine mRNA:

A somewhat soothing part of the study is this:

The mRNA was concentrated in the BM EVs; however, these EVs neither expressed SARS-COV-2 spike protein nor induced its expression in the HT-29 cell line.

The scientists tried to do a good job to see if the mRNA vaccine samples extracted from breast milk would be biologically active. They added these samples to the HT-29 human cell line. They found that the mRNA did not seem to be biologically active because the genetic code contained in the RNA was not expressed as the spike protein in HT-29 cells.

That optimistic statement was prominently placed in the introduction to the article.

So, an inattentive reader might incorrectly conclude that having Covid vaccine mRNA in breast milk is not a big deal.

However, hidden deep in the body of the study results, authors explained that testing mRNA in the HT-29 cell line was somewhat of a waste of time because even the Covid vaccine mRNA taken from the vials did not express:

So, we can conclude that testing breast milk mRNA in HT-29 yielded no informative results. We cannot use the results of that “expression testing” as reassurance of “vaccine safety.” As the authors point out, it could be a limitation of the test’s sensitivity:

The only positive control sample that induced spike protein was the HT-29 cells treated with a higher concentration of stock mRNA vaccine (1:10^4 , lane 1).

The authors bust the myth of “Covid vaccine stays in the arm,” as you can see in the first paragraph below:

The most exciting part of the above study lies in what I underlined in blue: the scientists explain how Covid vaccine makes it from the blood into the milk. They explain that mRNA travels in the bloodstream of the mothers.

Their breast cells express mRNA in “extracellular vesicles,” also known as exosomes. As the authors state, those EVs are the “natural nanoparticles” and protect the genetic code they carry through the baby’s intestinal tract, where it can get expressed.

Their visual explanation is here:

So, we have

• a complete refutation of the “vaccine stays in the arm” trope

• scientific proof of the presence of mRNA nanoparticles in the breast milk of vaccinated mothers

• scientific explanation of the mechanism of how the breast milk’s COVID vaccine exosomes could reach the intestines of the baby and become biologically active.

Since the minimum mRNA vaccine dose to elicit an immune reaction in infants <6 months is unknown, a dialogue between a breastfeeding mother and her healthcare provider should address the benefit/risk considerations of breastfeeding in the first two days after maternal vaccination.

The suggestion to “discuss with the pediatrician” is ridiculous. What would a pediatrician know about exosomes, mRNA, and cutting-edge science? While, I am sure some of them read the latest literature, many do not. Pediatricians are very good at billing for the vaccinations they conduct, however.

What are the chances of a breastfeeding mother encountering a brave and deeply informed pediatrician who would advise her to be cautious about Covid vaccines? Not great!

This is not the first study finding COVID vaccine mRNA in breast milk.

Here’s another:

The only study NOT finding Covid vaccine mRNA in breast milk was the one conducted by Bill Gates-sponsored scientists, who tried hard NOT to find anything – and succeeded at finding nothing!

Another study found 121 breastfed infants experiencing health complications while breastfed by vaccinated mothers:

Unfortunately, with the low COVID vaccine uptake, such studies would be impossible to reproduce. Let’s be thankful to brave scientists who broke the code of silence and exposed vaccine shedding, including from mothers to breastfed infants.

Please share this news with any women who might give birth soon or are considering getting COVID vaccines.

Share

Remember how our officials and TV health experts told us that “the vaccine stays in the arm” and that vaccine shedding is a myth?

It turns out that it was not true.

A new scientific study published in the Lancet Discovery Science on Sep 19 analyzed breast milk and found COVID vaccine mRNA present in the milk of 10 mothers out of 13 breastfeeding women analyzed.

Scientists asked breastfeeding mothers to provide frozen breastmilk samples before and after COVID vaccination.

Then, they analyzed breast milk for the presence of COVID vaccine mRNA.

Findings Of 13 lactating women receiving the vaccine (20 exposures), trace mRNA amounts were detected in 10 exposures up to 45 h post-vaccination.

So, lab analysis showed that mRNA Covid vaccine was expressed in extracellular vesicles (exosomes) in 10 of 13 vaccinated women’s breast milk.

Here is the table with 13 women, and 10 of them highlighted as positive for the presence of COVID vaccine mRNA:

A somewhat soothing part of the study is this:

The mRNA was concentrated in the BM EVs; however, these EVs neither expressed SARS-COV-2 spike protein nor induced its expression in the HT-29 cell line.

The scientists tried to do a good job to see if the mRNA vaccine samples extracted from breast milk would be biologically active. They added these samples to the HT-29 human cell line. They found that the mRNA did not seem to be biologically active because the genetic code contained in the RNA was not expressed as the spike protein in HT-29 cells.

That optimistic statement was prominently placed in the introduction to the article.

So, an inattentive reader might incorrectly conclude that having Covid vaccine mRNA in breast milk is not a big deal.

However, hidden deep in the body of the study results, authors explained that testing mRNA in the HT-29 cell line was somewhat of a waste of time because even the Covid vaccine mRNA taken from the vials did not express:

So, we can conclude that testing breast milk mRNA in HT-29 yielded no informative results. We cannot use the results of that “expression testing” as reassurance of “vaccine safety.” As the authors point out, it could be a limitation of the test’s sensitivity:

The only positive control sample that induced spike protein was the HT-29 cells treated with a higher concentration of stock mRNA vaccine (1:10^4 , lane 1).

The authors bust the myth of “Covid vaccine stays in the arm,” as you can see in the first paragraph below:

The most exciting part of the above study lies in what I underlined in blue: the scientists explain how Covid vaccine makes it from the blood into the milk. They explain that mRNA travels in the bloodstream of the mothers.

Their breast cells express mRNA in “extracellular vesicles,” also known as exosomes. As the authors state, those EVs are the “natural nanoparticles” and protect the genetic code they carry through the baby’s intestinal tract, where it can get expressed.

Their visual explanation is here:

So, we have

• A complete refutation of the “vaccine stays in the arm” trope

• Scientific proof of the presence of mRNA nanoparticles contaminating the breast milk of vaccinated mothers

• Scientific explanation of the mechanism of how the breast milk’s COVID vaccine exosomes could reach the intestines of the baby and become biologically active.

Since the minimum mRNA vaccine dose to elicit an immune reaction in infants <6 months is unknown, a dialogue between a breastfeeding mother and her healthcare provider should address the benefit/risk considerations of breastfeeding in the first two days after maternal vaccination.

The suggestion to “discuss with the pediatrician” is ridiculous. What would a pediatrician know about exosomes, mRNA, and cutting-edge science? While, I am sure some of them read the latest literature, many do not. Pediatricians are very good at billing for the vaccinations they conduct, however.

What are the chances of a breastfeeding mother encountering a brave and deeply informed pediatrician who would advise her to be cautious about Covid vaccines? Not great!

This is not the first study finding COVID vaccine mRNA in breast milk.

Here’s another:

The only study NOT finding Covid vaccine mRNA in breast milk was the one conducted by Bill Gates-sponsored scientists, who tried hard NOT to find anything – and succeeded at finding nothing!

Interestingly enough, deep inside the text of the Lancet study we are discussing today, there is the following criticism of the study by the Bill Gates-sponsored scientists (the Gaw study):

It is nice how most of the authors’ criticism aligns with what I wrote in the substack post quoted above. But there is more! The authors explain that the Gaw study could not POSSIBLY detect any Moderna vaccine because they had a wrong PCR primer! Oh well.

Another study found 121 breastfed infants experiencing health complications while breastfed by vaccinated mothers:

Unfortunately, with the low COVID vaccine uptake, such studies would be impossible to reproduce. Let’s be thankful to the courageous scientists who broke the code of silence and exposed vaccine shedding, including from mothers to breastfed infants.

Please share this news with any women who might give birth soon or are considering getting COVID vaccines.

Share

The World Economic Forum and Bill Gates-controlled GAVI promote using biometric tracking technology to force-vaccinate African children with a Bill Gates-sponsored malaria vaccine that does not even work. Said vaccine would give deadly meningitis to approximately one out of a hundred children receiving four doses of it.

Read this last week’s WEF’s agenda article:

The WEF article was written by Yoshinobu Nagamine, a Senior Manager of Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, and by Toby Norman, the CEO of Simprints, a biometrics recognition company sponsored by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

GAVI will use biometrics to enforce vaccination with a malaria vaccine called Mosquirix, or RTS,S/AS01.

This vaccine is very special. Three doses of it have no efficacy at all, even in preventing severe disease. Only the fourth dose makes vaccine effectiveness reach a meager 32%.

This is a life-threatening coverage gap, with vaccine efficacy against severe malaria plummeting from 32.2% to 1.1% if only three doses are received.

Preventing only 32% of cases of severe disease (if we are to believe studies sponsored by the manufacturer) makes this vaccine not very good at preventing malaria’s worst outcomes.

What Mosquirix is good at is causing meningitis in small children.

The WEF article completely omits any mention of that, despite mentioning the manufacturer-sponsored study of Mosquirix that tells us about meningitis.

Meningitis was reported as a serious adverse event in 16/5,949 and 1/2,974 children and in 9/4,358 and 3/2,179 infants in the RTS,S/AS01 and control groups, respectively.

The incidence of generalised convulsive seizures within 7 days of RTS,S/AS01 booster was 2·2 per 1000 doses in young infants and 2·5 per 1000 doses in children.

This is 2.5 cases of meningitis PER 1000 SHOTS of the vaccine! So, given that Bill Gates wants children to receive four shots of meningitis-causing Mosquirix, roughly one out of 100-150 children receiving four doses would end up having meningitis.

Meningitis, a potentially deadly brain and spinal cord inflammation, is a terrible disease with a mortality of 20-30%.

Bill Gates and GAVI want one out of 100 children to have meningitis from his “malaria vaccine,” preventing only 32% of severe malaria cases – and the meager protection works only during the small initial post-vaccination period!

You probably remember how Covid vaccines, hailed as a sure tool to stop the pandemic, rapidly waned in effectiveness. After some time, the vaccinated people would have more cases of Covid than the unvaccinated ones.

The same thing applies to this Mosquirix vaccine. More vaccinated children get malaria after four years than unvaccinated ones:

An African child receiving four shots of the Mosquirix vaccine would have about a 1% chance of meningitis and eventually becomes MORE likely to get malaria than a similar unvaccinated child.

Is that a good deal for the child and their family? Hardly.

However, vaccinating Africa with Mosquirix would be an excellent outcome for Bill Gates — to promote biometric solutions he sponsored to control third-world citizens. Is that the actual goal of the project that otherwise sounds nonsensical?

Bill invested money in the biometric company Simprints, whose CEO authored the WEF article:

Bill Gates loves children! We know that for sure.

However, Bill’s love for children is very special, and I feel very sorry for every child who would receive his vaccines.

I also feel sorry for everyone who will unwillingly become a subject of Bill’s commercial biometric projects.

What do you think?

Share

Recently, I published a Substack post about a senior WEF agenda contributor, Adam Grant, telling us that we are too stupid to vote and that elections are “bad for our democracy.”

I was upset by this characterization, wanted to do something, and promised that for any paid subscription that resulted from that post, I would contribute $10 each to TWO anti-COVID-vaccine candidates, Robert Kennedy Jr. and Ron DeSantis.

Such a promise must be followed up by a report and proof that I spent the promised money, so here it is. A total of 15 people became paid subscribers from that thread:

I want to thank each of these 15 people! Thank you!

I promised the following:

To that end, I made two contributions: $150 to Kennedy and $150 to DeSantis.

In the comments to that post, many people expressed strong feelings about the US political system: some opposed Robert Kennedy, and some disliked Ron DeSantis. Some commenters even said that members of our society, indeed, are too stupid to vote. God bless all of you, and I am not here to propagandize or steer you towards any candidate.

This is not a political blog.

This anti-Covid-vaccine, pro-good-science substack discusses COVID and related subjects and maintains an emotionally supportive community of thinkers. Whatever political leanings you have is not something I want to change.

The two above candidates (Kennedy and DeSantis) were strong Covid skeptics who saved millions from COVID vaccines. I am grateful to both of them, so I wanted to send them equal donations. One is a Democrat; another is a Republican. I think of these contributions as my thank-you to them for the good deeds they have done for us.

By the way, a year ago, I sent significant (for me) sums of money to Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, which hopefully helped him to get reelected during very tough times.

If you want to upgrade your subscription now, click here:

Our reader “Adelaidean” reported that Facebook is censoring this VAIDS post:

Here are the screenshots:

Interestingly, fact-checkers debunked poor reproductions of my original post, but my post got banned. Oh well.

I want to open an “open thread” where you can say anything or ask about something. I will read all top-level replies.

Ask away!

Share

A couple of weeks ago, I reported on an Australian study showing a marked decline of innate immune responses in children 5-11 years old after their COVID vaccinations.

That article created quite a reaction on social media. Two fact-checks were published. I discussed one of them.

Three authors of the original Frontiers’ study made this published statement:

Their statement is worth carefully reading in full. They ask not to interpret their findings negatively because they “did not investigate the clinical consequences of these changes.” They also say, “We do not know how long they last.” Are they saying that if these reductions in immune responses to common pathogens do not last forever, they are okay? I am not sure.

The truly interesting part of their writing comes next. They say (underlined in blue), “We have found similar changes in the immune response after BCG vaccination in infants.”

This is interesting for a very important reason! The original study that gave impetus to my “Covid vaccine causes VAIDS in children” post lacked a control group. The immune reactions of children who participated in that study were compared to their own immune state before vaccinations. There was no other separate, unvaccinated control group. Brian Mowrey noted that, and he is right – the study could benefit from a control group.

The authors themselves dismissed the idea of a control group as unethical:

Limitations include the inability to include an unvaccinated control group due to the ATAGI recommendation for all children aged 5 to 11 years to receive the BNT162b2 vaccine. It was unethical to randomise children into an unvaccinated, placebo or delayed vaccination group, given that ATAGI recommended the BNT162b2 vaccine for the age group of interest and that Melbourne was experiencing a surge in COVID-19 cases in the community during the study period.

And yet, the authors of the Frontiers study, in their follow-up statement, mentioned the BCG vaccine and gave us a path to a roundabout way to have a control group of the Covid study – of sorts.

We can compare Covid-vaccinated children to BCG-vaccinated children!

The authors of the Frontiers study say in their follow-up statement that the BCG-vaccinated children experienced “similar changes” to Covid-vaccinated children.

Is that true?

Are the changes in immune function caused by these two vaccines similar, as the authors claim?

Let’s look. Dr. Curtis possibly refers to this BCG study from 2018 that he conducted with co-authors:

The chart from the above BCG study has a deceivingly similar appearance to the Pfizer vaccine study.

Reminder: the Pfizer vaccine study has a chart that appears, at first sight, to look similar:

However, the only thing similar between their charts is that each has a bunch of sub-charts. They might look “similar” to someone not paying attention.

First, these charts are organized differently: the BCG chart has sub-charts for every pathogen, detailing various immune responses to each. The COVID vaccine chart has sub-chart for every immune response, listing changes in that immune response to every pathogen. In other words:

• The BCG chart goes from pathogens to immune responses

• The COVID chart goes from immune responses to pathogens.

You can compare the two sub-charts from each of the charts, enlarged:

You can see that the BCG study has immune responses nicely grouped by pathogen (Staphylococcus Aureus in my example above). The COVID vaccine effect study has pathogens grouped by immune responses. So they are organized differently. That is shown with red arrows.

Sadly, this makes comparing these studies difficult, but I will try to help.

Let’s zero in on Staphylococcus aureus, a common pathogen that our bodies encounter frequently.

The picture’s entire left side (the BCG side) is devoted to S. Aureus. The right side (from the COVID study) shows IL-6 responses, but one of them is for S. Aureus, so we can compare Covid vs. BCG vaccine.

In blue, I show how the IL-6 immune response to Staphylococcus aureus changed by only -27% for the BCG vaccine but dropped ten times for the COVID vaccine!

The BCG chart shows very small declines in immune responses to S. Aureus, in many cases statistically indistinguishable from no change. Most changes are minor, around minus 5-15% or so. Look at the BCG part for S. Aureus again:

Now look at changes in immune response to the same pathogen S. Aureus, spread throughout the COVID vaccine chart. The COVID chart is scaled logarithmically, so position -1 means a 10x decline. Indeed, many functions show an approximately 4-10 times decline. I marked those with a sad face:

Compared to utterly minor declines in immune response to S. Aureus parameters from the BCG vaccine, there are massive, many-times declines in the same parameters for the COVID vaccine.

Not good! It suggests a very significant deterioration in immune response.

Disclaimer: The children in the BCG and COVID studies are not directly comparable. They are of different ages and were not ideally matched. To those who like to dismiss alarming signals because they come from an imperfect comparison, please remember that the “COVID Science” fought tooth and nail against any attempt to study the safety of Covid vaccines and their immune consequences in children. So, these comparisons are all we have, sadly.

Our astute reader FS, who runs FastScience substack, pointed out signs of problems with vaccinated children in the Moderna kids vaccine study. Click here to view page 165 of the FDA document.

With red, I highlighted the health problems of children who received the Moderna vaccine. With green, I highlighted (only one) child in the placebo group who got quite sick.

You can see how much sicker the vaccinated children are! They are admitted to hospitals with COLDS, fevers, febrile seizures, and many other problems. In this instance, vaccination or placebo was assigned by random chance, eliminating any confounders.

I crossed out clearly unrelated entries (foreign object in airway, egg allergy etc).

Sadly, the rest of the entries depict very ill COVID-vaccinated children hospitalized for ordinary colds, febrile seizures, otitis, pneumonia, and so much more.

Only one sick child was unvaccinated. (marked with green)

Read that again and let that sink in.

Moderna investigators ruled all of these events unrelated. Were they truly unrelated? How come only one placebo child was sickly? Were the vaccinated children unable to mount an effective immune response to ordinary pathogens surrounding us and ended up hospitalized, re-admitted to hospitals, etc.?

Isn’t the above evidence of VAIDS (Vaccine Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome)?

VAIDS is a colloquial term used to describe decreases in immunity following COVID vaccination. It does not, as of now, have an accepted scientific definition. However, with these new studies, we are coming closer to having data that allows us to measure changes described by this term.

I hope that one day, honest scientists and investigators will get to the bottom of this situation. When they look at it, they will find all original “Covid vaccine” doses destroyed, records deleted, etc.

Covid vaccine, fortunately, is no longer recommended for children in Australia, where the original study was done. The Curtis et al. study is impossible to replicate with the original COVID vaccine!

So, sadly, we have millions of children needing to use hospital resources instead of enjoying their previously healthy childhoods – and there is no way to find out the exact mechanism of what happened to them!

The immune changes Australian scientists measured are real and affect millions of COVID-vaccinated children.

Their mothers wanted the best for them and trusted Pfizer and Moderna. All of these children’s parents had the best intentions – but they trusted the wrong people and got their children injected with unproven substances that caused their immunity to decline dramatically. The immune response of children was not tested before the vaccination campaign – instead, it was found, almost by accident, two years after children got their mystery shots.

Do these people deserve pandemic amnesty?

Share