Am I being paranoid in pointing out that there is a long-term plan afoot here to transition all the current vaccines to the mRNA transfection/gene therapy "vaccines", and that they love it now when we complain about the nasty adjuvants and harms of traditional vaccines? Not that these shots weren't/aren't still harmful, and that the research wasn't rubbish or suppressed. But the kind of "good quality" research likely to be carried out by a largely captured bunch of "scientists"/"epidemiologists" with massive conflicts of interest and skin in the genetech game is likely to conclude just what they want: that we should get rid of these nasty old methods of producing vaccines, and move ahead with those lovely, safe and effective (transfections) vaccines.
> "Every day vaccination laws remain in force children are being poisoned, diseased, crippled, tortured, maimed and killed by this barbarous and cruel malpractice inherited from our ignorant and superstitious forbears of a pre-scientific age." ~ J. W. Hodge, MD | "Vaccination: The Foul Invention of Hell", Leaves of Healing, vol. XXXV, No. 14, January 2, 1915, p. 315
They never tested for efficacy, then say it's 95% effective. There is now no doubt in my mind that what they call vaccines, are just injections intended to cause harm and death. Back in 2010 at TedX talk, Bill Gates, one of the biggest investors in vaccines, said "The world's population needs to be reduced by 10 to 15%. Vaccines will help with that". How more obvious does it have to get ?
I know, they TELL you and when you tell others they're telling you, they call you a conspiracy theorist. Unbelievable.
I think the thing that bugs me the most is that even a fair percentage of people who are willing to disbelieve the authorities have a problem with Revelation of the Method ... and yet when it was first told to me - despite any seeming counterintuitiveness - I embraced it to my bosom immediately because so many things prior had puzzled me such as Larry Silverstein's "pull it" (which, of course, he never would have actually said, it's not as if "pull it" was a slip of the tongue) and Robbie Parker's big smile and hyperventilating before approaching the microphone to give a 17m press conference the day after his alleged 6yo daughter died - a press conference in which a fundraiser was mentioned twice ... and nothing else of great import.
From an study dating all the way back to 2004, yeah, but just a little.
They never had standards from the beginning, but at least they paid lip service to them. Somewhere along the line they stopped bothering with pretense.
Try Vaccination — It never will hurt you, For Vaccination has this one great virtue: Should it injure or kill you whenever you receive it, We all stand prepared to refuse to believe it. —1876
So Elizabeth, in the absence of good quality evidence, as at 2004, you are still concerned that aluminium in vaccines is actually harmful. You have no good quality evidence, but it worries you. So why not point out that no useful research has been done on this in the past 20 years and demand that some good quality research should be commissioned by the Australian government?
These are legitimate concerns. They extend across the spectrum of vaccines and many other medicinal products. The whole problem with the Covid injections aka vaccines was that they were rolled out in the absence of good quality research as to either their efficacy or their safety. In the event they had a catastrophic adverse event rate - as confirmed by reports to government adverse event reporting systems, and other sources of real world data (e.g. death statistics) globally. They also proved to be ineffective, for reasons which could easily have been foreseen (quote Robert Clancy and others).
And while we're at it, why not demand that the government ceases to indemnify the manufacturers of these risky products against claims for damages due to the harms they cause? Whenever this issue is raised, the supporters of the status quo argue that this would result in the companies withdrawing their products from the market, and we the people would all perish. Really? On the other hand the people surely deserve this basic level of consumer protection. There is no valid reason in ethics why consumers should be left defenceless in law against rapacious commercial exploitation - especially when that exploitation is aided and abetted by the government itself.
Stephen, if you read my email to Kristine Macartney in my substack post you will see I'm raising concerns about the quality of 'evidence' being used to support the safety of aluminium-adjuvanted vaccine products.
I'm bewildered that you seem intent on making light of this matter (in your comment here and on my other article: https://elizabethhart.substack.com/p/doctors-pressing-vaccine-products). Have you no concern about the number of aluminium-adjuvanted vaccine products and revaccinations on the schedule for children now, even though you don't even know what they are? You wouldn't have had all these vaccines when you were the same age.
Please do keep in mind that parents are coerced/mandated to have these vaccine products for young children under No Jab, No Pay and No Jab, No Play laws, i.e. they are denied valid voluntary informed consent re these vaccine products. Parents are pressured, coerced, manipulated and even mandated to submit their children to these interventions without question.
I'm certainly not the only person to raise questions about the systematic review.
Consider for example this letter by Christopher Exley, published by The Lancet Infectious Diseases, Vol. 4, June 2004:
QUOTE:
Aluminium-containing DTP vaccines
I was interested to read the review by Tom Jefferson and colleagues1 concerning the possible adverse effects of immunisation with aluminium containing diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis (DTP) vaccines. I was surprised that the authors were able to conclude from their review that further research in this field was unnecessary. It would seem to me that this conclusion did not adequately reflect the findings of the limited resource base underpinning the review. The authors criticised the quality of the data they had available to them and yet these data were still deemed sufficient to support such a strong conclusion. In addition, the authors made no reference to the fact that aluminium-based adjuvants contribute to the recipients systemic body burden of aluminium. We now know that aluminium in adjuvants is dissolved and transported throughout the body, including the brain2 and we cannot discount the biological availability of this aluminium. It is a sobering thought that aluminium adjuvants have not had to pass any of the safety trials that would be expected of any drug or treatment. Their application is historical and this should not necessarily be equated with their safety. There is no consensus as to whether it is safe to introduce aluminium in prophylaxis or otherwise, and until the requisite research is carried out it is misleading to conclude that aluminium adjuvants are safe for all to use.
Christopher Exley
CE is reader in bioinorganic chemistry, Keele University, Staffordshire, UK.
1 Jefferson T, Rudin M, Di Pietrantonj C. Adverse evens after immunisation with aluminium containing DTP vaccines: systematic review if the evidence. Lancet Infect Dis 2004; 4: 84–90
2 Flarend R. Absorption of aluminium from antiperpspirants and vaccine adjuvants. In: Exley C, ed. Aluminium and Alzheimer's disease. The science that describes the link. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2001: 75–96
Let's not forget that vaccines have been imported from China & India over the past 10 or so years...not great quality control happening in general! It's absolutely atrocious.
And we also have the SV in all vaccines for many years now- and other genetic material from an American black woman commencing in 1963.- all still being used to this day.
If I am incorrect Elizabeth then do correct me.
(Did voluntary research for a natural health group March 2020 to October 2022 and the above repeatedly came into view. I was searching for other information at that time so did not commit firmly to memory,
"There's no evidence..." is in itself a fallacious claim, which anyone with half a brain can see through. Such a claim can not possibly be made because to validate it would require following and meticulously analysing the health lives of every single peson who's ever been vaccinated. And since large proportion of those are already dead, you can't be sure if they weren't "The Evidence". The best these idiots can say is "We didn't find evidence ..." which is a different matter altogether and doesn't at all mean that the evidence doesn't exist.
Annnd, there it is AGAIN, their favourite saying, “There’s no evidence “…
And there never will be any evidence because no-one LOOKS for it.
Am I being paranoid in pointing out that there is a long-term plan afoot here to transition all the current vaccines to the mRNA transfection/gene therapy "vaccines", and that they love it now when we complain about the nasty adjuvants and harms of traditional vaccines? Not that these shots weren't/aren't still harmful, and that the research wasn't rubbish or suppressed. But the kind of "good quality" research likely to be carried out by a largely captured bunch of "scientists"/"epidemiologists" with massive conflicts of interest and skin in the genetech game is likely to conclude just what they want: that we should get rid of these nasty old methods of producing vaccines, and move ahead with those lovely, safe and effective (transfections) vaccines.
What is required Rosemary is an open discussion about vaccination, full stop.
This is a subject on which discussion has been suppressed for years.
Suppressed for more than a century:
> "Every day vaccination laws remain in force children are being poisoned, diseased, crippled, tortured, maimed and killed by this barbarous and cruel malpractice inherited from our ignorant and superstitious forbears of a pre-scientific age." ~ J. W. Hodge, MD | "Vaccination: The Foul Invention of Hell", Leaves of Healing, vol. XXXV, No. 14, January 2, 1915, p. 315
History of Childhood Vaccines
https://workflowy.com/s/beyond-covid-19/SoQPdY75WJteLUYx#/f8538a5a4677
About the efficacy in the first place, because with no proven efficacy, safety is moot.
They never tested for efficacy, then say it's 95% effective. There is now no doubt in my mind that what they call vaccines, are just injections intended to cause harm and death. Back in 2010 at TedX talk, Bill Gates, one of the biggest investors in vaccines, said "The world's population needs to be reduced by 10 to 15%. Vaccines will help with that". How more obvious does it have to get ?
I know, they TELL you and when you tell others they're telling you, they call you a conspiracy theorist. Unbelievable.
I think the thing that bugs me the most is that even a fair percentage of people who are willing to disbelieve the authorities have a problem with Revelation of the Method ... and yet when it was first told to me - despite any seeming counterintuitiveness - I embraced it to my bosom immediately because so many things prior had puzzled me such as Larry Silverstein's "pull it" (which, of course, he never would have actually said, it's not as if "pull it" was a slip of the tongue) and Robbie Parker's big smile and hyperventilating before approaching the microphone to give a 17m press conference the day after his alleged 6yo daughter died - a press conference in which a fundraiser was mentioned twice ... and nothing else of great import.
This is astonishing... Where did ethics vanish off to? Thanks for bringing this to our attention.
Made a shareable image out of the mad hatter study summary Elizabeth, fee free to use it:
https://tritorch.com/degradation/DespiteALackOfGoodQualityEvidenceWeDoNotRecommendThatAnyFurtherResearchOnThisTopicIsUndertakenConclusionOfASystematicReviewOnAluminiumAndVaccineSafetyPublishedBehindThePaywallOfTheLancetIn2004ElizabethHartApril2025.png [image]
Are you really astonished? At this stage?
I’m permanently astonished…
That more people aren’t waking up to this.
In regard to questioning aluminium-adjuvanted vaccines, I started this in 2013, 12 years ago…
You can see correspondence on this matter via this link: https://over-vaccination.net/aluminium-and-vaccine-safety/
From an study dating all the way back to 2004, yeah, but just a little.
They never had standards from the beginning, but at least they paid lip service to them. Somewhere along the line they stopped bothering with pretense.
Try Vaccination — It never will hurt you, For Vaccination has this one great virtue: Should it injure or kill you whenever you receive it, We all stand prepared to refuse to believe it. —1876
See "Dissolving Illusions" to learn more:
> https://x.com/denisrancourt/status/1479814598538711043
"Let's all agree to bury our heads in the sand."
No ~ on second thought, it's actually worse than that:
"We recommend the EVERYONE bury their heads in the sand, and you should trust us, because we are 'The Science' experts."
Where have we heard THAT before?!
So Elizabeth, in the absence of good quality evidence, as at 2004, you are still concerned that aluminium in vaccines is actually harmful. You have no good quality evidence, but it worries you. So why not point out that no useful research has been done on this in the past 20 years and demand that some good quality research should be commissioned by the Australian government?
These are legitimate concerns. They extend across the spectrum of vaccines and many other medicinal products. The whole problem with the Covid injections aka vaccines was that they were rolled out in the absence of good quality research as to either their efficacy or their safety. In the event they had a catastrophic adverse event rate - as confirmed by reports to government adverse event reporting systems, and other sources of real world data (e.g. death statistics) globally. They also proved to be ineffective, for reasons which could easily have been foreseen (quote Robert Clancy and others).
And while we're at it, why not demand that the government ceases to indemnify the manufacturers of these risky products against claims for damages due to the harms they cause? Whenever this issue is raised, the supporters of the status quo argue that this would result in the companies withdrawing their products from the market, and we the people would all perish. Really? On the other hand the people surely deserve this basic level of consumer protection. There is no valid reason in ethics why consumers should be left defenceless in law against rapacious commercial exploitation - especially when that exploitation is aided and abetted by the government itself.
Stephen, if you read my email to Kristine Macartney in my substack post you will see I'm raising concerns about the quality of 'evidence' being used to support the safety of aluminium-adjuvanted vaccine products.
I'm bewildered that you seem intent on making light of this matter (in your comment here and on my other article: https://elizabethhart.substack.com/p/doctors-pressing-vaccine-products). Have you no concern about the number of aluminium-adjuvanted vaccine products and revaccinations on the schedule for children now, even though you don't even know what they are? You wouldn't have had all these vaccines when you were the same age.
Please do keep in mind that parents are coerced/mandated to have these vaccine products for young children under No Jab, No Pay and No Jab, No Play laws, i.e. they are denied valid voluntary informed consent re these vaccine products. Parents are pressured, coerced, manipulated and even mandated to submit their children to these interventions without question.
I'm certainly not the only person to raise questions about the systematic review.
Consider for example this letter by Christopher Exley, published by The Lancet Infectious Diseases, Vol. 4, June 2004:
QUOTE:
Aluminium-containing DTP vaccines
I was interested to read the review by Tom Jefferson and colleagues1 concerning the possible adverse effects of immunisation with aluminium containing diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis (DTP) vaccines. I was surprised that the authors were able to conclude from their review that further research in this field was unnecessary. It would seem to me that this conclusion did not adequately reflect the findings of the limited resource base underpinning the review. The authors criticised the quality of the data they had available to them and yet these data were still deemed sufficient to support such a strong conclusion. In addition, the authors made no reference to the fact that aluminium-based adjuvants contribute to the recipients systemic body burden of aluminium. We now know that aluminium in adjuvants is dissolved and transported throughout the body, including the brain2 and we cannot discount the biological availability of this aluminium. It is a sobering thought that aluminium adjuvants have not had to pass any of the safety trials that would be expected of any drug or treatment. Their application is historical and this should not necessarily be equated with their safety. There is no consensus as to whether it is safe to introduce aluminium in prophylaxis or otherwise, and until the requisite research is carried out it is misleading to conclude that aluminium adjuvants are safe for all to use.
Christopher Exley
CE is reader in bioinorganic chemistry, Keele University, Staffordshire, UK.
1 Jefferson T, Rudin M, Di Pietrantonj C. Adverse evens after immunisation with aluminium containing DTP vaccines: systematic review if the evidence. Lancet Infect Dis 2004; 4: 84–90
2 Flarend R. Absorption of aluminium from antiperpspirants and vaccine adjuvants. In: Exley C, ed. Aluminium and Alzheimer's disease. The science that describes the link. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2001: 75–96
END OF QUOTE
It would be just like talking to a brick wall
Let's not forget that vaccines have been imported from China & India over the past 10 or so years...not great quality control happening in general! It's absolutely atrocious.
And we also have the SV in all vaccines for many years now- and other genetic material from an American black woman commencing in 1963.- all still being used to this day.
If I am incorrect Elizabeth then do correct me.
(Did voluntary research for a natural health group March 2020 to October 2022 and the above repeatedly came into view. I was searching for other information at that time so did not commit firmly to memory,
"There's no evidence..." is in itself a fallacious claim, which anyone with half a brain can see through. Such a claim can not possibly be made because to validate it would require following and meticulously analysing the health lives of every single peson who's ever been vaccinated. And since large proportion of those are already dead, you can't be sure if they weren't "The Evidence". The best these idiots can say is "We didn't find evidence ..." which is a different matter altogether and doesn't at all mean that the evidence doesn't exist.
many health authorities have taken to ignoring critical aspects of the Branford hill criteria used to establish causal links... https://eccentrik.substack.com/p/new-paper-evidence-showing-childhood
like others have said, you can't find what you don't look for!