Replies

That's a good analogy, but doesn't address the problems that Mr. Hirsch points out in the posted piece.

He doesn't go through the usual litany of anti-vax delirium (eg "autism!", "It's not a real vaccine", or even worse "The immunization theory is false"). I could go on, but you get the idea, but the point being is that it's easy to allow the more colorful anti-vax claims to affect one's perceptions when a rational observer reaches some of the same conclusions, but from a different, and factually supported, direction.

What Steve does here, which is not crazy, and in fact is a bombshell that should spark both a national outrage and serious investigation is to show that real, verifiable, and serious problems have been, and are being, concealed from the public by those in positions of trust. I won't throw in with him completely on his speculated motivations, but it's hard to ignore the facts that he presents.

To my mind, the core issue that he raises is this: The EUA recognizes a core ethical principle: a person receiving the vaccine must be able to give informed consent prior to accepting the shot.

We now know, dispositively, that at least one dangerous and important characteristic of the current mRNA vaccines was known by the NAID prior to delivery of the first doses, and was not publicly disclosed. I'm referring to the biodistibution data (ie, which tissues the lipid nanoparticles have been turning up in. They were supposed to stay at the injection site (typically the deltoid muscle), but do not.

Steve summarizes the point as "Biodistribution data shows massive accumulation in ovaries of the LNP (which instructs cells in ovaries to sprout toxic spike protein). ... We obtained (that information) via FOIA request."

That's a serious problem, and well outside of the usual smokey-back-rooom nature of the usual pro-vax/anti-vax invective that FR has devolved into of late.

And before I'm accused of being anti-vax, I'll state that I got the Moderna shot as soon as it was offered, suffered no ill effects, and based on the current state knowledge (including this article), and my own individual health situation and work requirements, would do so again. But at least now I'm at least basing that on informed consent, not solely on more of Fauci's lies.