The modRNA Therapeutic Box

Or why we can't get anywhere on the safety and efficacy issue

"For this I have been born and for this I have come into the world to testify to the truth...," Jesus said. And Pilate replied to Him, "What is truth?" and did not wait for an answer but went to the people to give them another chance to save their "king."

Redefining Terms and Concepts

My current theory on why nothing is happening on the public health and government front, physicians and hospital is that truth of the concepts we were trained with has been redefined. And I think many of us don’t know how it happened. I will try to present my theory and how that ends up in a box that is difficult to escape from.

These redefining of terms, that are now LEGAL started with Clinton, and the Monica Lewinsky trial imho. Clinton

Contending his statement that "there's nothing going on between us" had been truthful because he had no ongoing relationship with Lewinsky at the time he was questioned, Clinton said, "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the—if he—if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not—that is one thing.

1. Safe and Effective are True Legally, Even if it is Not

I believe that many PH officials truly feel these products are safe and effective, and have saved lives and hospitalizations. So they can in all honesty say, “safe and effective.” In Canada especially, the amount of data and quality of data to obtain regulatory authorizations were lowered and made legal in the Food and Drug Act. Thus it can be said the vaccines are safe and effective, but those words are not based on established fact. Still it is legally correct, though to my mind not truthful. I describe this process here

2. Gene Therapy as Vaccines

Well, that was a clear one that many of us tried to correct. However, LEGALLY these products are vaccines, as they are regulated as vaccines. Should they have been? Of course not. Just because they are legally vaccines does not mean the BIOLOGICAL definition of these products are vaccines. They transfect cells with nucleic acids and so are gene therapy products. The legal definition does not change WHAT THEY ARE. Still using the term vaccine, short-circuited many health care professionals to avoid looking at what IS. Helen Banoun’s article is what I use to explain this available here

3. The Pharmacological vs the Immunological Phase

Or the mechanism of action of these products

There has been a great deal of data and commentary on the OUTPUTS of this product, which is what I call the immunological phase. After production of the spike protein, comes the immunological phase of these jabs. Spike on the cells, antibodies, schmantibodies, IgG4 etc etc. Yawn. The truth of how these jabs work is rarely explained.

Where is talk about the INPUTS? If you cannot define what are the inputs, in detail that produces the immunological phase you have no idea of the MECHANISM OF ACTION. Knowing the mechanism of action helps you with knowing the efficacy and safety. We are looking at only one half of the equation. This is why the concept of the ‘pro-drug’ is so important. (And I rant…)That big black hole between administration and production of spike protein in a multistep, multifactorial, extremely variable process and it is not just about biodistribution or batch variability. If that is not understood well, then it is difficult to link adverse events to the “vaccine” since the AEs will be primarily defined as what is normal for vaccines.

Here I talk (and rant!) about the pharmacological phase

4. The Final Wall of the Therapeutic Box: Defining Adverse Events

This is the most diabolical of all our redefined terms and concepts. You see, the adverse events following administrations of these jabs are defined DIFFERENTLY than those following a drug or even a gene therapy product. Adverse events from “vaccines” are defined differently than that of drugs. They are called

ADVERSE EVENTS FOLLOWING IMMUNIZATION or AEFI

So these walls all fit together. A legal definition of safe and effective, which is not based on previous quality of evidence and is not “stablished”, a legal definition that these are vaccines when they are not, redefining or downgrading its pharmacological phase, and then legally defining its adverse events for a product that does not meet the criteria of a vaccine.

So it IS possible that these jabs could be defined legally as a vaccine because of its INDICATION or use. This happens all the time. BUT because of its mechanism of action the jabs should not have had their adverse events defined as AEFIs. For instance, you can have a drug like buproprion which is indicated for depression (called Wellbutrin) and then for smoking cessation (called Zyban). The adverse events are usually similar taking into account dose and the patient population. The clinical trials would be looking for the same types of AE. But NOT if Zyban was legally classified as a vaccine.

Adverse events associated with vaccines is NOT based on the Bradford Hill criteria or on probablistic criteria based on clinical presentation and history like for all other drugs, but on a categorical algorithmic approach. If you don’t know about the Brighton Collaboration and how it relates to CEPI and the WHO and how it all came about, and when AEFIs got defined and how, we will never be able to get to the truth. I start to explain a bit in this entry

How to untie this Gordian Knot?

We have to unscramble that Covid infection and vaccine injury can present with similar adverse events. We don’t know the long term effects of a Covid infection, just like we don’t know the long term effects of these products. But if we only look at outputs instead of the facts that safe and effective DEFINITIONS were changed, the DEFINITIONS of vaccine were changed and the AEFI is inappropriate for a product with a prounced or major pharmacologic mechanism of action, we will never be able to unscramble these issues.

I don’t have the answers, but I hope this present some of the questions for which we need truthful answers.

Let the unscrambling begin!

Oh and pray the rosary