Why frame-shifting, DNA integration, cancer etc will not be considered an adverse effect of the jabs

The FDA/EMA/HC will continue to say the jabs are "safe"

How are adverse events to vaccines determined?

We have to start first with the causality assessment of adverse events after vaccination. These are called Adverse Events Following Immunization (AEFI). These are specific to vaccines. The usual assessment using the Naranjo protocol that pharmacists are trained in, to determine the possibility of an adverse effect due to a drug is NOT USED for vaccines. Pharmacists are not, and are not accepted as adjudicators in assessing adverse events (AEs) to vaccine. They are however, the profession that most likely identifies and reports AEs to vaccine to authorities. How can this be?

First, one must understand the WHO causality assessment for AEFI. These assessments are developed by the Brighton Collaboration. Coincidentally (NOT), the causality assessment was updated in 2019. We need to dig into that more.

The WHO causality assessment after an AEFI is hard to find.

WHO causality assessment of AEFI

Definitions

The causality assessment is very misleading imho. Let us look into the definitions

AEFI General Definition

defined as any untoward medical occurrence which follows immunization and which does not necessarily have a causal relationship with the use of the vaccine. The adverse event may be any unfavourable or unintended sign, an abnormal laboratory finding, a symptom or a disease.

Sounds good, right? HOWEVER, the causality of such an AEFI must meet the following 4 cause specific criteria. Don’t you love the last one? Anxiety, palpitations, fainting maybe be even seizures are anxiety-related, and in no way cardiac? This maybe why myocarditis and pericarditis were missed in so many.

Cause-specific definitions

Vaccine product-related reaction: An AEFI that is caused or precipitated by a vaccine due to one or more of the inherent properties of the vaccine product.

Vaccine quality defect-related reaction: An AEFI that is caused or precipitated by a vaccine due to one or more quality defects of the vaccine product, including the administration device, as provided by the manufacturer.

Immunization error-related reaction: An AEFI that is caused by inappropriate vaccine handling, prescribing or administration and that thus, by its nature, is preventable.

Immunization anxiety-related reaction/Immunization stress related response (ISRR):

An AEFI arising from anxiety about the immunization.

Coincidental event: An AEFI that is caused by something other than the vaccine product, immunization error or immunization anxiety.

The Algorithm

Here is how the process works

Here are the issues (criticism of the algorithm written before the mRNA vaccines WHO causality assessment criticism by Paolo Bellavite

Note 1: The WHO algorithm of step 1 rules out the association of an AEFI with vaccination if there is another cause. This is the first and decisive criterion for exclusion and is stated on the “checklist”, alongside the question “Is there strong evidence for other causes?” Causality is determined post vaccination ONLY IF ANY OTHER CAUSE IS ELIMINATED. So precipitating factors, contributing factors (like age, diabetes etc etc) are not considered.

Note 2: Time frame. Because vaccines exert their effect within 6-8 weeks, that is the temporal time period for an AEFI. But chronic disease and autoimmunity induced by vaccines can occur many weeks, months, years post. Then there is the CONSISTENT CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP with biological plausibility. How can that be determined for a new product? It will take years. Plus the biological plausibility is restricted to immune mediated only.

Note 3: The literature. Inconsistent causal association is the norm for drugs since patients respond individually. For AEFI if must be consistent and supported by the literature. How long will that take? 10 years? And only if reported for other similar vaccines. This is in fact why myocarditis was considered causal. There was literature supporting a consistent causal association with the smallpox vaccine.

Note 4: The conceptual approach adopted by WHO is “by exclusion”, in search of an “other cause“. Taken from the article by Bellavite linked above.

For example, if a child affected by a serious heart condition, dies the day after vaccination, which led to strong fever and/or difficulty breathing, the most plausible hypothesis is that the effect was determined by the “cooperation” of two factors, both important and interacting, but none of which alone could explain the event, without the other…. according to the WHO algorithm, a cardiac decompensation in children with an underlying heart disease “would not be considered causally related to the vaccine, although vaccination contributed to cardiac failure”

How would frame-shifting, aberrant proteins, genomic integration, cancer etc be assessed using the WHO AEFI criteria?

Siguna Mueller, and independent researcher, responded to to the Nature article by Mulroney et al on frame-shifting with some very astute observations regarding AEFI Siguna Mueller comments

1. the adverse event must be clearly classifiable

   1. that is there is ONE event leading to ONE adverse event.

   2. this is not remotely true for cancer or other multifactorial diseases

   3. is there ONE frame shifted protein that causes one isolated disease? very unlikely

2. there may be other qualifying factors as the example stated above of the child with cardiac disease. Thus causality would not be established.

3. supporting literature and a population based evidence for causality. This will take years, if it can be established at all.

4. and finally

causality at the individual level requires that there is population-based evidence for causality. It is unclear how this WHO-AEFI criterion in this context could ever determine causality at the individual level. Given that it is technically impossible to infer population-based evidence, a causal association at the individual level is thereby automatically ruled out. Consequently, however, this presumed lack of causality at the individual level now supports an ongoing detrimental circular argument. Absence of presumed causality at the individual level engenders a lack of any statistically significant causal relationship -- which will then feed back to seemingly demonstrate lack of population-based evidence. The logical oddity should be obvious.

The use of the WHO AEFI for assessment of adverse events following mRNA administration should be abolished

The causality assessment is designed to minimize the identification of NEW adverse events due to vaccination and makes it almost impossible to identify multifactorial disease or vaccination exacerbating a pre-resisting condition. Since these products are not vaccines, since it does not provide a known antigen, classification and causality assessment using WHO Brighton Collaboration guidelines are totally inappropriate.

Perhaps the only possible legal option is to establish that adverse events occurred from quality-defect related reaction. Pegylated nanoparticles are known to cause CARPA and other serious anaphylaxis like adverse events for example. Can the DNA fragments be classified as a quality defect? Yes, but how does that lead to a causality assessment of adverse events? The circular assessment by this causality assessment virtually grantees that AEs are minimal and minimized.

And that is why FDA/EMA/HC can continue to say these jabs are ‘safe.’

This is why, imho, these products must NOT be defined legally as a vaccine if only to remove them from criteria to establish AEFI.