Yeah, this was obvious even in 2021, it was actually mentioned on the ONS website. Fenton has indeed pointed to this as well. You can make the biggest poison seem healthy this way. His words (paraphrasing).
also, I still don't hear anyone talking about their metric for efficacy. the ONLY metric they used was showing that the shot elicited an immune response. an immune response?
every pathogen, toxin, poison, foreign body, or injury causes an immune response!
a sharp slap in the face will elicit an immune response too, but I wouldn't recommend it for treating a cold.
In addition, please note that the presence of antibodies is not necessarily an indication that the immune system is active against possible infection. In fact, if we have learned anything about this subject it is that the antibody level is a completely unreliable and uncorrelated indication of immune status.
Antibodies are just about as much of a myth as viruses. DeSantis, however, offered "free" "monoclonal antibodies" that harmed the same way as the convid injections did (the link is within this one):
combine this with their practice of attributing every death to c19 and the omertà against vx injury and you’ve got an entire FRAUD that conceals as many dead Americans as have died in war since the signing of the Declaration Of Independence.
approx 1,230,000 American deaths attributed to c19
approx 1,300,000 American deaths in battle since 1776; including American Civil War, Mexican American War, WW1+2, Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War, GWOT.
Pharma has and is in control of the narrative. They put it out and the media will report it. I just heard on the news that your child will be protected from myocarditis with the covid vaccine. And last week we heard that the shots will prolong the lives of people with certain cancers. I was injured after the first pfizer covid shot but I’m labelled as unvaccinated. It’s such bullshit out of the mouths of pharma, and most people don’t know this.
I don't consider it shame. People are busy with many things. Most people have only learned through this experience who it is who cannot be trusted. Reputable journals, medical clinics doctors, media, all said "Get it". Most people are also not cued in to alternative sources of medical news, nor would they have known it was necessary as I've said. Were the truth so obvious there would not have been millions of deaths. I don't blame the victims, nor do I consider myself superior/smarty-pants.
I have personally warned people and shared countless articles only to be shunned and called names. I know I am not alone in trying to alert others to the situation we are facing and getting constant pushback for being an anti something or conspiracy whatever. It's been FIVE years plus decades for others who have had children maimed and labeled ASD. We all have eyes and ears. It seems to me that many are willingly blind and deaf. Plus, if you are a parent it is your responsibility to educate yourself.
I've dealt with 2 autoimmune disorders since childhood, which I believe were my body's autoimmune reactions to "traditional" childhood vaccines (poisons)...I'm now 47 years old and have been a lifelong student of health, nutrition, and figuring out how to tame my autoimmune conditions...
So when I started researching the proposed mRNA-LNP transfection shots in 2020, I was horrified and terrified about the prospect of the shots turning one's own cells into "factories" for the production of foreign non-self proteins...a clear recipe for autoimmunity, predictable immune system attack response by the killer T-cells, and then T-cell exhaustion and immune system dysfunction...
Self vs. Non-self...This is basic fundamental Immunology 101...
EVERY SINGLE DOCTOR or medical professional should have been able to recognize the immunological dangers of these mRNA transfection shots...I am still stunned and appalled that so many apparently did/do not...
The undermining of this basic foundational principle of human immunity made the immunological catastrophe of the mRNA gene "therapy" transfection injections entirely predictable...and I am NOT a doctor nor am I in the medical field!
I pleaded with (most of) my family members to look at the info that I was sharing with them...but most of them refused to even consider what I said/wrote or what dissident doctors and scientists were saying/writing...
My speaking out about the inherent dangers of these transfection injection bioweapons has caused what is likely a permanent rift with most of my family members.
That and...most of my relatives (still) believe that it was/is ok that the "COVID unvaxxed" were threatened, dehumanized, demonized and abused by governmental "authorities", "public health" agencies, and the Big pHARMa captured "mainstream" media...A couple of my family members believe that my speaking out against their beloved "life-saving safe & effective vaccines" indicates that I have psychological issues.
Many of my family members are now struggling to deal with declining health, including new cancers, repeated infections, new/worsening autoimmune diseases, weird neurological symptoms, and more (and yet they are willfully blind to the fact that the numerous COVID mRNA transfection shots they have received have probably caused their new health issues).
Their belief in "The $cience" has proved unwavering...and some (most?) are still getting "boosters".
Russian Roulette with one's health and life.
:(
But I am so thankful and grateful that my husband and I have been in agreement about all things "COVID" and the mRNA shots since the beginning of this nightmare.
I don't know how I would have survived all of this if he and I had been on opposite sides.
We MUST find the strength and courage to fight on and we MUST get through to those with open minds who are reachable...I know that there are some who have had their eyes forced open by tragic deaths or new health issues that have hit home.
And then there are some, like most of my family members, who are apparently fully consumed by the cult of "The $cience"...They are tragically unreachable...
Blaming the parents, and even the medical profession is wrong imo. I used to think doctors were kept up to date by their professional bodies. Now I know different. Doctors are held in the dark by a (Fauci, Gates) bought system, starting with university medical faculties. Just like parents, doctors have been fed a narrative (safe and effective). Why for example, are there no CDC or PHAC studies on autism, etc., comparing the vaccinated to the unvaccinated? These should be done every year and published.
Unfortunately, the situation is worse than you have described.
No matter the "safe & effective vaccines" brainwashing and indoctrination that (most) doctors have received, EVERY SINGLE DOCTOR or medical professional should have been able to recognize the inherent danger of the mRNA gene "therapy" transfection platform.
Self vs Non-self is basic foundational Immunology 101...But the mRNA transfection shots (they are not vaccines) undermine this essential principle.
The mechanism of action (using mRNA instructions to turn one’s own cells into foreign non-self “spike protein factories”) is the primary mechanism of harm.
NO ONE should have ever had the “choice” of taking these gene “therapy” transfection injections because the modified mRNA-LNP genetic transfection technology platform is fundamentally flawed & dangerous by design.
These transfection injection bioweapons NEVER should have been injected into a single human being because they were/are always going to be an immunological catastrophe for humanity.
"While the pharmaceutical industry rushes to expand mRNA use for its speed and profit, a fundamental immunological principle is being overlooked: Any cell that produces a foreign protein is marked for destruction by the immune system.
This isn't theoretical. Clear histopathological evidence from biopsies and autopsies confirms the vaccine's genetic material does not stay at the injection site. It enters systemic circulation and spreads uncontrollably throughout the body, including to vital organs like the brain and heart.
Once there, the body's own cells are forced to produce the foreign antigen, triggering an immune attack on its own tissues."
I will say again: Self Vs. Non-self is Immunology 101 and EVERY SINGLE DOCTOR should have been able to recognize the inherent danger of the mRNA transfection platform.
We have all been fed a narrative and somehow managed to get here. How? By having the curiosity and courage to think for ourselves. Doctors are under obligation to take care of their patients and if/when new tech is deployed better lose sleep over researching it for themselves and others. They also have eyes to see patterns that occur in numerous patients who have just been injected with new (or old!) substances. That is literally all they do all day... see sick patients! Mind you I witnessed many physicians going along unquestioning and trusting everything they were told but it was/is unacceptable. It is why we are where we are. End of story. If we don't have adults in any rooms then essentially we are all being led by children. Unacceptable.
This was obvious manipulation. Additionally, the EMR systems defaulted to Unvaccinated and had no option for "Unknown" so this systematically contributed to the overcount of Unvaccinated at Hospitals as most were vaccinated in venues which had no access to update EMR systems. This was purposeful manipulation as the individuals responsible were well versed with statistical calculations and would have known the material impact these assumptions and practices would have on the conclusions. Why was it so important to get everyone to take the jab? Greed? Ignorance? Something more sinister?
One reason it was done was to ensure a worldwide vaccine trial to prove once and for all that injecting disease causing substances into a body will never be good for health.
Is there ANY scientific or logical reasoning behind discounting the first injection but repeating the same vaccine x weeks later in order to qualify as "fully vaccinated"? Was there any physical difference between first, second and booster shots? I saw the mRNA 2 dose requirement for being called "vaccinated" as an overt fraud -- but also for childhood vaccine schedule. It doesn't make any sense. Example: A baby is supposed to get TDaP - a trivalent shot - every 8 weeks at 2, 4, and 6 months of age but the fourth TDaP can be given any time after 15 months of age. If the first shot worked to protect, why repeat them? If the first didn't work, why would the second? or third? If 8 weeks is maximum time allowed between each of the first 3 shots to protect the baby, why is there a 9-12 month gap between third and fourth shots? How is the fourth somehow a charm? Or necessary at all? When is the baby considered to be finally protected against tetanus, diphtheria and pertussis? I am so disgusted with the pediatric profession.
Excuse my semi-French, but: Bastardes!!! And they will look in your face unflinchingly and say before 14 days the vaxx hasn't kicked in, therefore yer not vaccinated? Really!? Cheers from Estonia, Jessica.
My impression is that the whole "vaccine" problem has been mostly a show for over three years, because there are so many alternative methods to deliver the same materials:
I have been saying this all along, including the original clinical studies published in the JAMA and the NEJM. They not only did not count the people who tested positive during the magic six week period, they counted them in the unvaccinated column. This is how you get 90% efficacy when there is no efficacy. In a clinical study you don't get to say that you won't count certain people in the treatment group.
??? In most clinical studies 20-50% of the original recruits are not assessed in the analysis of benefit.
After I understood this I often wondered why I was not allowed to dismiss fifty per cent of my daily patient list for "not meeting my inclusion criterion."
The inherently-delayed presence of antibodies (a response to an injection) should not be the start-point when we "begin" to look for adverse effects from that injection. The day of injection should be the start-point when you begin to look for the adverse effects.
The injection is either in you, or it is not yet in you, and those are the only two relevant categories.
They are not looking for "adverse effects" nor would finding them be unexpected. The whole concept is based on variolation where people were given smallpox and the immunity was believed to result from recovering from the smallpox that had been innoculated. The ideology expects them to get sick and this is the very basis of how immunity is created. It is you who has assumed data is collected to look for "adverse effects" when in reality such effects would be deemed "immune response" and they would actually be looking for adequate levels. The basic error is in believing in vaccination because the vaxxers certainly don't. If anything they believe in variolation. Vaccination is a totally foreign concept of homeopathy that they consider ridiculous. Have a look at a video of allopathic attitudes towards homeopathy if you are in any doubt that they would not believe in vaccination:
Thank you Jessica. I think that this discussion is incomplete without also documenting how the initial injection actually suppressed people's immune systems, setting them up to get Covid. This is why Covid ripped through nursing homes when they did a mass vaccination. Do you have any receipts on this topic?
In December 2019 I was hospitalised for two weeks in Northern Westchester Hospital suffering from hypothermia, plus all the other symptoms of Covid-19 infection. An administrator kept pestering me to undergo injection with the new mRNA "vaccine" that I refused, since I saw no point in being vaccinated for a condition I was already infected with. They also tried to hoodwink me into signing a permission slip to accept all the hospital's treatment protocols. I then contacted my lawyer, so who told them to cease and desist.
The main flaws are the misapplication of vaccination status definitions, disregard for immunological timelines, and use of argumentation tactics common in misinformation spread. The article is not peer-reviewed because it is blog content, bypassing scientific review and lacking methodological transparency. The CDC definitions criticized are standard in scientific research and not insidious as claimed.
Here are examples of peer-reviewed and authoritative discussions that directly debunk the logic and misclassification claims in Jessica Rose's Substack article:
1. Standard Definitions Are Not “Misleading” But Epidemiologically Necessary
A peer-reviewed technical paper on COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness clarifies why individuals are classified as “unvaccinated” until 14 days after the final dose: immunity develops over time and cases occurring before full immune response cannot fairly be attributed to vaccine failure. The same conventions are used in reporting for many vaccines to prevent bias in efficacy calculations.pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih+1
• Example: The UK Health Security Agency technical briefings (and similar CDC reports) explicitly detail the 14-day post-vaccine window and explain that immediate misclassification would artifactually attribute infections that occur before immunity to vaccines.publishing.service
• See also: Mayo Clinic and NIH vaccine myth fact sheets, which reiterate the scientific consensus that these definitions are not “deceptive” but scientifically robust.mayoclinic+1
2. Real-World Hospitalization Data Show Vaccinated Have Better Outcomes
Peer-reviewed studies using the standard classification contrast outcomes for vaccinated and unvaccinated patients—demonstrating that vaccinated individuals have significantly reduced risk of severe disease, hospitalization, and ICU admission, regardless of the alleged misclassification:dovepress+1
• “Unvaccinated patients were older, had longer hospital stays, higher rates of severe/critical COVID, ICU admission, and death. The higher odds of reduction in intensive care need in vaccinated versus unvaccinated patients, remained significant, even after adjustment for numerous confounders”.pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih
3. On Misclassification Bias—Peer-Reviewed Discussion
A recent peer-reviewed review on misclassification bias in COVID-19 vaccine studies details that any such bias would tend to dilute, not exaggerate, the apparent vaccine effectiveness if both groups are affected equally. It also acknowledges that some misclassification can occur in large datasets, but robust evidence and consistency across studies support true vaccine protection effects:pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih
• “Misclassification bias occurs when individuals or events are incorrectly categorized… this generally biases results toward the null and dilutes observed effect size. It does not invent new protection… the effect of COVID-19 vaccines is seen robustly even in conservative analyses.”pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih
4. Debunking the Use of VAERS and Similar Tactics
Rose and similar commentators have also misused VAERS data, claims which have been repeatedly investigated and debunked by both regulatory authorities and scientific third parties.reuters+1
• Reuters and academic sources clarify that VAERS reports, without clinical confirmation or context, cannot be used to infer actual causation or rates, and that “analyses” misinterpreting such data (including Rose’s work) are widely dismissed by the mainstream scientific community.reuters
Summary
Peer-reviewed literature and technical briefings provide thorough defenses of vaccination status definitions, document real-world effectiveness regardless of “partially vaccinated” misclassification, and explain that such misclassification would—if anything—underestimate the benefit, not create a false appearance of protection.
The misuse, replotting, and emotional framing found in Rose’s Substack do not meet review standards and are directly countered by actual scientific evidence and logic from reputabletable sources.
Jessica Rose is not prosecuted for posting vaccine-related misinformation for several key legal and regulatory reasons:
• Free Expression Protections: In most democratic countries (including the US, UK, NZ, and EU jurisdictions), law protects the right to free speech—even of controversial, unsubstantiated, or factually wrong opinions. Only specific types of speech, such as direct incitement, defamation, fraud, or hate speech, are prosecutable. Publishing pseudoscience on Substack or similar platforms does not cross the criminal threshold unless it causes direct harm or violates targeted laws.policyreview
• Scientific and Medical Misinformation Is Seldom Criminal: While medical and scientific regulatory boards (e.g. medical councils) can suspend or revoke licenses for spreading dangerous misinformation, actual criminal prosecution is rare. Some US boards do threaten certification loss for doctors who mislead the public about vaccines. Civil suits can occur when misinformation causes quantifiable harm, but criminal action is extraordinary and typically reserved for fraud, deliberate endangerment, or direct incitement that results in harm.bmj+3
• No Demonstrated Direct Harm or Criminal Act: To be prosecuted, an individual must generally break criminal law—such as inciting violence, committing fraud, or causing physical harm through direct instruction or conduct. Simply posting debunked or misleading content—even if ethically wrong or professionally sanctionable—doesn’t meet the threshold for criminal punishment in nearly all Western legal systems.pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih+1
• Precedent for Scientific Misconduct: Cases of outright scientific fraud (e.g., falsifying data in clinical trials and endangering patients) may result in job loss, professional disgrace, and extremely rarely, criminal prosecution—almost always when wider financial or physical harm is involved. Most cases result in retractions and loss of professional standing rather than criminal court.retractionwatch+1
Summary:
Rose’s content is regulated by social media/discussion platforms (which may ban or demonetize users for repeated misinformation) and, if she were a licensed medical professional, possibly professional boards. But criminal law provides very high barriers to prosecution—and then jail—for online misinformation, no matter how misleading, unless it directly incites illegal actions or causes clear, actionable harm.policyreview
Not a medical professional, but an engineering professional. Similar to engineering there are ways to analyze and portray technical matters that are transparent and ways that are deceptive. And just as in engineering the ones who can be relied upon use the deceptive practices are the people who are getting rich off of the deception or using the deception to avoid blame for their misdeeds.
What I see here from Jessica Rose (backed up by my personal experience with these injections) is transparency and what I see from you and your citations is deception. In short, I believe her and not you. And your subtle legal threat only serves to further that perception.
Well, the way I read Jessica's report is that if you had a bioweapon injection - even ONE - you had that mrna garbage inside you.
Now, maybe that is not has harmful as having more bioweapon injections - which I suppose would mean more mrna garbage inside me - but one is still "vaccinated".
We're arguing semantics.
I understand the reasoning behind the medical version of "unvaccinated" and that the Immune system needs time, etc. But understanding that has little to do with the fact that, in my opinion, no immunity gets built up or "strengthened" as they like to say by being injected with mrna garbage.
As for misinformation - good God - I only have to watch or read mainstream news - or an American history book - to drown in it.
Thank goodness for my rabbit hole journey of the past 10 years. I might have been one of those gaslit, desperate, chronically ill and in pain "unvaccinated" people.
I greatfully appreciate all of the "misinformation" of the past five year.
Appreciate the replies and the robust skepticism. These issues often arise because scientific definitions and reporting standards like vaccine status cut-offs or adverse event classification can sound counterintuitive and are easily framed as manipulative if unfamiliar. In fact, these standards aren’t unique to COVID vaccines but are longstanding, peer-reviewed conventions to avoid bias and fairly compare outcomes over time. Agencies don’t set these to “deceive,” but to ensure data is consistent and comparable. VAERS likewise collects all reports, but further investigation—by design—determines true causality, a process standard in pharmacovigilance. Strong views are understandable, but the published, peer-reviewed evidence supports these practices and they are not novel or insidious.
Thank you for your openness, Char. Your experiences and commitment to truth and personal responsibility are shared by many, especially those in rural communities who value independence and natural health. It's important to highlight that debate over immunity, reporting systems, and mandates often reflects this deep-rooted desire for self-determination. While the science behind vaccine definitions and safety systems is designed to be impartial, I respect that your lived experience leads you to different conclusions about what accountability means. It’s worth remembering that professional health advice and peer-reviewed standards aim to serve everyone, even as personal stories differ. The conversation deserves respect for both evidence and honest voices—truth grows in contested ground.
Note: Appreciate the robust skepticism as it's a natural part of scientific debate. However, comments like these are also the building blocks of internet conspiracy theory communities. When emotional, anecdotal claims challenge established science and reporting standards, they often get amplified into profitable misinformation sites offering subscriptions and seeking donations, but which skip professional vetting or peer review. Welcome to the other side of the web, where facts and standards compete with narratives designed to attract support without accountability. Always worth weighing whether information is reviewed and evidence-based, or part of the growing online economy of opinion.
"In conclusion, our study shows that the case-counting window bias inflates mortality rates wrongly attributed to the unvaccinated, while simultaneously underestimating adverse reactions occurring shortly after vaccination. To ensure reliable interpretation of observational vaccine studies and informed public health decisions, it is crucial to correct this bias alongside the immortal time bias. Furthermore, all existing vaccine effectiveness studies should be reassessed for these biases. A key part of this process is having accurate and timely data on individuals’ vaccination status, which allows proper classification of cases and deaths and supports a more reliable evaluation of vaccine safety and effectiveness in real-world settings."
As far as I am concerned, the VAERS reporting system is meant to especially identify if anyone DIES soon after a vaccine. And many did, yet those deaths were not attributed to the vax, and they should have been because they lied and stated since they hadn't yet developed immunity (like anyone ever did!!) so they were considered unvaxxed. You are missing the point entirely and I think your rationale is disgusting.
The VAERS system is meant to report "adverse events" after a novel vaccine. But this misclassification (LIES) meant they were forced to list them as 'unvaxxed'. Nothing about being immune, but not given the vaccine, period, end of story. They have never proven that this vaccine gives people immunity, in fact, they publicly stated that it did not, and that all it did was mitigate damage; ie. it would reduce symptoms and help prevent severity and death. Which it didn't do either. Every vaxxed person I know, got c19, so it is ineffective for developing immunity. HOWEVER, I contracted C19 in March 2020, and I developed TRUE IMMUNITY via natural immunity through recovery. I haven't been sick since, until last month. 5 YEARS!!! Not even a cold or a sniffle or a flu. And I have never had a flu shot and I know the only time I suffered from the flu was in 1984. How do I remember for sure it was then exactly, because it was during the 1st 3 mos after I had my first child, at 19 yrs old, and I was breastfeeding. The Public Health Nurse was visiting me as a single mother once a week and I was diagnosed with the flue because liquid was coming out of me at both ends, with me caring for a newborn all alone with no siblings, babysitter, parents or family to help me.
This one simple trick worked very well to get the desired statistics, since so many adverse vaccine-reactions occured promptly after injection, certaily before 14-days-from-the-second-dose, which "defined" the fully-vaccinated.
It's just wild how they confounded this fake idea of "immunity" based on one type - and in some cases one specific type (spike-epitope-binding) - with the immune reaction in general, and completely neglected adverse events that arise due to the LNPs and other factors. A reductionist, wartime-heuristic view of immunology that has led to an existential crisis.
I am sorry to know that it is mostly that simple in the short term.
However,in the longer term, some of us who persist in the mud under the boot, and keep speaking truth, as we honestly see it, may influence our neighbors, as they become aware of discrepancies in the official control narratives.
Thank You, Warrior Sister.
We are that 5-6% subset of humans who immediately call "Bullshit" on which line is shorter or longer in the Asch Conformity Experiment, and do so without any reservation.
JessiJessi that‘s so important to show how this scam was installed. Here in Germany are still quite a lot of people still believe, that it was more dangerous to be unvaccinated than vaccinated. Just this morning I had a hot discussion with those people. They want their children to be vaccinated. Medical docs will get less money fore their work(Vorhaltepauschale) if they don‘t reach a 25% vaccination rate concerning their patients. Together with the actual campaign to get a flu vaccine and every body should consider to get a Covid shot to people were lied to again.
In parallel some scientist „deliver“ the congruent analysis that unvaccinated get more often myocarditis and pericarditis.
With your piece of truth I at least have a point to argue.
So thank you again! Maybe I will send another photo as a gift for that.
Yeah, this was obvious even in 2021, it was actually mentioned on the ONS website. Fenton has indeed pointed to this as well. You can make the biggest poison seem healthy this way. His words (paraphrasing).
also, I still don't hear anyone talking about their metric for efficacy. the ONLY metric they used was showing that the shot elicited an immune response. an immune response?
every pathogen, toxin, poison, foreign body, or injury causes an immune response!
a sharp slap in the face will elicit an immune response too, but I wouldn't recommend it for treating a cold.
'immune response' anagrams to
- impureness omen
Now there's a warning if ever there was!
In addition, please note that the presence of antibodies is not necessarily an indication that the immune system is active against possible infection. In fact, if we have learned anything about this subject it is that the antibody level is a completely unreliable and uncorrelated indication of immune status.
Antibodies are just about as much of a myth as viruses. DeSantis, however, offered "free" "monoclonal antibodies" that harmed the same way as the convid injections did (the link is within this one):
https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/how-far-is-desantis-a-hero
combine this with their practice of attributing every death to c19 and the omertà against vx injury and you’ve got an entire FRAUD that conceals as many dead Americans as have died in war since the signing of the Declaration Of Independence.
approx 1,230,000 American deaths attributed to c19
approx 1,300,000 American deaths in battle since 1776; including American Civil War, Mexican American War, WW1+2, Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War, GWOT.
Q. What did I learn during the " pandemic " ?
A. How easily fooled people can be, and to what lengths those people will go in order to gaslight those with opposing pov.
.....and here we are today: one house, completely divided.
Pharma has and is in control of the narrative. They put it out and the media will report it. I just heard on the news that your child will be protected from myocarditis with the covid vaccine. And last week we heard that the shots will prolong the lives of people with certain cancers. I was injured after the first pfizer covid shot but I’m labelled as unvaccinated. It’s such bullshit out of the mouths of pharma, and most people don’t know this.
The information is available. If they don't know it by now shame on them for not using their brains.
I don't consider it shame. People are busy with many things. Most people have only learned through this experience who it is who cannot be trusted. Reputable journals, medical clinics doctors, media, all said "Get it". Most people are also not cued in to alternative sources of medical news, nor would they have known it was necessary as I've said. Were the truth so obvious there would not have been millions of deaths. I don't blame the victims, nor do I consider myself superior/smarty-pants.
I have personally warned people and shared countless articles only to be shunned and called names. I know I am not alone in trying to alert others to the situation we are facing and getting constant pushback for being an anti something or conspiracy whatever. It's been FIVE years plus decades for others who have had children maimed and labeled ASD. We all have eyes and ears. It seems to me that many are willingly blind and deaf. Plus, if you are a parent it is your responsibility to educate yourself.
100% to EVERYTHING you wrote, Kat Bro!
I've dealt with 2 autoimmune disorders since childhood, which I believe were my body's autoimmune reactions to "traditional" childhood vaccines (poisons)...I'm now 47 years old and have been a lifelong student of health, nutrition, and figuring out how to tame my autoimmune conditions...
So when I started researching the proposed mRNA-LNP transfection shots in 2020, I was horrified and terrified about the prospect of the shots turning one's own cells into "factories" for the production of foreign non-self proteins...a clear recipe for autoimmunity, predictable immune system attack response by the killer T-cells, and then T-cell exhaustion and immune system dysfunction...
Self vs. Non-self...This is basic fundamental Immunology 101...
EVERY SINGLE DOCTOR or medical professional should have been able to recognize the immunological dangers of these mRNA transfection shots...I am still stunned and appalled that so many apparently did/do not...
The undermining of this basic foundational principle of human immunity made the immunological catastrophe of the mRNA gene "therapy" transfection injections entirely predictable...and I am NOT a doctor nor am I in the medical field!
I pleaded with (most of) my family members to look at the info that I was sharing with them...but most of them refused to even consider what I said/wrote or what dissident doctors and scientists were saying/writing...
My speaking out about the inherent dangers of these transfection injection bioweapons has caused what is likely a permanent rift with most of my family members.
That and...most of my relatives (still) believe that it was/is ok that the "COVID unvaxxed" were threatened, dehumanized, demonized and abused by governmental "authorities", "public health" agencies, and the Big pHARMa captured "mainstream" media...A couple of my family members believe that my speaking out against their beloved "life-saving safe & effective vaccines" indicates that I have psychological issues.
Many of my family members are now struggling to deal with declining health, including new cancers, repeated infections, new/worsening autoimmune diseases, weird neurological symptoms, and more (and yet they are willfully blind to the fact that the numerous COVID mRNA transfection shots they have received have probably caused their new health issues).
Their belief in "The $cience" has proved unwavering...and some (most?) are still getting "boosters".
Russian Roulette with one's health and life.
:(
But I am so thankful and grateful that my husband and I have been in agreement about all things "COVID" and the mRNA shots since the beginning of this nightmare.
I don't know how I would have survived all of this if he and I had been on opposite sides.
We MUST find the strength and courage to fight on and we MUST get through to those with open minds who are reachable...I know that there are some who have had their eyes forced open by tragic deaths or new health issues that have hit home.
And then there are some, like most of my family members, who are apparently fully consumed by the cult of "The $cience"...They are tragically unreachable...
...".I am still stunned and appalled that so many apparently did/do not..."
Rockefecker Medicine started their deception campaign in 1910,
to profit from John D's newly discovered oil-derived medicines.
Any competing products, procedures, or beliefs
had to be squelched. By 2020, they were 𝗥𝗲𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗚𝗼𝗼𝗱 at it!
Yes! But even knowing that history, I am still stunned and appalled.
Self vs. Non-self is so foundational...
Blaming the parents, and even the medical profession is wrong imo. I used to think doctors were kept up to date by their professional bodies. Now I know different. Doctors are held in the dark by a (Fauci, Gates) bought system, starting with university medical faculties. Just like parents, doctors have been fed a narrative (safe and effective). Why for example, are there no CDC or PHAC studies on autism, etc., comparing the vaccinated to the unvaccinated? These should be done every year and published.
Unfortunately, the situation is worse than you have described.
No matter the "safe & effective vaccines" brainwashing and indoctrination that (most) doctors have received, EVERY SINGLE DOCTOR or medical professional should have been able to recognize the inherent danger of the mRNA gene "therapy" transfection platform.
Self vs Non-self is basic foundational Immunology 101...But the mRNA transfection shots (they are not vaccines) undermine this essential principle.
The mechanism of action (using mRNA instructions to turn one’s own cells into foreign non-self “spike protein factories”) is the primary mechanism of harm.
NO ONE should have ever had the “choice” of taking these gene “therapy” transfection injections because the modified mRNA-LNP genetic transfection technology platform is fundamentally flawed & dangerous by design.
These transfection injection bioweapons NEVER should have been injected into a single human being because they were/are always going to be an immunological catastrophe for humanity.
https://robertchandler.substack.com/p/vaccinated-dead-kruger-lang-morz
https://entwine.substack.com/p/the-platform-is-deadly
https://x.com/newstart_2024/status/1981375686251069797
"While the pharmaceutical industry rushes to expand mRNA use for its speed and profit, a fundamental immunological principle is being overlooked: Any cell that produces a foreign protein is marked for destruction by the immune system.
This isn't theoretical. Clear histopathological evidence from biopsies and autopsies confirms the vaccine's genetic material does not stay at the injection site. It enters systemic circulation and spreads uncontrollably throughout the body, including to vital organs like the brain and heart.
Once there, the body's own cells are forced to produce the foreign antigen, triggering an immune attack on its own tissues."
I will say again: Self Vs. Non-self is Immunology 101 and EVERY SINGLE DOCTOR should have been able to recognize the inherent danger of the mRNA transfection platform.
We have all been fed a narrative and somehow managed to get here. How? By having the curiosity and courage to think for ourselves. Doctors are under obligation to take care of their patients and if/when new tech is deployed better lose sleep over researching it for themselves and others. They also have eyes to see patterns that occur in numerous patients who have just been injected with new (or old!) substances. That is literally all they do all day... see sick patients! Mind you I witnessed many physicians going along unquestioning and trusting everything they were told but it was/is unacceptable. It is why we are where we are. End of story. If we don't have adults in any rooms then essentially we are all being led by children. Unacceptable.
Yes! 100%
This was obvious manipulation. Additionally, the EMR systems defaulted to Unvaccinated and had no option for "Unknown" so this systematically contributed to the overcount of Unvaccinated at Hospitals as most were vaccinated in venues which had no access to update EMR systems. This was purposeful manipulation as the individuals responsible were well versed with statistical calculations and would have known the material impact these assumptions and practices would have on the conclusions. Why was it so important to get everyone to take the jab? Greed? Ignorance? Something more sinister?
Kill people off early?
Precisely. Especially the elderly, infirm and people like Grace Schara...
They destroyed what remained of the "medical professionals" in this country who didn't consent or comply.
Doctors & nurses and folks like me who worked (even menial) jobs in that "system".
Many who did comply have probably deeply regretted their decision. By now. Unless they're completely oblivious to the carnage since the roll out.
Many "died suddenly & unexpectedly" while on a hike or having a beer on a patio chair.
We know what happened.
Just try to convince the coerced or compliant though...
I'm so damned tired of preaching to the online choir too.
"Many "died suddenly & unexpectedly" while on a hike or having a beer on a patio chair."
Known as SADS for ages >3, SIDS for ages <3.
One reason it was done was to ensure a worldwide vaccine trial to prove once and for all that injecting disease causing substances into a body will never be good for health.
Is there ANY scientific or logical reasoning behind discounting the first injection but repeating the same vaccine x weeks later in order to qualify as "fully vaccinated"? Was there any physical difference between first, second and booster shots? I saw the mRNA 2 dose requirement for being called "vaccinated" as an overt fraud -- but also for childhood vaccine schedule. It doesn't make any sense. Example: A baby is supposed to get TDaP - a trivalent shot - every 8 weeks at 2, 4, and 6 months of age but the fourth TDaP can be given any time after 15 months of age. If the first shot worked to protect, why repeat them? If the first didn't work, why would the second? or third? If 8 weeks is maximum time allowed between each of the first 3 shots to protect the baby, why is there a 9-12 month gap between third and fourth shots? How is the fourth somehow a charm? Or necessary at all? When is the baby considered to be finally protected against tetanus, diphtheria and pertussis? I am so disgusted with the pediatric profession.
Because they want to instill allergies and autoimmunities.
Excuse my semi-French, but: Bastardes!!! And they will look in your face unflinchingly and say before 14 days the vaxx hasn't kicked in, therefore yer not vaccinated? Really!? Cheers from Estonia, Jessica.
My impression is that the whole "vaccine" problem has been mostly a show for over three years, because there are so many alternative methods to deliver the same materials:
https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/no-need-for-any-more-vaccinations
I have been saying this all along, including the original clinical studies published in the JAMA and the NEJM. They not only did not count the people who tested positive during the magic six week period, they counted them in the unvaccinated column. This is how you get 90% efficacy when there is no efficacy. In a clinical study you don't get to say that you won't count certain people in the treatment group.
??? In most clinical studies 20-50% of the original recruits are not assessed in the analysis of benefit.
After I understood this I often wondered why I was not allowed to dismiss fifty per cent of my daily patient list for "not meeting my inclusion criterion."
Great point, Jessica.
The inherently-delayed presence of antibodies (a response to an injection) should not be the start-point when we "begin" to look for adverse effects from that injection. The day of injection should be the start-point when you begin to look for the adverse effects.
The injection is either in you, or it is not yet in you, and those are the only two relevant categories.
They are not looking for "adverse effects" nor would finding them be unexpected. The whole concept is based on variolation where people were given smallpox and the immunity was believed to result from recovering from the smallpox that had been innoculated. The ideology expects them to get sick and this is the very basis of how immunity is created. It is you who has assumed data is collected to look for "adverse effects" when in reality such effects would be deemed "immune response" and they would actually be looking for adequate levels. The basic error is in believing in vaccination because the vaxxers certainly don't. If anything they believe in variolation. Vaccination is a totally foreign concept of homeopathy that they consider ridiculous. Have a look at a video of allopathic attitudes towards homeopathy if you are in any doubt that they would not believe in vaccination:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lq29f14X1t0
Thank you Jessica. I think that this discussion is incomplete without also documenting how the initial injection actually suppressed people's immune systems, setting them up to get Covid. This is why Covid ripped through nursing homes when they did a mass vaccination. Do you have any receipts on this topic?
🎯
No such thing as COVID. They rebranded the 'flu. Initial injections just poison people as all vaccines do if anything.
In December 2019 I was hospitalised for two weeks in Northern Westchester Hospital suffering from hypothermia, plus all the other symptoms of Covid-19 infection. An administrator kept pestering me to undergo injection with the new mRNA "vaccine" that I refused, since I saw no point in being vaccinated for a condition I was already infected with. They also tried to hoodwink me into signing a permission slip to accept all the hospital's treatment protocols. I then contacted my lawyer, so who told them to cease and desist.
You were smart & fortunately had the means to seek legal redress.
What mRna injection were they offering in 2019???
The rollout began in mid December of 2020.
Probably a typo.
Actually, it was probably 2020 rather than 2019.
But I did figure out some time later that I had my first Covid infection in late Nov., 2019. I was off work for the weekend.
Conclusion:
The main flaws are the misapplication of vaccination status definitions, disregard for immunological timelines, and use of argumentation tactics common in misinformation spread. The article is not peer-reviewed because it is blog content, bypassing scientific review and lacking methodological transparency. The CDC definitions criticized are standard in scientific research and not insidious as claimed.
Here are examples of peer-reviewed and authoritative discussions that directly debunk the logic and misclassification claims in Jessica Rose's Substack article:
1. Standard Definitions Are Not “Misleading” But Epidemiologically Necessary
A peer-reviewed technical paper on COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness clarifies why individuals are classified as “unvaccinated” until 14 days after the final dose: immunity develops over time and cases occurring before full immune response cannot fairly be attributed to vaccine failure. The same conventions are used in reporting for many vaccines to prevent bias in efficacy calculations.pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih+1
• Example: The UK Health Security Agency technical briefings (and similar CDC reports) explicitly detail the 14-day post-vaccine window and explain that immediate misclassification would artifactually attribute infections that occur before immunity to vaccines.publishing.service
• See also: Mayo Clinic and NIH vaccine myth fact sheets, which reiterate the scientific consensus that these definitions are not “deceptive” but scientifically robust.mayoclinic+1
2. Real-World Hospitalization Data Show Vaccinated Have Better Outcomes
Peer-reviewed studies using the standard classification contrast outcomes for vaccinated and unvaccinated patients—demonstrating that vaccinated individuals have significantly reduced risk of severe disease, hospitalization, and ICU admission, regardless of the alleged misclassification:dovepress+1
• “Unvaccinated patients were older, had longer hospital stays, higher rates of severe/critical COVID, ICU admission, and death. The higher odds of reduction in intensive care need in vaccinated versus unvaccinated patients, remained significant, even after adjustment for numerous confounders”.pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih
3. On Misclassification Bias—Peer-Reviewed Discussion
A recent peer-reviewed review on misclassification bias in COVID-19 vaccine studies details that any such bias would tend to dilute, not exaggerate, the apparent vaccine effectiveness if both groups are affected equally. It also acknowledges that some misclassification can occur in large datasets, but robust evidence and consistency across studies support true vaccine protection effects:pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih
• “Misclassification bias occurs when individuals or events are incorrectly categorized… this generally biases results toward the null and dilutes observed effect size. It does not invent new protection… the effect of COVID-19 vaccines is seen robustly even in conservative analyses.”pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih
4. Debunking the Use of VAERS and Similar Tactics
Rose and similar commentators have also misused VAERS data, claims which have been repeatedly investigated and debunked by both regulatory authorities and scientific third parties.reuters+1
• Reuters and academic sources clarify that VAERS reports, without clinical confirmation or context, cannot be used to infer actual causation or rates, and that “analyses” misinterpreting such data (including Rose’s work) are widely dismissed by the mainstream scientific community.reuters
Summary
Peer-reviewed literature and technical briefings provide thorough defenses of vaccination status definitions, document real-world effectiveness regardless of “partially vaccinated” misclassification, and explain that such misclassification would—if anything—underestimate the benefit, not create a false appearance of protection.
The misuse, replotting, and emotional framing found in Rose’s Substack do not meet review standards and are directly countered by actual scientific evidence and logic from reputabletable sources.
Jessica Rose is not prosecuted for posting vaccine-related misinformation for several key legal and regulatory reasons:
• Free Expression Protections: In most democratic countries (including the US, UK, NZ, and EU jurisdictions), law protects the right to free speech—even of controversial, unsubstantiated, or factually wrong opinions. Only specific types of speech, such as direct incitement, defamation, fraud, or hate speech, are prosecutable. Publishing pseudoscience on Substack or similar platforms does not cross the criminal threshold unless it causes direct harm or violates targeted laws.policyreview
• Scientific and Medical Misinformation Is Seldom Criminal: While medical and scientific regulatory boards (e.g. medical councils) can suspend or revoke licenses for spreading dangerous misinformation, actual criminal prosecution is rare. Some US boards do threaten certification loss for doctors who mislead the public about vaccines. Civil suits can occur when misinformation causes quantifiable harm, but criminal action is extraordinary and typically reserved for fraud, deliberate endangerment, or direct incitement that results in harm.bmj+3
• No Demonstrated Direct Harm or Criminal Act: To be prosecuted, an individual must generally break criminal law—such as inciting violence, committing fraud, or causing physical harm through direct instruction or conduct. Simply posting debunked or misleading content—even if ethically wrong or professionally sanctionable—doesn’t meet the threshold for criminal punishment in nearly all Western legal systems.pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih+1
• Precedent for Scientific Misconduct: Cases of outright scientific fraud (e.g., falsifying data in clinical trials and endangering patients) may result in job loss, professional disgrace, and extremely rarely, criminal prosecution—almost always when wider financial or physical harm is involved. Most cases result in retractions and loss of professional standing rather than criminal court.retractionwatch+1
Summary:
Rose’s content is regulated by social media/discussion platforms (which may ban or demonetize users for repeated misinformation) and, if she were a licensed medical professional, possibly professional boards. But criminal law provides very high barriers to prosecution—and then jail—for online misinformation, no matter how misleading, unless it directly incites illegal actions or causes clear, actionable harm.policyreview
Not a medical professional, but an engineering professional. Similar to engineering there are ways to analyze and portray technical matters that are transparent and ways that are deceptive. And just as in engineering the ones who can be relied upon use the deceptive practices are the people who are getting rich off of the deception or using the deception to avoid blame for their misdeeds.
What I see here from Jessica Rose (backed up by my personal experience with these injections) is transparency and what I see from you and your citations is deception. In short, I believe her and not you. And your subtle legal threat only serves to further that perception.
Well, the way I read Jessica's report is that if you had a bioweapon injection - even ONE - you had that mrna garbage inside you.
Now, maybe that is not has harmful as having more bioweapon injections - which I suppose would mean more mrna garbage inside me - but one is still "vaccinated".
We're arguing semantics.
I understand the reasoning behind the medical version of "unvaccinated" and that the Immune system needs time, etc. But understanding that has little to do with the fact that, in my opinion, no immunity gets built up or "strengthened" as they like to say by being injected with mrna garbage.
As for misinformation - good God - I only have to watch or read mainstream news - or an American history book - to drown in it.
Thank goodness for my rabbit hole journey of the past 10 years. I might have been one of those gaslit, desperate, chronically ill and in pain "unvaccinated" people.
I greatfully appreciate all of the "misinformation" of the past five year.
Rob, thanks for the heavy dose of AI slop.
As per usual, people who are trying to deceive (lie) to other people use long winded BS.
Appreciate the replies and the robust skepticism. These issues often arise because scientific definitions and reporting standards like vaccine status cut-offs or adverse event classification can sound counterintuitive and are easily framed as manipulative if unfamiliar. In fact, these standards aren’t unique to COVID vaccines but are longstanding, peer-reviewed conventions to avoid bias and fairly compare outcomes over time. Agencies don’t set these to “deceive,” but to ensure data is consistent and comparable. VAERS likewise collects all reports, but further investigation—by design—determines true causality, a process standard in pharmacovigilance. Strong views are understandable, but the published, peer-reviewed evidence supports these practices and they are not novel or insidious.
Thank you for your openness, Char. Your experiences and commitment to truth and personal responsibility are shared by many, especially those in rural communities who value independence and natural health. It's important to highlight that debate over immunity, reporting systems, and mandates often reflects this deep-rooted desire for self-determination. While the science behind vaccine definitions and safety systems is designed to be impartial, I respect that your lived experience leads you to different conclusions about what accountability means. It’s worth remembering that professional health advice and peer-reviewed standards aim to serve everyone, even as personal stories differ. The conversation deserves respect for both evidence and honest voices—truth grows in contested ground.
Note: Appreciate the robust skepticism as it's a natural part of scientific debate. However, comments like these are also the building blocks of internet conspiracy theory communities. When emotional, anecdotal claims challenge established science and reporting standards, they often get amplified into profitable misinformation sites offering subscriptions and seeking donations, but which skip professional vetting or peer review. Welcome to the other side of the web, where facts and standards compete with narratives designed to attract support without accountability. Always worth weighing whether information is reviewed and evidence-based, or part of the growing online economy of opinion.
https://panagispolykretis.substack.com/p/this-paper-will-shock-the-world-unveiling
"In conclusion, our study shows that the case-counting window bias inflates mortality rates wrongly attributed to the unvaccinated, while simultaneously underestimating adverse reactions occurring shortly after vaccination. To ensure reliable interpretation of observational vaccine studies and informed public health decisions, it is crucial to correct this bias alongside the immortal time bias. Furthermore, all existing vaccine effectiveness studies should be reassessed for these biases. A key part of this process is having accurate and timely data on individuals’ vaccination status, which allows proper classification of cases and deaths and supports a more reliable evaluation of vaccine safety and effectiveness in real-world settings."
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08916934.2025.2562972
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jep.13839
https://popularrationalism.substack.com/p/how-the-definition-of-fully-vaccinated
As far as I am concerned, the VAERS reporting system is meant to especially identify if anyone DIES soon after a vaccine. And many did, yet those deaths were not attributed to the vax, and they should have been because they lied and stated since they hadn't yet developed immunity (like anyone ever did!!) so they were considered unvaxxed. You are missing the point entirely and I think your rationale is disgusting.
The VAERS system is meant to report "adverse events" after a novel vaccine. But this misclassification (LIES) meant they were forced to list them as 'unvaxxed'. Nothing about being immune, but not given the vaccine, period, end of story. They have never proven that this vaccine gives people immunity, in fact, they publicly stated that it did not, and that all it did was mitigate damage; ie. it would reduce symptoms and help prevent severity and death. Which it didn't do either. Every vaxxed person I know, got c19, so it is ineffective for developing immunity. HOWEVER, I contracted C19 in March 2020, and I developed TRUE IMMUNITY via natural immunity through recovery. I haven't been sick since, until last month. 5 YEARS!!! Not even a cold or a sniffle or a flu. And I have never had a flu shot and I know the only time I suffered from the flu was in 1984. How do I remember for sure it was then exactly, because it was during the 1st 3 mos after I had my first child, at 19 yrs old, and I was breastfeeding. The Public Health Nurse was visiting me as a single mother once a week and I was diagnosed with the flue because liquid was coming out of me at both ends, with me caring for a newborn all alone with no siblings, babysitter, parents or family to help me.
This one simple trick worked very well to get the desired statistics, since so many adverse vaccine-reactions occured promptly after injection, certaily before 14-days-from-the-second-dose, which "defined" the fully-vaccinated.
;-(
It's just wild how they confounded this fake idea of "immunity" based on one type - and in some cases one specific type (spike-epitope-binding) - with the immune reaction in general, and completely neglected adverse events that arise due to the LNPs and other factors. A reductionist, wartime-heuristic view of immunology that has led to an existential crisis.
I am sorry to know that it is mostly that simple in the short term.
However,in the longer term, some of us who persist in the mud under the boot, and keep speaking truth, as we honestly see it, may influence our neighbors, as they become aware of discrepancies in the official control narratives.
Thank You, Warrior Sister.
We are that 5-6% subset of humans who immediately call "Bullshit" on which line is shorter or longer in the Asch Conformity Experiment, and do so without any reservation.
JessiJessi that‘s so important to show how this scam was installed. Here in Germany are still quite a lot of people still believe, that it was more dangerous to be unvaccinated than vaccinated. Just this morning I had a hot discussion with those people. They want their children to be vaccinated. Medical docs will get less money fore their work(Vorhaltepauschale) if they don‘t reach a 25% vaccination rate concerning their patients. Together with the actual campaign to get a flu vaccine and every body should consider to get a Covid shot to people were lied to again.
In parallel some scientist „deliver“ the congruent analysis that unvaccinated get more often myocarditis and pericarditis.
With your piece of truth I at least have a point to argue.
So thank you again! Maybe I will send another photo as a gift for that.
Canada was just as bad if not worse, during the pandemonium.
I'm still up against the system's hold, via the media & the physicians that my near and dear Ostrich People rely on for their "care".
There is NO GETTING THROUGH.