This morning, I received an email notification of an article written by “A Midwestern Doctor” on his Substack site: “The Forgotten Side Of Medicine”. The article is about the controversial subject of mRNA vaccine “shedding”. That’s purportedly where people who have been injected with the mRNA gene therapy drug, aka: “vaccine”, pass the spike proteins on to unvaccinated individuals. Honestly, I didn’t think it was even possible. But apparently it is, according to several sources who have looked into it. If you’re curious here’s a LINK to the article.
But that’s not the main reason I’m writing. While reading the good doctor’s article on shedding, I became curious about a several things related to the mRNA gene therapy drug. Including what sort of adverse reactions might be occurring post “vaccine” treatment. Using the Google Bard AI tool, I first asked this question: “Have there been any known cases of people developing cancer after being injected with the mRNA vaccine?” Bard replied, “As of today, January 20, 2024, there is no confirmed evidence that mRNA vaccines cause cancer. Extensive research and monitoring haven't shown any causal link between mRNA vaccines and cancer development.” Take note of the bold print. Because this very thorough answer included the following disclaimer: “Correlation doesn't equal causation: Some individuals may develop cancer after receiving an mRNA vaccine, just as some develop cancer without any recent vaccination. This doesn't prove the vaccine caused the cancer; it could be due to chance or other underlying factors.” Okay. I already knew all that, but it doesn’t prove otherwise either.
So, I probed further:
”Have any studies shown DNA contaminants or fragments in the mRNA vaccine solution?” To which Bard replied: “Yes, there have been some studies claiming to detect DNA fragments or contaminants in mRNA vaccine solutions, however, the situation is complex and requires careful consideration.” Bard’s response went on to qualify that answer. You might have figured out, by now, where I’m going with this line of questioning. (Bard did not) That is, if DNA contaminants or fragments have been found in the mRNA vaccine, is it possible for those contaminants, let alone the artificial spike protein, to trigger development of cancer? To my simple way of thinking, “Of course it’s possible”. The answer from Bard included many qualifications for its response, but one in particular bothered me - as it should bother any critical thinker. And that is this:
“Current scientific consensus:
Despite the reported DNA presence, mainstream scientific opinion, including major health agencies like the CDC and WHO, maintains that:
There's no evidence of harm caused by the trace amounts of DNA detected in some mRNA vaccines.
The DNA fragments lack functional elements necessary for integration into human DNA or significant immune activation.
Current manufacturing processes for mRNA vaccines prioritize high purity and minimal contamination.”
“Scientifice consensus”… Where have we heard that before, over and over again? I continued to query the machine: “Does ‘scientific consensus’ prove anything?” To which Bard responded, “‘Scientific consensus’ is a powerful concept, but it's important to understand its limitations and nuances. It doesn't definitively prove anything in an absolute sense, but it does play a crucial role in scientific knowledge”. Yeah, but…. Hmmm! Bard went on: “A strong scientific consensus signifies that the vast majority of experts in a field, after rigorous research and debate, agree on a particular explanation or understanding of a phenomenon. This convergence of evidence points towards a highly likely conclusion, although not absolute certainty.” Signifies”? “Vast”? “Rigorous"? Etc. etc. Okay, Bard, at least the tool had the wherewithal to conclude that lofty statement with “although not absolute certainty.” I’m going to conclude my paper with an encouraging comment from Bard, “Scientific knowledge evolves over time. New discoveries and evidence can challenge existing consensus, requiring reevaluation and potential revision of scientific understanding. So, while consensus today might be strong, it remains open to revision with future developments.” Thank goodness! At least Bard acknowledges the possibility that consensus can (and does) change with new knowledge. Perhaps, one day, real scientists using real science will rule the narrative and people will start using real logic and real skepticism instead of falling for “the narrative” espoused by “experts” and “officials”. Keep an open mind, folks… this sort of thinking is going to come in handy this coming year. Be well and think critically - Craig