In a Nutshell: The Limits of Vaccine Culture By Brian Simpson

A Midwestern Doctor, at his popular, well-researched blog, gives a concise, non-technical account of why vaccines do not live up to the hype that the medical profession associates with them. Vaccines are often ill-suited to treat the diseases tht they are supposed to. This has now been well-established with the Covid vaxxes, where despite health authorities still proclaiming the mantra of “safe and effective,” data sets show that vaccination campaigns were correlated with an increase in death, and this mortality was also shown to be directly associated with being vaccinated.

Yet, this is not surprising given the widespread vaccine mythology that has come to dominate Big Pharma-controlled Western medicine. The basic philosophy of allopathic/biomedicine, is that disease can be best treated using surgery, drugs, and other aspects of technology. Central to this program is vaccines, which have come to be seen, by the relentless promotion by Big Pharma as magic bullets, generating an easy cure. Yet, the entire picture is incorrect, as studies have shown that diseases such as Smallpox, as the Midwestern doctor has discussed at length, were conquered by improvements in sanitation and nutrition. For Covid, not even much else would have been required beyond protecting vulnerable populations, who would be vulnerable to any flu. But, the opportunity for Big Pharma to produce Big Profits was irresistible. And governments went along for the ride, being under the thumb of Big Pharma and its power.

https://amidwesterndoctor.substack.com/p/why-do-vaccines-continually-fail

“Vaccine Mythologies

Our society regards vaccination as the salvation which brought us out of the dark ages of rampant infectious disease. Because of this (inaccurate) mythology, most physicians view vaccines as completely safe and effective. As a result, physicians are typically resistant to considering anything that casts doubt on the merits of vaccination (since doing so would directly challenge their identity as medical doctors), and they have a variety of cognitive blind spots on the issue.

For example, because vaccines are assumed to be safe and effective, doctors will often not even consider a “vaccine-preventable illness” in vaccinated individuals with signs of the illness. This is why outbreaks of diseases like pertussis (few doctors know the vaccine does not prevent pertussis infection or transmission) initially are not recognized in vaccinated populations.

The two fundamental misunderstandings that were pervasive throughout the medical field at the time of the COVID-19 vaccination campaign were as follows:

1. Vaccination does not guarantee herd immunity. Instead, vaccines typically fail to prevent disease transmission and trigger the evolution of variants that are resistant to the vaccine. As this is a complex subject, it is explained in a longer articlewhere I reviewed how this has occurred with many other vaccinations and the typical patterns of how vaccines fail. In the case of the COVID-19 vaccines, the manufacturers did not even bother to test if the vaccines would prevent transmission and this was well known in 2020 before the vaccines had even hit the market.

Yet the current phase III trials are not actually set up to prove either (table 1). None of the trials currently under way are designed to detect a reduction in any serious outcome such as hospital admissions, use of intensive care, or deaths. Nor are the vaccines being studied to determine whether they can interrupt transmission of the virus.

2. Every vaccine causes harm—and often in very similar ways. In most cases, the odds a vaccine will cause an injury are significantly greater than the odds a vaccine will prevent an injury of equivalent severity from the disease the vaccine “protects” you against. This is also a complex subject, so it was covered in a previous articleon the relative risks and benefits of each vaccine which was written since many parents asked me which vaccines they needed to opt out of giving to their children (some vaccines are much more dangerous than others).

Because of these, we typically see a similar pattern with vaccination.

• Initially, the vaccine is portrayed as being dramatically safer and more effective than it is. This is used to convince the public to support a voluntary and limited mass vaccination campaign.

Note: In recent decades, pervasive corruption has entered the academic publishing industry, and as a result, a fairly consistent playbook has been developed for concealing the adverse effects observed in clinical trials and making an ineffective drug appear effective. This fraud is relatively easy to recognize (e.g., it’s covered in this book and this book), but unfortunately, the medical journals are financially dependent on the pharmaceutical companies and thus never expose it. For example, when I read the NEJM paper on the COVID-19 vaccine, I had a very good idea of the research fraud that likely occurred due to my familiarity with the horrendous HPV vaccine trials. Because of this, much of the research fraud and gaslighting of injured clinical trial participants I predicted would happen was later confirmed by whistleblowers and participants within the trials.

• Once a certain threshold of people receives the vaccine, the fact that so many people have been vaccinated is used to create the political justification to create some mandate for the vaccine.
• The vaccine fails to achieve what it was promised to do and injures numerous vaccinated people, creating widespread resistance in the population.

Note: aggressive marketing of a vaccine over a short period suggests there will be significant issues with the vaccine that thus requires hitting the necessary threshold for mandates before widespread resistance emerges against the vaccine.

• This vaccine failure is interpreted as a sign that not enough people were vaccinated, rather than the vaccine being unable to prevent disease outbreaks (and in some cases worsening them).
• Typically, in nature, if something fails to work or causes an undesirable state to be reached, a corrective measure will stop it from continuing to occur (this is known as negative feedback). The failure of vaccines, coupled with the unbreakable faith in them instead, results in a positive feedback loop where their failures increase the zeal to vaccinate.
• In a few cases (specifically with the most dangerous vaccines), this has led to widespread protests against their use (e.g., there was a widespread protest in the military against the anthrax mandates). The earliest example was the mass protests against the failed smallpox vaccinesover a century ago which eventually ended the mandates and not long after smallpox as well.

Everything we’ve witnessed with the public protest against the COVID-19 vaccines is a deja vú of the smallpox debacle, which serves to illustrate how deeply these patterns are ingrained within our collective psyche.

Note: Recently, The Times published an investigation which at last acknowledged SARS-CoV-2 came from a lab (something exceedingly evident from the very start of the pandemic that we were nonetheless gaslighted and censored over throughout the pandemic). One quote in that article caught my eye:

The investigators believe the Chinese military had taken an interest in developing a vaccine for the viruses so they could be used as potential bioweapons. If a country could inoculate its population against its own secret virus, it might have a weapon to shift the balance of world power.

For context, China's attempts to vaccinate against SARS-CoV-2 were a failure, and to address outbreaks, China had to institute a variety of draconian policies which met widespread resistance from the populace (who actually managed to force China's authoritarian government to back down). This quote is hence noteworthy because it either illustrates China's inability to recognize their faith in vaccination was preventing them from recognizing that strategy could only backfire on them or that the investigator's own blind faith in vaccination led them to assume China's military must have shared that faith as well.

The Flawed COVID-19 Vaccine Design

When the COVID-19 vaccines hit the market, there were a few major issues with them many were not aware of.

First, there were serious questions about if it was realistic to develop a COVID-19 vaccine:

• It’s challenging to make vaccines against coronaviruses (e.g., they rapidly mutate).
• Despite SARS first emerging over twenty years ago and a great deal of research being dedicated to making a vaccine against this more dangerous coronavirus, there had been no successes, and SARS vaccines tested in animals, through antibody-dependent enhancement, worsened rather than improved a SARS infection in vaccinated animals.
• Vaccines that are (at least somewhat) successful take years to develop. Developing one, testing it on humans, and mass producing it in under a year bordered on impossible. Because this was impossible, every possible corner had to be cut to make that timeline. Because of this, much of the necessary research was skipped (but given a pass by the regulators), and there were unprecedented quality control issueswith the vaccines that were eventually produced.
• Vaccinating once most of the population had already been exposed to COVID-19 meant that it was unlikely the vaccine could do anything meaningful to prevent the spread of COVID-19, and if anything, would worsen the course of the pandemic by creating harmful variants (e.g., Geert Vanden Bosheerepeatedly tried to warn the public about this).

Many of these issues were known within the mainstream vaccinologist community, so even the most extreme vaccine zealots like Peter Hotez (who testified to a Congressional committee) warned there were severe issues with attempting to make this vaccine.

In short, making a safe and effective vaccine in a year bordered on impossible.

Second, there were serious issues with the vaccine design:

• The safety of the lipid nanoparticles was not established before vaccination, and specific concerning characteristics of them (such as their use of polyethylene glycol, a known allergen that many in the population had already been sensitized to) were ignored.
• The mRNA vaccines functioned by mass-producing the spike protein throughout the body. It was never established where the vaccine would end up or how long it would last in the body (Pfizer and Moderna were allowed to skip testing this before their approval). 

Many of the problems we have since encountered with the vaccines are due to the persistence and spread of the mRNA and spike protein throughout the body. You may remember that they were initially promised to only get into the cells of your muscles (excluding where the DNA was) and then rapidly disappear. Since lipid nanoparticles were already known to spread throughout the body and the vaccine mRNA was modified to resist being broken down by the body, it should have been assumed this would happen if there were no data to refute the possibility.

• The spike protein was one of the most rapidly mutating parts of the coronavirus. Historically, vaccines made only against one antigen (“monovalent vaccines”) tend to fail, even in cases where the antigen mutates more slowly, as they create a selective pressure for the pathogen to no longer carry the vaccine’s antigen.
• The vaccines directly injected into the body created an immune response to the spike protein in the blood. They did not, however, create an immune response to it in the lining of the respiratory tract (e.g., the nasal mucosa). Because of this, while the vaccine had the potential to reduce symptoms, it was unlikely the vaccine could ever prevent transmission, and this same issue has been observed in numerous other vaccines. However, even though this principle was well-known to vaccinologists and Pfizer’s own paper never claimed their vaccine prevented transmission, it was assumed to and used as a justification to turn the population against each other and institute mandates.
• The spike protein was highly immunogenic. Furthermore, it had many unusual matches with human tissue, something known to create autoimmunity and which many academics warned againstbefore the spike protein vaccines hit the market. Worse still, the spike proteins were expressed on the surface of the cells that the synthetic mRNA had transfected, which would likely trigger the immune system to attack those cells. Not surprisingly, the mRNA vaccines ended up having an extraordinarily high rate of triggering autoimmune diseases, and as far as I know, no other pharmaceutical has done anything comparable.
• The spike protein appeared to be a highly effective agent at collapsing the zeta potential of the body(this was a distinguishing characteristic of COVID-19 infections). This is a common mechanism of harm with all vaccines, but typically they have a much smaller adverse effect on zeta potential. This is why amongst other things, blood clots are so common after vaccination and why vaccine injuries often respond to treatments that restore the physiologic zeta potential.

All of this meant that a vaccine based on mass-producing the toxic spike protein in the body was unlikely to be effective and likely to cause harm. As time has passed, we have seen that on an unprecedented scale and discovered a variety of other “unexpected” ways it messed up the immune system. 

Sadly, none of this mattered, and despite our best efforts (e.g., we brought up the least controversial red flags), we could not prevent our colleagues from vaccinating, quite a few of whom are now injured and regret taking the vaccine. Although I’ve seen similar things in the past, it was still almost surreal to observe how effective the marketing campaign for these vaccines was and how many doctors believed they were a modern-day miracle that would end the pandemic.

Because of how badly the vaccines were designed (many of their issues could have easily been avoided, and this should have been apparent to Pfizer’s scientists), many of us have wondered if the vaccines were deliberately designed to fail. Although this seems nonsensical at first, it makes a lot of sense if the goal was to sell as many products as possible, given that there was no accountability for the vaccine’s failures and those failures could be attributed to new variants that needed new boosters.

Note: a longer discussion of why the COVID-19 vaccines could never work can be found here.

Moving The COVID-19 Goal Posts

Moving the goalposts is a metaphor, derived from goal-based sports, that means to change the rule or criterion (goal) of a process or competition while it is still in progress, in such a way that the new goal offers one side an advantage or disadvantage.

Since vaccines inevitably fail to live up to their impossible promises, new reasons must be continually invented to justify pushing them on the population. As you may remember, the COVID-19 vaccines were initially presented as being voluntary (in fact, they were originally marked under a scarcity model with each recipient being privileged to get a vaccine), it was claimed the pandemic would soon be over with the miracles of two dose mRNA vaccines, and not a peep was ever mentioned about the potential need for boosters.

The goalposts were then eventually moved to mandatory vaccinations, the vaccines only reducing your chance of dying, the virus being with us for the foreseeable future, and requiring multiple boosters each year. This reversal was entirely predictable as it followed the playbook already developed with previous vaccinations.

Fortunately, because of how unfeasible the vaccines were and just how aggressively their impossible promises were dishonestly promoted to the population (many of which I cataloged here), a lot of people woke up to the entire scam—especially after a Pfizer representative admitted to Europe’s parliament that they lied about the vaccine preventing transmission (ironically justifying this lie under the fact the unrealistic timeline to produce the vaccine forced them to).

n addition to the meme's accuracy, since it was created, every remaining justification for the COVID-19 vaccines has been demolished. First, numerous datasets have shown that vaccines actually increase one's risk for COVID-19 and that this risk increase as you receive more vaccinations. This was most clearly shown by the Cleveland Clinic's study of 51011 people):

Likewise, more and more datasets have emerged showing vaccination campaigns were correlated with an increase in death:

In some data sets that could show it, this mortality was also shown to be directly associated with being vaccinated.”