Janci Chunn Lindsay, Ph.D., is a molecular biologist and toxicologist and director of toxicology and molecular biology for Toxicology Support Services LLC. April 23, 2021,
she delivered a three-minute public comment to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). Her expertise is analysis of pharmacological dose-responses, mechanistic biology and complex toxicity dynamics. In her ACIP comment (see video below), Lindsay described how she aided the development of a contraceptive vaccine in the 1990s that ended up causing unintended autoimmune destruction and sterility in animals which, despite careful pre-analysis, had not been predicted. She explains:
“We were developing what was meant to be a temporary contraceptive vaccine,which was very attractive because it prevented fertilization rather thanpreventing implantation — or it should have; that was the idea.Unfortunately, even though quite a bit of analysis was done in different animalmodels to make sure that it did not have an autoimmune action, it did end uphaving an autoimmune action and caused complete ovarian destruction.Now it's used in that manner [for permanent sterilization] in dogs, cats andother animals. So, that's a cautionary tale of how animal studies can help usavoid mistakes in humans when they're used properly, and when proper animalstudies are done.”
We May Be Sterilizing an Entire Generation
At the time, she called for an immediate halt to COVID-19 mRNA and DNA vaccines due to safety concerns on multiple fronts. In particular, she noted there is credible concern that they will cross-react with syncytin (a retroviral envelope protein) and reproductive genes in sperm, ova and placenta in ways that may “impair fertility and reproductive outcomes.” Not a single study has disproven this hypothesis, she noted. Another theory of how these injections might impair fertility can be found in a 2006 study, which showed sperm can take up foreign mRNA, convert it into DNA, and release it as little pellets (plasmids) in the medium around the fertilized egg.1
The embryo then takes up these plasmids and carries them (sustains and clones them into many of the daughter cells) throughout its life, even passing them on to future generations. It's possible that the pseudo-exosomes that are the mRNA contents would be perfect for supplying the sperm with mRNA for the spike protein. So, potentially, a vaccinated woman who gets pregnant with an embryo that can (via the sperms' plasmids) synthesize the spike protein according to the instructions in the vaccine, would have an immune capacity to attack that embryo because of the "foreign" protein it displays on its cells. This then would cause a miscarriage. “We could potentially be sterilizing an entire generation,” Lindsey warned. The fact that there have been live births following COVID-19 vaccination is not proof that these injections do not have a reproductive effect, she said. Lindsay also pointed out that reports of menstrual irregularities and vaginal hemorrhaging in women who have received the injections number in the thousands, and this too hints at reproductive effects. In this interview, we dive deeper into these mechanisms.
Something Has Gone Horribly Wrong
When asked how she ended up getting so passionately involved in this controversial topic, Lindsay replies:
“I became interested in the issue because science was not making senseanymore. For instance, herd immunity was being redefined. Herd immunity hasalways been defined by a combination of the natural infection with vaccinationpractices that work.Suddenly, herd immunity was changed to only being attained throughvaccination, and I knew that that was horribly wrong, yet it was being toutedeverywhere. It was certainly being touted by [Dr. Anthony] Fauci and others whoknow better.234
Other things were also happening within the scientific world. Two of our top tierjournals, The New England Journal of Medicine and The Lancet, publishedfraudulent hydroxychloroquine studies.Ostensibly they had gone through peer review, and it should've been easy tocatch the errors in these studies — as well as many other studies that allow forthe emergency use authorization of these gene therapies — and they weren'tcaught.Hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin are very safe. They've been used safely inpregnant women and children for decades, and suddenly they were beingvilified as if they were not safe. As a toxicologist, I know they are safe.So, these types of things really piqued my attention along with all of the stuffgoing on in the background with respect to the New World Order and the agendaset by the World Economic Forum, and our joining into this, along with so manyother countries, despite their intent, their materials, which claim life will bechanged as we know it.We will ‘own nothing and be happy [about it]' in just a few years. All of thesethings converged for me into a sense that something had gone horribly wrong,that our regulatory institutes were captured, and that our scientific journalswere not being honest anymore …There's a paper that came out in 2006 called ‘Disease Mitigation Measures inthe Control of Pandemic Infiuenza.' This paper is wonderful. It goes throughWorld Health Organization and CDC guidelines on how to react during apandemic, what works and what doesn't work, and it clearly points out thatmasks don't work.They knew at that point they don't work. Travel lockdowns don't work. It's awonderful paper to basically go through everything we have done in response tothis pandemic, and say that's an inappropriate way to respond, and we havescientific data that proves it. So, I encourage everybody to go back to that paper5
… to really see how crazy we've gotten in the mandates that make no scientificsense at all.”
Massive Danger Signal Is Being Ignored
As noted by Lindsay, in the case of the COVID shots, important animal studies that help ascertain toxic and systemic effects were not done. But we're still seeing danger signals that need to be heeded. Preliminary safety results of mRNA COVID shots used in pregnant women, based on data from the V-Safe Registry, were published in The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) in April 2021. According to this paper, the miscarriage rate within the first 20 weeks of pregnancy was 12.5%, which is only slightly above the normal average of 10%. (Looking at statistical data, the risk of miscarriage drops from an overall, average risk rate of 21.3% for the duration of the pregnancy as a whole, to just 5% between Weeks 6 and 7, all the way down to 1% between Weeks 14 and 20. ) However, there's a distinct problem with this calculation, as highlighted by Drs. Ira Bernstein and Sanja Jovanovic, and Deann McLeod, HBSc, of Toronto. In a May 28, 2021, letter to the editor, they pointed out that:
“In table 4, the authors report a rate of spontaneous abortions <20 127="82%).”
In other words, when you exclude women who got the shot in their third trimester (since the third trimester is AFTER week 20 and therefore should not be counted when determining miscarriage rate among those injected BEFORE week 20), the miscarriage rate is a whopping 82%.678
Of those 104 miscarriages, 96 of them occurred before 13 weeks of gestation, which strongly suggests that getting a COVID shot during the first trimester is an absolute recipe for disaster.
“They concluded, very fraudulently, in my estimation, that it was safe tovaccinate in the third trimester, and said nothing about the clear safety signal inthe first trimester,”
. “It's just so dishonest, so purposefullymanipulative.”
As for the women who get the shot in their third trimester, there's still no telling what the ramifications might be in the long term.
“We just don't know, and that's the problem,”
. “There are all kindsof things that can go wrong with these types of therapies, and have gone wrongin animal models. We don't know what will happen in the future for thesewomen or for their children. This could be passed on.We're seeing now a lot of mention of constitutive expression, whether that'sfailure of the mRNA to degrade or integration into the genome. That's still beinginvestigated.”
Children Are Dying From COVID Jab-Induced Myocarditis
Lindsay goes on to cite a CDC report that shows more than 300 children between the ages of 12 and 18 have died from myocarditis, a now-recognized side effect of the COVID jab. We also know, based in part on whistleblower testimony, that more than 50,000 Americans have died within three days of these shots, and that's just from one database (the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System or VAERS). There are 10 other databases that feed into the CDC that the public does not have access to.
“This many deaths, it's appalling and alarming,”
“Dr. PeterMcCullough says the safety signal for typical vaccines, other than this gene910
therapy, would've been around 186 total. We're now up to [17,128 reporteddeaths in VAERS, as of October 15, 2021 ], but they haven't paused this inchildren.They have not paused this while they're investigating the myocarditis. Instead,they're pushing it even more. Has this ever happened before? I mean, does thishappen in a scenario where the population is at essentially zero risk for thedisease? ...The cardiac deaths alone in perfectly healthy kids, and pulmonary embolismdeaths in kids, should've stopped this. They are at no risk [from COVID-19].There is no reason to vaccinate them, absolutely zero reason to give them thesegene therapies because they're at no risk [from the infection] …You know [the shot] is causing heart failure, pulmonary emboli, cardiac arrest inhealthy teenagers, and you're not pausing to investigate the risk versus rewardscenario? Something is horribly wrong.Unfortunately, our regulatory institutions are not going to stop this. They'veclearly been captured. It's something that we're going to have to do. Vaccinatedand non-vaccinated must stand together to say, ‘No, you're not going toexperiment on my children' …With the RSV vaccines and the dengue fever vaccines, we had deaths inchildren that were much fewer in number that stopped those campaigns aswell. It's very, very clear — if you don't get anything else out of this interviewwith me, understand that our regulatory and safety agencies have beencaptured.They're not doing their job to protect you or your children. You must not trustthem, because they are not doing anything according to practices that used tobe adhered to. It's clear that they've been captured and compromised, and I hateto say that. I really hate to say that, but that's the only logical answer ...11
We have all these breakthrough cases too. If you look at Michigan, and I'veactually been privy to some other databases of true death numbers in differentstates [comparing] those who are vaccinated and those who don't, and I can tellyou that the media is lying with respect to the unvaccinated making up 99% ofhospitalizations. They're absolutely lying.”
How the Jab Can Sabotage Fertility
Getting back to the fertility issue, Lindsay cites a Singaporean study that examined the COVID jab's ability to interfere with fertility by triggering anti-syncytin-1. The study included 15 women, two of whom were pregnant. She explains:
“They did something that I had asked to be done a long time ago, which was tomeasure anti-syncytin antibodies in an ELISA test. The syncytins areconformationally and genetically similar to the [SARS-CoV-2] spike protein, thisfusogenic spike protein.The thought by several experts was that you could have an autoimmunereaction to the syncytins by developing an immune reaction to the spike protein,and then that would prevent successful pregnancy.But the syncytins are also important in a number of psychological diseases,such as bipolar depression. They're important on autoimmune disease, lupusand multiple sclerosis. They are present in skeletal muscle. There's someassociation with breast cancer. They're really important ancient retroviralelements.What this study found was extremely interesting. It found that every single oneof these women who had been vaccinated developed autoantibodies tosyncytin-1. Now, the authors kind of dismissed this and said, ‘Oh, but we don'tthink that those antibodies were high enough to mean anything.'But there was a clear difference between the pre-gene therapy sera [bloodsample] and the post-therapy sera … What it shows is that there is an antibodyresponse, and the significance of it, we don't really know. But every single oneof the women developed an antibody response that was different from thebaseline ... and I think that's probably what's causing some of these pregnancylosses.”
Are COVID Jabs a Population-Wide Immunocontraceptive?
When asked what she thinks the motive behind this mass injection campaign might be, considering the clear danger signals, she replies:
“I certainly think that to discount that it is a form of population-widecontraceptive would be naïve. There's a paper that came out in 2005. It's called‘Evaluation of Fusogenic Trophoblast Surface Epitopes as Targets for ImmuneContraception.'This paper tried to find contraceptive peptides in persons that had infertilityproblems already that were isolated to placentation. So, it was taking abackwards approach, getting the sera from people who had fertility problemsand trying to see what they had antibodies to that was causing the fertilityproblems …This work was sponsored by the WHO and the Rockefeller Foundation [and theNational Institutes of Health]. No surprise there. It was then picked up by acompany called AplaGen that took it to patent in 2007.These are 12-mer peptides, and there's a series of eight of them that can beused to induce sterility. When they patented it, they also said that it could beused to ameliorate sterility. Interestingly, it was also associated with all of thethings that we know syncytin is associated with, — lupus, skeletal muscledisorders, bipolar depression [and] a number of other things.Even though they don't name syncytin proteins as the proteins that are targeted,they worked backwards from these peptides, and then said they were a seriesof other proteins. Sometimes we know that proteins can be called the same12
thing in different discovery realms. So, that's going to take more research, but itwas certainly interesting to me.What it really points out is that there were efforts to use peptides orimmunocontraceptive means at the placental trophoblast interface to causesterilization … So, it would be naïve to think that this was not on the plate forfuture use.”
How Long Will Effects Last?
An obvious question is, how long might these effects last? Are they lifelong? Of course, any answer we come up with here will be hypothetical only, as the studies simply haven't been done. That said, with her background in molecular biology, Lindsay is at least qualified to theorize. The mRNA is extremely fragile, which is why a nanolipid with polyethylene glycol delivery system is used. In addition, about 30% of the mRNA has been genetically modified to decrease degradation. As a result, the mRNA being injected is magnitudes sturdier than natural mRNA. What's more, the nanoliposomes allow for superior penetration into tissues, and we now know it spreads throughout your body. It doesn't stay in your deltoid. How long this modified and stabilized mRNA remains viable is still unknown, however. A corollary question is whether this mRNA might be integrated into your genome to become a permanent fixture.
“The answer is, we don't know for sure,”
“Of course, with theadenoviral vector vaccines [Janssen and AstraZeneca], they're more prone tointegration into the genome. We know that from animal studies and pastexperiments.With the mRNA technology, we've never stabilized something like this in thismanner. What we do know is that recent studies have come out — BrucePatterson's group and another group — both came out with the finding that thespike protein is being expressed, [it's] present on monocytes, as far out as fromthe time that the people were given the gene therapy.So, that gives us an indication that it is resistant, for sure, to degradation. Thelonger it stays around, and is resistant to degradation, the more likely thatgenomic integration events can occur. But I don't know the answer to whether ornot it will become a permanent feature.”
Make a Rational Choice
As explained by Lindsay, no coronavirus vaccine has ever been successfully brought to market, despite 20 years of effort. All have failed due to antibody dependent enhancement, where the vaccination facilitates infection rather than protects against it.
If all these gene therapies do is lessen the diseases,then they're not a vaccine, they are a treatment. Youhave to use your common sense to say, why wouldn't Iuse a treatment that has been known to be safe over 70years as opposed to one that is brand-new, that isexperimental? ~ Janci Chunn Lindsay, Ph.D.
Now, we're to believe a safe and effective coronavirus “vaccine” has been developed in mere months. She also makes another important point. Since the COVID gene therapies do not prevent infection, but only lessen symptoms, they are actually a treatment, not a prevention. And there are far safer and more effective treatments available, including nebulized peroxide, ozone therapy, and hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin regimens.
“If all these gene therapies do is lessen the diseases, then they're not a vaccine,they are a treatment,”
“They are a treatment that you don't know themid- or long-term consequences of, that have already caused a number ofadverse events. You have to use your common sense to say, why wouldn't I usea treatment that has been known to be safe over 70 years as opposed to onethat is brand-new, that is experimental?”
Other Safety Signals
Aside from fertility issues, heart infiammation and blood clots, another side effect seen among the fully “vaccinated” is de novo Type 1 diabetes in adults. This makes sense considering Pfizer's biodistribution study showed the spike protein accumulates in the pancreas. The natural SARS-CoV infection can also have this effect. Type 1 diabetes is a serious problem, as it leaves you metabolically handicapped for the rest of your life, dependent on extremely costly insulin injections. Doctors are also reporting an increase in pancreatic cancer and acute myeloid leukemia.
Where Do We Go From Here?
“Many scientists and physicians feel as I do, and are trying to figure out where we go from here,” Lindsay says, “because our typical safety and regulatory agencies have been compromised.” She believes we need to continue sharing the data and facts that mainstream media refuse to discuss, and continue urging those who have received the jab to at least protect their children.
“We need to stand together as one people and say we're not going to acceptthis, especially not for our children, and try to get to the bottom of this and seewhat's really behind all these efforts. Is it really about a virus, or is it more aboutother political motivations and campaigns, as it seems to be?”
I'm less optimistic about the idea of breaking through the brainwashing to get people to not sacrifice their children. So many have their minds set in cement with the wrong information. They could have their brother, sister, mother or father get the shot and die with the needle still on their arm, and they'd still go out to get a booster the next day. I've seen it so many times. My friends, their parents, their siblings and loved ones — there's this barrier that prevents any openness to new information. They've made their decision. Mark Twain said, "It's far easier to fool someone than to convince them they've been fooled." And it's true. So, while I agree that we must keep trying, and have faith that truth will prevail, I also think it's important to have realistic expectations. We're up against the most effective propaganda campaign in modern history. It's psychological warfare at its best. From my perspective, being a pragmatic realist, I believe the best strategy is to reinforce and support those who didn't buy into the propaganda narrative to begin with, because they don't struggle with that cognitive dissonance. If we stick together and support each other, so none of us get sucked into the lunacy, then we can at least preserve the control group. Ultimately, the truth will come out, as long as we can preserve the control group. In a year or two, or three, we will clearly be able to tell how devastating this intervention was simply by comparing the two groups. I suspect those who got the shot will be severely crippled in various ways, and those who didn't get the shot will have far better health in comparison.
“I absolutely agree that we have to preserve a control group. We also have tothink of ways that we can help those that have been injured. I brought this out ina letter I recently wrote, advocating for Dr. McCullough.People who have gotten this inoculation, if they have mid- to long-term effects,if you deny that any adverse effects are really going on, then the efforts goinginto those treatments for people who are having side effects are not going to bethere. We have to accept that these [side effects] are real in order to help peoplewho have already taken the inoculations, and I believe we have to try.”
Read the full article at the original website