The M+G+R Foundation

The Covid-19 "vaccines" - A big experiment with the world population

Year 2020: They presented it as if the objective was assured

Year 2021: They have failed in the long term immunization objective

Disclaimer

Originally published in December 2020
Updated in December 2021

The so-called Covid "vaccine" is no longer an experiment, as the result is already known and is: FAILURE

Since the masters of the experiment have proven, and publicly announced, that the so-called "vaccine" does not give solid immunity after six months of being injected (17), it can be said, backed by that official recognition, that the experiment has failed.

Since an experiment is, by definition, “a methodical process to prove or disprove the suspicion of truth about something unknown”, and that “unknown” – the goal of providing long-term immunity – has been disproved, it is no longer an experiment.

In order to be proven as a success with all the necessary guarantees, it would have been necessary, of course, many years of careful - and truly unbiased - verification. But, to prove that those biological devices do not work as promised, it has been enough just a few time, and the masters of the experiment themselves have announced the poor outcome: the immunity from the injections vanishes within months.

It could still be considered an experiment only if one sees it as an attempt to further investigate some secondary aspects – not the main stated and failed purpose of the product: to give long-term immunity (18). If one persist in believing that the main real purpose (19) is health, then, at least, the product should be downgraded to the status of “just another candidate to medical treatment” down from “oh, so great remedy, that will bring down the epidemic forever”. But, if it is just ”another candidate to treatment”, why to force it on the entire world population?

What we warned through the document below was that the experimental "vaccines" were being sold as a fully tested and fully finished product. We keep this document as a historic testimony of “we told you so”.

Four new notes have been added in different places (in red) in the document on July 2, 2021.

Although this document provides, essentially, data from December 2020, we believe that the argument is still valid because it demonstrates that, at a time when vaccines were already being promoted worldwide and at the highest level as "the great solution", the primary goal of the vaccines - stopping disease transmission - was not clinically demonstrated, nor were the necessary details about vaccine-acquired immunity.

As for some recent studies suggesting or supposedly demonstrating that this or that "vaccine" reduces the transmission of the disease, what they confirm is that the vaccines were launched without that point being proved.

Amazingly (in December 2020, when three manufacturers had concluded their clinical trials which they considered sufficient for the public authorization of their vaccines), they do not know. Vaccine studies on Covid-19 have not been designed to assess whether or not a vaccinated person can transmit the disease to others. They are designed to determine whether it leads to the absence of disease in a vaccinated subject for a few months after vaccination. It is not clear whether vaccines can suppress viruses at low enough levels to prevent transmission to others. This is not a conclusion from anti-vaxxers, it is what vaccine experts and manufacturers say. (3)

This is totally the opposite of what we have always been taught about vaccines. From the school, we are told that "unlike most medicines, vaccines don't treat disease, but they can prevent it from spreading and making people sick" (4). But now, for the Covid-19 emergency vaccines, this is just an unknown. These "vaccines" are not tested to do what people expect that a vaccine should do, that is, to prevent the infection to others. Are health authorities informing properly on this to each one of the citizens that they are going to vaccinate?

Note 1 added on July 2, 2021:

Now that some studies are suggesting or allegedly showing that this or that "vaccine" reduces the transmission of the disease, the point we wanted to illustrate has not changed: with the authorization of the "vaccines" and their intensive promotion by governments, the world has been deceived into believing that it was "proven" - supposedly as a result of the trials by which they were approved as "emergency vaccines" - that the Covid-19 "vaccines" prevented the transmission of the disease, when in fact the manufacturers themselves confirmed that the vaccines were not tested for that.

In short, they do not know how long immunity acquired from vaccine will last (5).

It is important to distinguish between personal guesses from experts, on the one hand, and facts confirmed by studies, on the other hand. Because the disease has been known for less than one year, with studies lacking the necessary duration, there is still some uncertainty about the duration of immunity acquired by someone who has had the disease naturally and a very large uncertainty for those who have been vaccinated. So far (in December 2020), the assertion from some that immunity from the vaccine lasts longer than natural immunity is a matter of personal opinion rather than a fact certified by clinical trials.

However, according to a recent scientific study (from November 2020), natural immunity to the coronavirus may last at least eight months in most cases (6). Said study has been "approved" by The New York Times, a standard-bearer of the pro-vaccine platform, so nobody can't disqualify it as an "anti-vaxxer" study. The point here is: If natural immunity is so long lasting, what is the purpose of the vaccines? The vaccine experts do not know if vaccines will give protection even for a year!

Note 2 added on July 2, 2021:

Reporting on results from medical researchers, about natural infections:  (11)

People who recover from mild cases of COVID-19 develop antibodies that may protect them from the Wuhan coronavirus, say researchers at the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis (WUSTL). In their report, which was published in Nature, the team noted that these immune cells can persist for a lifetime as they continue to produce antibodies.

This suggests that mild cases of COVID-19 may leave patients with lasting antibody protection, reducing the likelihood of reinfection.

“There were reports that antibodies wane quickly after infection with the virus that causes COVID-19, and mainstream media interpreted that to mean that immunity was not long-lived,” explained Ali Ellebedy, an immunologist at WUSTL and the senior author of the study.

“But that’s a misinterpretation of the data. It’s normal for antibody levels to go down after acute infection, but they don’t go down to zero; they plateau. Here, we found antibody-producing cells in people 11 months after first symptoms. These cells will live and produce antibodies for the rest of people’s lives. That’s strong evidence for long-lasting immunity.”

The answer is clearly yes, at least to the extent that:

(a) Side effects have not been proven in the long term. (7)
(b) The duration of vaccine protection (immunity) is uncertain. (5)
(c) They do not know if the vaccines prevent transmission to others. (4)
(d) The universal marking of people through a personal identifier has not yet been tested on a global scale. (8)

Presumably, the mass vaccination would serve to determine those extremes. In these terms, it can be described as an experiment.

Note 3 added on July 2, 2021:

The Pfizer "fact sheet for healthcare providers administering the vaccine, US, Revised on June 25, 2021 (12), says [with our highlighting]:


In these circumstances, "unapproved" clearly means "in another experimental phase", regardless of their official avoidance of the use of the word "experimental". And the same goes for vaccines from other manufacturers (none have been "approved" by the FDA). Despite this, as of July 2, 2021, Pfizer-BioNTech "vaccine" is being used in 106 countries (13), with at least 150 million doses administered in USA only (14).

An "approved" vaccine in FDA terminology means that it has met certain efficacy and safety requirements for public use. "Emergency use" is a subterfuge to, in fact, not only authorize and approve them (in the common, unofficial sense of the words "authorize" and "approve") but, even more, to promote their use to the maximum despite the fact that they are in an experimental state, evading liability before millions of people under the pretext that, technically, they are not "approved".

According to the FDA (15), "If FDA grants an approval, it means the agency has determined that the benefits of the product outweigh the known risks for the intended use." Under that official definition, do you see the implication that a product has been reviewed but not "approved"?

If you have had the disease, the logical path for health authorities would be to declare you exempt from vaccination and to recommend you not to vaccinate (9). But they are not doing that way.

They lack enough statistical data to compare natural immunity with immunity from vaccine. Therefore, if some speakers like Fauci recommend the vaccination to those who had had the disease, they should inform to those affected that, since the recommendation is based on a guess, they are experimenting with the vaccinated.

Now, at the plane of vaccinations mandated by law or imposed under social coercion: Based on what we are seeing unfolding, it seems that having had the disease will not be an option to be exempt from the vaccination. What we are seeing is:

(a) In the national vaccinations plans in different countries, a very consistent and suspicious absence of provisions on what to do with those who have already had the disease.

(b) In the mouth of public speakers like Fauci, recommendations that "it is better to be vaccinated even if you have had the disease", with the striking circumstance that such recommendations are based on personal guesses and not on statistical data from clinical trials. (10)

This means that they are moving in the direction of imposing vaccines for all even if you can officially prove that you have had the disease.

Note 4 added on July 2, 2021:

According to Dr. Marty Makary, a professor at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine:  (16)

Makary lamented the lack of guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for those who were infected but have recovered from the disease. He also decried the demonization of people with natural immunity for refusing to get vaccinated, which Makary said is a reasonable decision, because “natural immunity works.”

Makary disputed claims that natural immunity is inferior to that acquired through vaccination, saying that both are “probably life-long” and that no boosters will be needed. “There is more data on natural immunity than there is on vaccinated immunity, because natural immunity has been around longer,” Makary claimed. “We are not seeing reinfections, and when they do happen, they’re rare. Their symptoms are mild or are asymptomatic”

Makary claimed that the U.S. has already achieved the 85%-benchmark, or herd immunity. However, “the most slow, reactionary, political CDC in American history” has been ignoring the fact that nearly half of the unvaccinated people are naturally immune, according to Makary. “Please, ignore the CDC guidance,” he added. “Live a normal life, unless you are unvaccinated and did not have the infection, in which case you need to be careful.”

(a) The New York Times, 13 Oct 2020: "Vaccine trials are designed to look for an absence of disease, rather than of infection, and it’s unclear whether vaccines can suppress virus levels enough to prevent transmission to others."

(b) Pfizer CEO "Not Certain" vaccine will stop people from spreading COVID-19 (4 Dec 2020): “Even though I’ve had the protection, am I still able to transmit it to other people?” NBC’s Lester Holt asked, to which Bourla [Pfizer CEO] responded: “I think this is something that needs to be examined. We are not certain about that right now.”

(c) "Two vaccines, from Pfizer and from Moderna, were highly effective at protecting people in late-stage studies from getting sick with COVID-19, the companies announced in November. But the trials don't tell us whether the vaccines help block the virus from infecting people or stop it from jumping from person to person." (businessinsider.fr 27 Nov 2020)

(d) "The studies designed to test the candidate vaccines only examined symptomatic infections, not whether vaccinated people could still be contagious." (eu.dispatch.com 8 Dec 2020)

(a) It is not clear whether the COVID-19 vaccines will last that long. “I don’t think we have overwhelming confidence,” Fauci said. “We’re less than a year into the disease, so you can’t say it lasts more than a year — I mean, that would be impossible. That doesn’t make any sense because no one that we know of that we’re following has been infected more than a year.” ... “So the bottom line is we don’t know right now how long it lasts”, Fauci said, speaking of the length of immunity a vaccine will provide. “But it likely would last for a full year’s cycle.” (bangordailynews.com 27 Nov 2020)

(c) "Natural immunity from the coronavirus is fortunately quite strong. A vast majority of people infected produce at least some antibodies and immune cells that can fight off the infection. And the evidence so far suggests that this protection will persist for years, preventing serious illness, if not reinfection." (nytimes.com 5 Dec 2020)

Index of Documents Regarding Covid-19 / Coronavirus

Open letter from Belgian medical doctors denouncing the contradictions of Covid-19

The intended calendar for an enforced or "encouraged" vaccination

The Second Wave of the Covid-19 Conspiracy  -  Part 1. The two dominant versions of Globalization

The dramatic failure of the pseudo-vaccines to keep people immunized

Disclaimer  |  About Us  |  Frequently Asked Questions  |  Contact  |  If this is your first visit:  Introduction  |  If you are a regular visitor:  Home Page  |  Español  |  Portugues  |  Back Up Home Page  |  To search for information:  Search Page  |  Index of Documents